What is the moderate position on the Iraq War?

[Warren Stupidity]

I recently made the assertion that, in general, the moderate political position is confused, muddled, and frequently illogical.

For example, the Iraq War:

Left: get out, the sooner the better. The war was wrong from the start and based on deliberate lies.

Right: stay and win, whatever it takes. The war was right and we can win it. Nobody lied about anything. We have to fight them there or we will be fighting them here.

Moderates: some variation on 'well we can't stay forever, and yes the original reasons for the war were wrong but we can't afford to fail, so we need to have a new plan that does something (lots of hand waving here) and then everything will be ok.'

The left holds (of course) the correct reality based position on this issue. However the right, while they are completely wrong, are at least holding a logically consistent position, a position that wrong as it is, makes sense.

But what can we make of the moderate position on the Iraq War? Is it even remotely reasonable? Stay a little bit more of the course? Kill and die for another six months and then get back to us and we will re-evaluate how hopeless it is? Is the moderate position here nothing more than either naivity or a deliberate and calculated attempt to avoid the real choices, to have it both ways?

[MissWaverly]

1. the responsible position is to Get Out Now

We are spending 217 million dollars an hour on a country the size of California, now what I have
heard is that we are not just squandering money, we are not just awarding huge pork projects to
US contractors some of which is total fraud, no, not just that, some of the money is going to bribe the Iraqi army to stay in uniform, we are paying huge amounts for this. We have lost and
no amount of red ink is going to make the Iraqi people like us. This is a worse defeat than
the British in our war for Independence because at least the Brits were not paying for colonists to like them or for favorable PR. Did I mention that the population of Iraq is comparable to the
population of Chicago metro area, NY metro area and the Philadelphia metro area combined.

[SaveElmer]

10. No it is not...

And in fact that position is not held even by those held up here as having acceptable positions on the war. Kerry-Feingold for example does not call for an immediate pullout, but for a date certain for redeployment, recognizing the need for continued military presence in the region to respond quickly as needed. In fact the real debate within the party is not about whether redeployment is necessary, but whether a date certain should be set for its final implementation.

In fact an immediate withdrawl would have one quick consequence, and that is the massacre by insurgents of those many thousands of Iraqis who aided the U.S. during the initial invasion, and since. Iraqi police would become sitting ducks, as would their families. Current Iraqi government officialsm and anyone who aided U.S. forces in tracking down terrorists within the country would also be killed.

It was a mistake going into Iraq. Howard Dean was correct when he predicted a convergence on American forces and cooperative Iraqis by every terrorist cell in the Middle East.

However, we now have a responsibility to mitigate the potentially catastrophic consequences of an immediate pullout. George Bush is not capable of grasping, let alone implementing such a plan. It will be up to the Democrats to do it, first hopefully by increasing pressure from a newly Democratic Congress, and possibly by the next President who I am confident will be a Democrat.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. And there we have it: the moderate position on Iraq.

Thanks for so eloquently stating this heaping pile of rubbish. How many more years are we supposed to kill and die there before we admit it is a hopeless situation?

[SaveElmer]

16. Sorry, it is the responsible position...

And at its base is the position held by most Democratic leaders...

This from the Kerry-Feingold amendment

For purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States, the President shall redeploy, commencing immediately, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel.

The President should work with leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes these leaders, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues, disbanding the militias, strengthening internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq’s borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.

This is the position ridiculously denounced by the Right Wing as cut and run....with the only serious bone of contention being the attachment of a date certain...

[Warren Stupidity]

18. How many more years and how many more lives

are you willing to spend before just leaving the Iraqis alone?

[SaveElmer]

20. We would not be leaving the Iraqis alone...

We would be leaving many thousands of them to be slaughtered at the hands of terrorists...

There is no good outcome...there cannot be a good outcome of a mistaken policy and a botched execution, so now it is up to us to get out as best we can....

The Kerry-Feingold proposal is largely a good one, with the exception of the date provision. However, I believe, and as I suspect the authors would acknowledge, this administration is utterly incapable of carrying it out. It will be left up to a Democratic government to accomplish it.

[Jed Dilligan]

22. So, airlift 'em out

Set them up in Detroit or Colorado or something. It would cost less than a day at war. Hell, make every one of them a millionaire. It would cost less than a week at war.

We'd get lots of yummy middle eastern restaurants.

[riderinthestorm]

41. No matter when, or how we get out, there is no getting out of Iraq as

"best we can".

It's already fucked. It's already a civil war. The only certainty is a bet on how bad it's going to be. BFEE and all of their friends (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Halliburton and the rest) have secured their piece of the future financial/oil pie on the backs of poor working schmucks who were duped into enlisting in the armed services.

And forget wishing for a Dem government - Diebold and Sequoia are already working with the Repuke party to ensure that Dems never hold office again.

I hope you are working for election reform in your area of the world: otherwise buckle up cause there ain't gonna be any real Dems elected anytime soon in the US.

[MissWaverly]

15. Well, good luck with that

You heard what happened when the Brits pulled out of a base in South Iraq that they could not
maintain, the Iraqi army mutinied; the people rebelled and the base was stripped by the locals.
When the money dries out, when the last bribe has been paid, this will happen all over Iraq.
I lived through Vietnam, I saw what happened during the fall of Saigon and that is what is
coming up here I think. I certainly do not think that it would be a good thing to happen,
I think it will be a disaster but after all this time and all this failed strategy that's
what we will get is my best guess.

[bowens43]

27. That's the Bush position. It's not working.

[SaveElmer]

28. No it isn't the Bush position...

Bush's position is to stay put where we are...

Most Democrats, me included support a phased redeployment, much along the lines of the Kerry-Feingold plan...

The only problem I have with it is having a set date for its completion...

[LWolf]

34. That might have been an acceptable "moderate"

position a few years back. In fact, there were plans offered up by a few congresspeople suggesting exactly that. Of course, they weren't "beltway" congresscritters, and the call for a plan was conveniently relegated to a circular debate for another couple of years before it could be adopted and owned by "moderates."

If such a plan had been adopted and implemented early on, we'd be out by now. We wouldn't still be talking years, and lives, down the road.

The longer we stay, the worse it gets. At the least, a plan could begin now, and finish in February of '09, as soon as the obstacles presented by the current administration have been evicted.

For some of us, that's way too late, and the "moderate" plan has colluded in the extended U.S. presence.

[CollegeDUer]

37. Hilary's position: the one against Iraqis and Americans

Iraqis everyday demand a full withdrawal of US troops. I saw Hilary speak up in favor of the war in person, and a few months later I met an Iraqi unionist who said the war has destroyed Iraq and the best way to fix it is to get the US out.

Who should I believe? Little Yuppie-Gone-Congresswoman or a major Iraqi Unionist?

[SaveElmer]

42. Let me guess...

You have no link, transcript, or video of Hillary Clinton speaking "in favor of the war." We have to rely on your interpretation of her statements? Someone whose sentiments regarding her are clearly apparent in your snide characterization of her in your last sentence.

[CollegeDUer]

44. Her position is Bush-lite

You can keep trying to warp it into whatever you want. The fact remains that she is a war supporter and an ardent one. Any Iraqi would harm her life if they met her and they knew the facts. Her secret luncheons with Mr. Murdoch -- I'm sure she reveals all her motives there.

[SaveElmer]

45. Yes...I warp it with the facts...

Warp it away from the caricature that those here who despise her no matter what the evidence have turned it into.

[leesa]

39. It is likely US accomplices in their illegal invasion and occupation will

be killed at some point, if they haven't been already. Our continued presence won't help that situation, it will just mean more will die. The "terrorists" you speak of are more likely freedom fighters during the occupation and if the occupiers leave they will no longer be terrorists.

[SaveElmer]

43. How naive is that?

Howard Dean's perspective on the Iraqi invasion has proven absolutely correct. These folks killing U.S. Soldiers, Iraqi police, and political and religious opponents are not "freedom fighters," they are terrorists. We attracted them to Iraq, as Dean said we would, by our invasion. If you seriously think they will suddenly lay down their arms and peacefully go about their lives you are deluding yourself. These people will go on a bloody rampage, unhindered by anyone.

Even the authors of the Kerry-Feingold amendment realize this, which is why they are calling for redeployment and not withdrawl.

[CollegeDUer]

47. We are "deluding" ourselves

By saying Iraqis have the right to rule themselves, as over 80% of Iraqis have shown in many, many opinion polls.

Hilary must be loving fighting for oil companies. I do not.

[tjwash]

2. There's a war in Iraq?

Hmm. Funny. I thought they already won that. They're not talking about it on American Idol and Big Brother.

That seems to be the average moderate viewpoint on the street from what I've seen at least. The moderate politicians view, well, that depends on which way the polls are blowing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. They'll get back to you after "Wheel of Fortune".

[Bill McBlueState]

4. which do you mean?

Do you mean the position held by people who call themselves moderates? Or the position that is actually moderate?

[Warren Stupidity]

7. I mean the position held by people who call themselves 'moderates'.

As opposed to a position that is actually moderate in the sense of not being extreme. That is actually my point.

[Bill McBlueState]

11. I've been thinking about this

There is such a thing as an extreme moderate, even though it sounds like an oxymoron. Extreme moderates think their government is fundamentally fair and generally does the right thing.

Democrats who are extreme moderates think the war was a bad idea, but aren't really that upset about it. They think the Electoral College is a swell way to choose the President. They think the Clintons might be just a little too liberal. They're kind of sad about poverty, but think the poor could stand to try just a little harder. Stuff like that.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. So is that naivity or idiocy?

That is a serious question. I think I understand the freeptard mindset. Those people are beyond redemption. But the 'moderates', so many right here on DU, I find unfathomable.

[Bill McBlueState]

35. I'll be kind and say it's naivite

I don't know about the DUers you mention, but the self-described moderates I know in real life are people who don't read much. Or rather, they read, but their bookshelves are full of books by college football coaches and authors like Dan Brown. They don't travel much, either, unless it's to Myrtle Beach or Disney World.

So they have no way to understand that cable news doesn't tell the whole story, that going to church doesn't make you a more moral person, and that the American way of life is not necessarily the best way of life. And they can't understand that Iraqis are real people just like they are, who given the choice between two evils, might have preferred a homegrown dictator to a foreign occupation.

In the younger generation, "moderates" are usually South Park fans, who think that anyone who cares about a cause is just a target for ridicule.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Moderate position = immediate withdrawal.

You'd have to be a rightwing nutjob to want to stay any longer.

Not that people who call themselves moderates would agree. They're frequently confused, muddled and illogical.

[Bill McBlueState]

6. yep

The moderate position is not to start wars. Historically, that's the territory of madmen and despots.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Yes, the moderate position is Out Now.

The Progressve position is Out Now & send the entire administration to the Hague.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. So I agree that is the moderate position.

But it is not the position generally held by people who describe themselves as moderates. So really I am asking about those people, the ones you in my opinion describe as "frequently confused, muddled and illogical" and who self identify as moderates.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Bill O'Reilly calls himself a moderate.

So there you go.

[MissWaverly]

19. They want to save Iraq

the problem is that no one want to lose a war and no one want to see our allies punished for helping us, but we have been fighting this war with the moron's playbook and people who follow
morons lose. Now, I am going to be flamed for stating the obvious, we have already lost.
We have withdrawn most of the troops to bases, the country is in chaos and the only time we
really venture out is "for supplies" Now we have this big election GOP push to retake Baghdad,
which happens to be where the capital is and where the green zone is what does that tell you.
Pulling back to a strategic location is Politically Correct way of saying Fall Back as in
Retreat.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Another example : Universal Health Care

Left: access to health care is a basic human right in a modern society. Medicare should be expanded to cover everyone, that abomination of a prescription plan should be scrapped and replaced with a real one, and long term care should be part of the standard package. If we stopped spending so much money running around the planet killing people and blowing shit up we could easily afford a great public healthcare system for everyone.

Right: access to healthcare is no different than access to your car dealer. If you have the money you can buy any care you want.

Moderates: UHC is scary and we would have to wait in line for 37 hours to have our heart attack taken care of. Doctors would be appointed by IRS agents. We should incrementally extend entitlements to some people but certainly not the middle class and only through Big Pharma and HealthCo so that we don't get that scary socialist medicine.

[MissWaverly]

21. Here's where I disagree

I think that Universal Health Care is a good idea, esp. since the corrupt corporations are dumping
those on their pension health plans into the government health system so they can save bucks.
BUT the issue I have is that we are broke, we have tripled our defense spending, much of which
is for pork, or cold war weapons that should have been mothballed or never left the drawing board
back in the 1950s. Who needs an aircraft carrier the size of Arkansas anyway? And we are in
debt up to our eyeballs to the Chinese for Bush's IOU War and the economy is in the crapper. I think that need to make priorities here like Global Warming, Gulf Coast, 9-11 victims, veterans
and education. I don't think we can do it all, and I do think we will have to pay down the debt.
But I think we should investigate and seize assets of those who stole from us.

[Solon]

23. Cut the Pentagon Budget by about 70%...

you yourself gave the reasons why(waste of money), then rescind Bush's tax cuts, and in addition, INCREASE the taxes of the richest 10% in the country, to about the same levels as they were in the 1950s(90% or so). This could be temporary, or permanent, though I view it as I viewed the reason they had damned near confiscatory taxes back then, to pay for the Marshall plan and WWII, now, we need to pay down the debt and have a new "Marshall plan" for ourselves. I say let the rich pay for it.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Indeed - every other major modern nation

manages to afford good, by all measures as good as our better than ours, healthcare for everyone. But somehow we just can't afford it. And the moderates never seem to wonder why that is.

[Solon]

29. The biggest reason we can't afford what they have is that...

our "defense" budget is about 10X more than the next highest spender. Its fucking pathetic, even worst, we waste this money on albatrosses like the Bradley or Osprey.

[MissWaverly]

32. also make the corporations pay

we could start with the windfalls tax, make them pay to clean up the toxic dumps, pay for their
employee health benefits and pensions that they promised. Newt has taught everybody, you can always get what you want for nothing, that is not true. If you get something for nothing, then
you are cheating somebody and sooner or later, they will pay you back in full.

[mmonk]

24. I don't believe in the concept of a moderate position

on an illegal act. There is only a position for illegal warfare and a position of where do we go from here now that we are an international belligerent. Do we go back to a position of conformity and strength through diplomacy with force as backup or do we continue the path of perpetual warfare based on a new ideology of forceful dominance with the idea of no consequences other than exertion of will?

[MissWaverly]

33. Brilliant, I would sent that to your senator

how can you moderately support a crime, what if doing World War II, the Nazis would have decided
to withdraw from France and Poland (not all the countries they invaded but just a limited pull back), would the french and the polish people have run after them saying, you can't leave until you fix what you broke. I have no doubt that we will be paying for the war in Iraq for a very long time. I have no doubt that the Iraqis will ask us to pay reparations for this war and probably for any money that has gone missing under our watch.

[Zhade]

36. Exactly!

You just made my sigline. Very well-said.

[bowens43]

26. Leave now is a moderate position.

[redherring]

30. So, my position is not moderate

I believe that since the United States is responsible for creating the current mess in Iraq, it is the duty of the United States to fix the country before leaving it for good. I don't think it's right to leave Iraq without cleaning up the mess created by America. Because of the invasion, Iraq now is on the brink of a civil war. Al Qaeda may even take over the country if we leave.

Now, I was against the invasion of Iraq, because I had a feeling that Iraq wasn't going to be a cakewalk, and I was right about it. However, now that I think about it, we should try to fix Iraq, because America destroyed it in the first place. I am not for leaving Iraq without fixing it. I do realize that Iraq doesn't pose a threat to America(it does to Israel though). But my position, as I have said, is that America messed the country up.

[LeftyMom]

40. There's no problem there that can be fixed by an occupying army

It makes no sense to slap a coat of paint on schools that will be bombed next week or to repair battle-scarred roads when more IEDs are coming. There's still not reliable electricity even in Baghdad. Only Kurdistan is reasonably livable because the war was not faught there and it's essentially it's own country.

Chances are very good that as soon as the US leaves (and we have to someday) there will be a civil war and what emerges will be several more ethnicly and religiously homogenous states rather than one pluralistic one based on old colonial boundaries. This is largely inevitable and there's nothing that can be done externally to prevent it. Even if we were able to fix everything right up, doing so when it's all going to get blown to hell again is a waste. Better to leave, let Iraqis create thier own system without us, then offer financial and technical assiatance in rebuilding.

[AlCzervik]

31. leaving troops in Iraq with a civil war escalating is the most

dangerous thing that can happen imo---out now!

[leesa]

38. It's illegal. We HAVE to get out. We invaded illegally and we are

occupying the country illegally. There is no option to stay and continue illegal activities.

[Jack Rabbit]

46. I agree entirely

In many ways, I would add, that "staying the course: is part of the nonsense you call "moderate". That's why I don't think there will be a draft. The war is based on political calculus, not anything that makes sense. The draft is a line he won't cross.

Of course, if one really wanted to win miltarily in Iraq, it would take more troops and that would take a draft. And tax increases, which is something Bush won't take to his base (no, I don't mean the Christian right; I mean the "haves and the have mores").