The line that will keep us in Iraq for another three years:

[alcibiades_mystery]

"It's not when we leave, but what we leave behind." - Lindsey Graham, Today Show, July 18, 2007

This is the most rhetorically savvy articulation of the recent propaganda, and it's working. It has the pithiness of the smoking gun-mushroom cloud formulation, and it is just as meaningless. Nevertheless, you know it is a completely effective little mind bomb when even many DUers echo this chord, change their position on the now ubiquitously named "premature withdrawal," and voice concern about "our" responsibility to the Iraqi people. It's not when we leave, but what we leave behind. A perfect little parallel construction employing the rhetorical figure of syllepsis: memorable, quotable, ingenious.

And it performs its function. It is now an absolute certainty in the minds of many that a non-occupied Iraq will descend into chaos and genocide. US troops have been transformed into the protectors of the population against such a descent, and their permanent presence is therefore now justified on human rights grounds. As an added bonus, the administration also gets to pretend that our departure will produce, overnight, a "terrorist safe haven," therefore smuggling the occupation's imaginary "link" to terrorism through the back door. All bases are then covered: the liberals will clutch the human rights concern like a precious Teddy Bear, while nodding gravely about national security, while the conservatives get their terrorist bogeyman, while heaving supposed human rights hypocrisy back at liberals. The administration has struggled for years to find a perfect little advertising phrase for the occupation: stay the course lost the wind in its sails only through careful and relentless counter-articulation. "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" never caught the liberal imagination, not least because of its utterly despicable ethical assumptions. But "It's not what we leave, but what we leave behind." That's gold, Jerry. Gold.

And for all the liberals on this board who have been intoning the variations of this nonsense, I will say, like Brother Malcolm, "I say and I say it again, ya been had. Ya been took. Ya been hoodwinked. Bamboozled. Led astray. Run amok."

[Ezlivin]

1. K&R

So true....

[annabanana]

2. Hey Graham... I guess Saddam wasn't that bad.. Not as bad as us.

We have to get out and stop screwing them up worse...

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. Graham is a serious tool. And, guess what, Madame Lindsey.

The Repubs are the LAST people to whom anyone should listen about what will happen in Iraq given certain situations. The Repubs have been wrong every time.

However, you're right, a_m, this particular meme will have a good run, I'm sure. MKJ

[Dhalgren]

4. Dead on, al! Dead on! The big lie in the center of this neat little construction,

"It's not when we leave, but what we leave behind", is who it is that we are protecting the Iraqi people from. The enemy that we are fighting to protect the Iraqi people is the Iraqi people. Any number of sources will tell you that the actual number of foreign jihadis in Iraq is very low. There is a thing in Iraq called "al Qaeda in Iraq", but it is not affiliated with ben Laden, except in the most loose and philosophical of ways - and it is mostly made up of Iraqis. How many Iraqis are we going to kill, maim, torture, and imprison in order to protect Iraqis from harm?

We have to kill Iraqis to protect Iraqis. Now that's gold, Jerry. Gold...

[JacquesMolay]

5. Too bad there was no one there to say ...

... 'It's not just the mistakes we've made in the past, but the ones we'll make in the future, as well'.

[endarkenment]

6. "even many DUers echo this chord"

Sadly true. We are being sold the basis for the next batch of Freidmen Units and we are buying it, hook, line, and sinker.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. "...sold the basis for the next batch of Freidmen Units..."

Awesome!

[malaise]

8. I so hope Lindsey is on Larry's list

please, please Larry!! Expose this fugging hack.

He's speaking in the Senate as I type.
Sp.

[bryant69]

9. The problem is that it is true

I support withdrawal. But there will almost certainly be a bloodbath once we pull out; and I am embarrassed for Liberals who pretend anything else. You have to know the cost of your policies.

The problem is that both we and the Iraqi people will pay a much higher cost if we "stick it out."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Be embarrassed; I am too

I'm embarrassed by the paternalism inherent in your "almost certainly." The "certainly" part, not the "almost."

[bryant69]

13. OK - I'll be embarrassed by my paternalism

and you can be embarrassed by your naivete.

Bryant

[H2O Man]

14. Do you notice

that there is a blood bath now?

[bryant69]

19. Please go back and read my initial post

I am not in favor of staying there. I just think that in the short term, pulling out of Iraq, is going to be bad, and we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that it isn't. We need to be ready for it, and ready for what our buddies on the right are going to say about us when shit starts happening.

I think we are kidding ourselves as well if we pretend that the only thing causing Iraq violence is us.

Bryant

[H2O Man]

22. I assume that

you are kidding when you say that DUers "pretend that the only thing causing Iraq violence is us."

[bryant69]

25. I think most DUers have a pretty accurate view on that score

On the other hand obviously a few do have the opinion that if it weren't for our presence there, Iraq would be nothing but roses and sunshine - almost like "greeted as liberators" in reverse.

Bryant

[endarkenment]

28. Oddly enough most Iraqis agree that they would be better off

If We Got The Fuck Out of Iraq Now

But it seems we know better than they do what they need.

[bryant69]

33. Again please go back and read the initial post

I am not in favor of staying there; nor am I in favor of pretending that there won't be some bad times if we leave. I'd like to be proven wrong on this score; maybe they will adjust to our departure without taking the opportunity to settle old scores.

Bryant

[endarkenment]

38. Read my post.

Most Iraqis think they would be better off if we got out now. That directly rejects your paternalistic assumptions about what our presence there is doing. It is not preventing a bloodbath, IT IS THE BLOODBATH.

[bryant69]

41. Maybe they think they would be better off because without us there

They could really finish off those Sunnis/Shi'ites/Kurds.

Bryant

[endarkenment]

43. Maybe. Or maybe not.

But you described your opinion as a certainty. You should reflect on why you did that.

[bryant69]

44. Hmmmmm. I suppose it could be because I'm certain?

No wait - I'm a racist. Would that explain it?

Isn't paternalism like a nice form of racism?

Bryant

[endarkenment]

45. I wouldn't argue with you there. I agree with your self assesment.

[bryant69]

46. Thank you - nice to find common ground.

Of course the fact that they are killing each other off with us being there doesn't at all give a hint to what they would do if we left.

Bryant

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. It has nothing to do with you

The POSITION can bepaternalistic. We need to examine our beliefs to see whether it is in this case. Nobody's calling YOU a racist, even if the position you hold IS paternalistic, which it may or may not be. Perfectly good people can hold extremely dubious positions. It doesn't rebound on to the person, although that's a pretty good way of avoiding analysis of one's position ("I'm not a racist, therefore...").

[bryant69]

50. Are they killing each other now? Yes

Why are they going to stop, in the short term, because we aren't there?

Bryant

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. They won't

They won't stop in the short term if we aren't there. Nor did I ever say they would (hence my objection to the "roses and sunshine" characterization). Nor will they stop in the short (or long) term if we are there. The mistake, from my perspective, is in thinking that the occupation can stop this. I don't believe it can. Can something else stop it? Perhaps. We don't know. Can that "something else" emerge so long as the occupation continues? No, I don't think so. The occupation gives US policy ownership of the problem, and in so doing produces habits of avoidance among all other possible parties. That's the premise. The goal, then, is to snap those habits of avoidance, and I don't see that happening while the occupation continues.

[bryant69]

52. Than we agree.

In the short term pulling out will be pretty nasty, but we need to do it because staying there will be even worse.

I'm just pointing out that Graham's argument will resonate because people would rather believe in fairy tales than reality (in this case the fairy tale that we can avoid bloodshed by simply hanging around long enough).

Bryant

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. We've agreed all along

"Graham's argument will resonate because people would rather believe in fairy tales than reality..."

Yup.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Let's be a little more nuanced

I certainly don't believe that - if not for US presence, Iraq would be "roses and sunshine." I am not a fool, nor are you. There's no reason to invent positions when we are being clear on things. I also do believe that we have a responsibility to the people in Iraq. My point is that that responsibility cannot (not "should not," but cannot) be accomplished through continued occupation. We can have an honest debate about that, but please don't invent my positions for me, by implication or otherwise.

[bryant69]

37. Laughs

How many times have people felt free to explain to me that we should get out of Iraq when I've been clear since the beginning that my position is that we should, well, get out of Iraq.

Here's the point - I agree with senator Graham's assessment of what could happen if we leave Iraq. I disagree with his conclusion. I think us staying would be worse than us going, but that doesn't mean that I think us going won't be painful.

Frankly we are in a situation, thanks to our brilliant president, where we have nothing but bad choices; we need to make the best of the bad choices, which is going now rather than later.

Bryant

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. If other people have mischaracterized your position

That's their business.

[Raven]

10. Let me be sure I understand this...if someone is concerned about

how we leave this country that we have trashed for no reason, this is nonsense? If someone is concerned about the Iraqi translators left behind, this is nonsense? If someone wants the US to work with other countries to put in place some presence that might be better able to keep the peace, this is nonsense. I've been had, hoodwinked? I take it from you post that we should make a fast exit, walk away, go on about our business, forget about the whole thing? Well, I'll keep hugging my precious,liberal,human rights Teddy Bear...I sleep better at night that way.

[endarkenment]

18. I view it as the rapist's concern that he satisfy his victim. nt.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. No

If someone believes that continued occupation will accomplish anything, then they are trafficking in nonsense. There's nothing wrong with the human rights Teddy Bear in principle, or even in practice. It is desirable, even. The only road to justice. What is nonsense is the linking of the human rights Teddy Bear with continued occupation.

And yes, we should announce withdrawal, and set a target date, and begin withdrawal, immediately. I mean, like, next Monday. The military should focus solely on its logistics. And of course we must coordinate with others (not least in setting up reparations), but we should have almost zero say in how the thing is accomplished, since we have no standing as fair dealers.

There are two predictions:

1) "If we leave, it will be a bloodbath." People assume this as an "near certainty." I propose that this prediction (held as "true," as if a prediction can be "true!") has basis in events, but is not the inevitable result of US withdrawal. That's the nub.
2) If we leave, it will force parties to become involved. This is scoffed at as nonsense. I propose that this will happen.

We can make arguments one way or another, but these are both predictions - neither is more "true" than the other, and it would be a good place to start the debate if we give up on the inevitability or "truth" of option 1), which has been turned, by the administration propaganda, into something like Ahab's whale: from a possibility to a probability, and from a probability to a near certainty."

I also propose that the Iraqi people are perfectly capable of self-determination, and that our continued presence is the major stumbling block thereto. For this reason, continuing the occupation in order to "stabilize" Iraq is a failed project from its conception: the very thing we aim at is frustrated by our means, by definition and practical necessity. So, it is a flea-infested Teddy Bear you're clutching there, Raven, since its ability to give you comfort is made impossible precisely by its presence.

[Raven]

29. Now my Teddy Bear has fleas??? :-)

Your first assumption may be a little off. People who are concerned about the Iraqis do not necessarily want to remain in Iraq. I am not buying into the myth that the US is the only country in the world that can do things right. I think we've more than proven that wrong. So I have not linked human rights concerns to continued occupations. Far from it. I want us out completely...no residual forces...out. What I want is for this country to plan its withdrawal as carefully as possible with an eye toward the possibility, not prediction, that there will be more chaos when we leave.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. Then we are in agreement

Cheers.

[Raven]

42. Yeah, well, if you say so. I see hundreds of people every week

at my lit table. Regular people who are increasingly expressing concern about how we leave and what we leave behind. This is the normal thought progression that I have seen over the last 3 years of tabling. First people were stubbornly in support of this war, then, as the bottom fell out and we began to be clearly losing the war, people began to reconsider. (Sadly, I think that many Americans like war if we are winning.) Once people turned against the war, they began to worry about the damage we've done and began to be concerned about further damage if we left. This, I think, is basic human nature. The Republicans know this and will play it for all it's worth. We need to accept the fact that many people feel this way and specifically address their concerns. This is why my group now has a flier that talks about getting out immediately and how to do it. Telling people that they are talking nonsense when they express these concerns is not constructive IMO.

[Dhalgren]

26. The idea is that it is not an "either/or" proposition. The speed and completeness

of our withdrawal does not necessarily dictate the situation on the ground in Iraq. The idea that the Iraqis are not capable of managing their own affairs is also a problem. You cannot use the last four years as an indication of what the Iraqis are able to do, because they have been occupied and in the mist of an anti occupation guerrilla war for four years and that can have a negative effect on how well security is handled. The US may very well be the biggest part of Iraq's security problem. To simply accept the scenario foisted by the Bush Republicans as the likely outcome of US withdrawal is ridiculous - they have been absolutely wrong at every point and in every instance since March 2003 (and before). As Joe Biden said on the Senate floor, "Show me one example of the Bush team making the right decision in Iraq! Just one! One!" No one could give him an example. I think that we are being sold a bill of goods, just like regarding Vietnam. That withdrawal turned out much better than predicted, this one will, too. I would never take any position the Bush Republicans espouse as being anything but false, deceitful, and counter productive. But, hey, that's just me...

[NJCher]

12. and the implications are...

So are you saying that after Americans hear this little gem you describe they will change their minds about the Iraqi War? And the polls will reflect that and then it will be OK to stay in Iraq because Americans have now decided it's important to be there? Is that what you're saying?



Cher

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. Don't be ridiculous

I'm perfectly happy to debate the merits of my post. I am not a complete idiot, however, so I would hope you don't intend on treating me like one. I certainly have no intention of treating you that way, primarily because you don't deserve it.

Obviously, I'm not drawing a direct causal link between one sentence and broad, empirically verifiable public opinion (suppose there is such a thing). Scholars of rhetoric have refused for some time to attribute direct causal relations between even the great speeches of history and empirical shifts in collective thought. I certainly wouldn't do it for one sentence.

Rather, I'm noting the pithiness of the sentence, and predicting its use in a whole constellation of arguments that seem to be replicating rapidly in the "public sphere" - namely, that leaving Iraq (which is to say, ending the occupation) would result inevitably in a bloodbath, and therefore, any talk of withdrawal must be "more considered" (as if the arguments for withdrawal are NOT well considered, a point that is implied without much commentary!), and by more considered, what is meant is more occupation.

So, no. I'm not suggesting that people will hear this sentence and magically change their minds. I'm arguing that this sentence serves as a little machine that can hook people into the larger argument, that it can serve as an attractor that helps people to mentally and affectively organize the complex rhetorical systems that are the arguments for and against continued American presence in Iraq.

[On the Road]

15. So Your Position is That

what we leave behind is not important? Whether it results in genocide, a dictatorship, or a functioning society is not the primary issue?

[endarkenment]

23. So you think we can succeed?

That we cannot afford to fail? That we, with our overstuffed army of foreign heathens, can 'fix' Iraq? Why has this not happened in the last five years of this disaster? Bad management? How many more years do we get to complete the mission? How many Iraqis do we have to kill before you will agree that enough is enough?

[On the Road]

56. How We Leave the Country is Extremely Important

To deny that is tantamount to showing no concern over the millions of Iraqis who be put in even greater danger by a bloodbath. Throwing up your hands and saying it's the other person's fault is not a morally defensible position.

I completely agree that staying the course is not going anywhere, and may lead to all-out chaos at some point.

It is possible for the US to disengage with a much better chance of stability, but it requires working with all parties, including the Syrians, Iranians, Iraqi insurgents, etc. It also requires giving up the desire for the US to commandeer the oil and continue to dominate the country militarily.

I actually don't even think it would be all that difficult if it were done by an honest broker with some credibility and competence as a negotiator. In other words, it will never happen under this administration, but will probably happen within a year of the next Democratic president taking office.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. What we leave behind is obviously important

The problem is not the statement itself, but its function in a larger argument for continued occupation.

[On the Road]

54. Yes, I Heartily Agree With That

[undeterred]

16. Somebody left behind a partially lit cigarette in a planter

and 6 hours later the entire 41 unit apartment building was burned to the ground.

[endarkenment]

24. No somebody blew the shit out of Iraq's infrastructure,

toppled its government, sacked its entire civil service, deliberately encouraged the wholesale looting of what remained, sent it's army back home, encouraged sectarian divisions, spent the next five years bombing, blasting, shooting, and terrorizing the population and now claims that they have to continue doing this in order to prevent a disaster

And You Are Buying It

[ThomWV]

17. I don't think that quote is exactly right

As I recall hearing it what was said was something like 'historians will not be interested in when we left, but how we left'. I do recall the reference to historians. So what he was really saying is this is how the story will be told; a matter of perception, not reality.

[porphyrian]

21. Not a single American needs to be on the ground there for us to uphold our responsibility...

...to rebuild the country this administration illegally attacked. We have no right to permanent military bases there, nor to the oil. We do have an obligation to restore living conditions to the remaining Iraqi people we haven't yet slaughtered, and to our troops, who we've sent to kill and die for a lie, to bring them home to their families. All of these tasks can be completed without a single American remaining in Iraq.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. That's the alternative prediction

It deserves more examination from the Inevitable Bloodbath Crew, is my only point.

Thanks.

[Ganja Ninja]

27. Great let's leave behind this hopeless cause.

Let's leave behind this money sucking rat hole. Let's leave behind this worthless President's destructive fiasco. Let's leave behind all the death and misery the war criminals of the Bush cabal have created and let's leave them behind too.

[blogslut]

32. Graham is slick

I'll give him that. I had hope he was a decent man but I've since realized he lost his soul along with his sense of decency. I've since realized he will muddy any fact, pluck any heartstring, to make sure Americans buy into his party's horribly misguided vision.

[datasuspect]

39. if we leave, someone else will probably secure our oil

what about the oil?

why would anyone want a non-american multinational force of oilmen and mercenaries not keep posting record profits?

[Babsbrain]

40. Here's what we leave behind

We leave behind over 350,000 trained and armed Iraqi security troops to do what we trained them to do.

We leave behind the 100,00 plus paid mercenaries currently in place. They are being paid very well to do a job. Let them do it.

We leave behind billions and billions of dollars of money that could have made the US a great country.

[Imagevision]

49. "It's not when we leave, but what we leave behind." - not leaving one more US. soldier behind...

[JeffR]

55. Agreed.

Well said.