Jonah Goldberg has an article in National Review Online today, which mulls over the idea of trading a Bush defeat for a victory in Iraq.

Bigger than Bush: The Stakes in Iraq



Question for debate: For those who support Bush: Is the major reason you support Bush because of the Stakes in Iraq?

Would you trade a Bush defeat in November for a stable Iraq?

For those who oppose Bush: Would you trade a defeat in Iraq for a victory in November?

For either side: which is more important: winning the White House, or winning in Iraq?

If by "victory in Iraq" you mean a cessation of attacks, establishment of a stable and long-standing democracy, expulsion of the foreign fighters attracted to the collapse in control, etc., with all the attendant domino-theory ideas about how it will reform the Middle East, then probably I'd support Bush's reelection in such a magical trade. Just as the author of the article defends his partisanship as true concern about particular issues, many of the "anybody-but-Bush" crowd feel like he isn't just a threat to casual political preferences, but is a foreign policy, etc. disaster unto himself.

Since true victory in Iraq- the sweeping democratic reform of a region, not just a country-is a very long term, highly speculative thing, I'd want my guarantee that it'll all work out there in 20 years to be tempered by assurances things wouldn't be much worse in other parts of the world as a result of 4 more years of Bush's policies.

In the shorter view of success in Iraq- "winning" and "victory" are kinda simplistic terms to apply to nebulous long-term goals- it's still hard to not see it as a balancing act. How much "win" do we get for how much "hey, I think Spain has yellowcake, let's mess them up"? This is not to mention that if "victory" in Iraq is writ with realistically small letters, people may justifiably think America's domestic policies should be more important to American voters than whether Iraq is a 3 or 4 on a 10-point rating scale of democracies.

Of course, the article was less an intellectual exercise than an excuse to 1.) whine about people claiming his support was more partisan than principled and 2.) accuse almost everyone on the actual left of the same thing, except "liberals" like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. No difficult analysis of proposals by Bush and Kerry and which is more likely to improve matters, because then he'd have to deal with the qualifications Kerry attached to his vote on the $87 billion and whether they would have helped. Instead, just blaming critics for somehow endangering national security (somehow, we've survived as an open democratic system for 200+ years) and ignoring that more, louder pressure to plan for this period before the war began might have helped a great deal. I'm willing to own that Bush critics have endangered lives by not being more critical.

Of course, as there seems to be no yellowcake in Iraq, didn't we technically win by default on the reasons we REALLY went to war long before Bush declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?

Would you trade a Bush defeat in November for a stable Iraq?

For those who oppose Bush: Would you trade a defeat in Iraq for a victory in November?

For either side: which is more important: winning the White House, or winning in Iraq?

Question 1. I dont believe occupation, imposition of government or ideals on other peoples will ever create stability until the occupational force is completely ousted or remove themselves. Personally I will trade a Bush for anything but what we have seen so far, no suprise there.

#2. I have no idea what you mean by defeat in Iraq. I thought , (by Republican standard) we were liberating the country, not trying to win something, therefore I have no idea what you mean by defeat or win. If winning means getting them to come around to our way of thinking, subjecting them to a US controlled puppet government, ending the fighting, and not seeing civil war, we are defeated already, or at least in an ever increasing uphill battle. Occupation, especially Christain occupation is despised and highly suspect in the Mid-East. There is no winning. Its more a 'thank-you for ridding us of Saddam, now get the hell out.'

#3. What is 'winning in Iraq'? The dream democracy for all the world to see? No other democracy or secular state is stable in the Middle East. Noone has been able to say in any thread how democracy in Iraq will make the world a better place nor how stability will be accomplished. Iraqis appear to want the UN to step in to remove the impression of US hegemony and imperialism and give them a sense of real self-determination, which they do not believe the US will ever afford them.
So Id go with both winning the US and Iraq by voting for Kerry.

For those who support Bush: Is the major reason you support Bush because of the Stakes in Iraq?

Not at all, Amlord. Iraq is but a part of a much larger reason Bush has my support. I believe he clearly understands that we are in a world war against religious radicals and he has chosen to be proactive by eradicating the enemy where they live instead of trying to appease them (which the UN and many US leaders would like us to do) or wait with breath held for them to bring it to us.

Would you trade a Bush defeat in November for a stable Iraq?

No. I don't expect Iraq to be stable for a several months, perhaps years after the November election. I think we'll see a bigger push in the next 45 days or so to remove Sadr. Sometime after June 30, I think we will still see the US military active in eradicating radicals, perhaps in a less visual way, more like we see in Afghanistan now. I also believe the military will continue building and repairing the infrastructure and more importantly relationships. But Bush has more to do to eliminate the enemy and I want him to stay in office and continue fighting the good fight.

For either side: which is more important: winning the White House, or winning in Iraq?

Winning the White House. Listen, we've given Iraq an opportunity to latch on to some form of democracy. I can't imagine their idea of democracy is like ours and I don't expect it to mirror ours. But starting July 1st, Iraqis will be in charge. After that, it's up to them.

Eventually, we have to move on to the next challenge. That may be Iran or North Korea and after Iraq, neither country has a doubt that we mean business.

Sorry, WRONG. He took an innocent country and made it a battleground as well as a recruitment ground for the entire Mid-East. That a given, how can you expect democracy to 'flourish' there if we are now fighting terrorists there? You cant have it both ways.



Now thats rich, since Afghanistan is exploding, the opium trade in full force and soldiers being killed each day by unfinished business, the peacekeepers unable to patrol but small areas due to excessive violence and resurgence of fighting.



Really? Is that how you see it? Strange noone else in the US government or the CPA looks at it with such rose colored glasses, and it will not happen. Where do you get your info? The July 30th turnover is a pipedream.



So you advocate more wars of the same ilk? Nice that you wont be going. Where do you think we shall get the forces and the funding? Do you actually believe the american public will put up with another bungling farse? Afghanistan isnt even finished, Iraq will not be done for another 10 years, nevermind starting some new and improved invasions. Bela, do you pay taxes? Do you live in some dream of an imperialist america? Where does this come from? Do you think the US government has a money tree and unending american lives to spare for ideologies. Get real.
We are completely overextended as is.

Would you trade a Bush defeat in November for a stable Iraq?

Well, for me, that would be a huge "duh"- but I am not a GW supporter, but rather, a hater LOL

For those who oppose Bush: Would you trade a defeat in Iraq for a victory in November?

Well, the wellspring of my animosity towards him is because of the needless endangering of my friends and family for his political and religious ambitions- so, though I do not know what you mean by "victory" (umm- didn't he already declare victory anyway? ) if there was something I would call victory, and had to choose it or GW- I would choose the -ahem- victory.


For either side: which is more important: winning the White House, or winning in Iraq?

Can you better give me an idea on what you mean by victory? If it is
A) All troops out of Iraq
Cease all fighting
C) Free and fair elections
D) all of the above?

If it is simply B even- I would choose winning in Iraq- and take 4 more years of his idiocy- I think our republic could stand even that- heck, we made it through Reagan didn't we?

I wouldn't trade a defeat in Iraq for a democratic victory. I know that we are looking at at theoretical situation here, but I would still wouldn't take the bargain. What's another four years? At the same time, I believe that no matter who wins, the war on terror will still be a high priority. Yes, you could criticize John Kerry for not rubber stamping every single military project, but then again, it amazes me how some people call for a wise use for money for other departments, but if that department is defense-the attitude is: "soak 'em with money!" There is absolutely no discipline in terms of how that money is spent or even if they knwo where some of it is!

Any correlation between our fall presidential election and the future of Iraq is tenuous at best.

'Winning' in Iraq does seem to be a meaningless phrase.

We should be concerned with determining the destiny of our own country and not with determining the destiny of someone else's country. Iraqis will be determining their future. The ego of Americans to think themselves to be much more than a obstacle to Iraq's self determination is a problem. It is diverting resources from problems which need our attention and those problems where we can actually make some progress.

I have to agree with Artemise.

When did this change from "this war is and always has been about WMD" (Ari Fleisher - April 10, 2003) to "There is no question but that (we) would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda would not let them do." (Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - February 20, 2003) to "winning a war"?

This entire Iraq issue has turned into a solution in search of a problem.

For those who support Bush: Is the major reason you support Bush because of the Stakes in Iraq?
Not applicable.

Would you trade a Bush defeat in November for a stable Iraq?
Is this only for Bush supporters as well? If so, briefly: Would I like to have my cake and eat it too? I'm only human - you bet!

For those who oppose Bush: Would you trade a defeat in Iraq for a victory in November?
As with most here, I'm a bit baffled by what constitutes "defeat". From the Bush-supporting point of view, we've won. They wanted to eliminate WMDs - they were already eliminated. They wanted to oust Hussein - he's ousted. They wanted to establish a permanent military base in the Middle East - it's established.

I don't want to turn this into yet another further different Bush-bashing thread, but with such a question, it is difficult. Suffice to say I would trade almost anything for a defeat of Bush in November. The fact that I feel the situation in Iraq would be better with an autistic armadillo in the Oval Office should go without saying at this point.

For either side: which is more important: winning the White House, or winning in Iraq?
Getting George W Bush out of the White House is the single most important issue facing this country today, period. If it is a stable Iraq that we're talking about, the ouster of Bush is prerequisite.

To address the ludicrously fanciful hypothetical here (that the Bush administration's chaotic and destructive foreign policy would somehow be better than that of, say, Bozo the Clown): Is "victory" in Iraq, whatever the hell that is, an issue overriding enough to want Bush over Bozo? Hell, no. The war in Iraq is entirely this administration's invention. We do not need to fulfill the PNAC's dream of America as global hegemon with a permanent base in the Middle East. We need an exit strategy - and we need it now. We will never get that with an administration run by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Perle. They don't want us out of Iraq - they want us there forever.

We have far more important issues facing the country than playing out the Iraqi adventure ad infinitum: jobs, education, health care, the state of the elderly, the treatment of our military, the crippling budget deficit (and the subsequent fact that we are owned by China, for God's sake), and, um, a little thing called the "war on terror". Iraq is an unnecessary distraction from all of the above - and is contributing to some of the most severe problems - the economy and the threat of terrorism - facing the nation. In relation to Iraq - as with everything else - there is no rational justification for subjecting America and the world to four more years of Bush.

Sorry, Amlord - it's impossible to address this sort of question without criticism of this administration's policies. They were wrong about WMDs; they were wrong about the reception we'd receive; they were wrong thinking this adventure would be a cakewalk; they were wrong about the number of troops we'd need; they were wrong about the mission having been accomplished over a year ago; they were wrong to send mixed signals about "terrorists" not being subject to the Geneva Conventions; they were wrong to set such an appalling example by violating those Conventions, as well as the UN Charter and the Nuremburg Principles, themsleves; they were wrong to alienate our allies; they were wrong in thinking that starting a war in the Middle East would somehow make us more beloved by Islamic fundamentalists thereby reducing rather than inciting more hatred. And if we're talking about morality as well as pragmatism, they were wrong to initiate illegal hostilities in the first place. This is not a clear, sound, well thought out, or successful foreign policy we're talking about here - it is a misguided mess. Jonah Goldberg is dead wrong (and this discussion, therefore, has a false premise): Bush's victory is not America's victory; Bush's victory is America's defeat.

Would you trade a Bush defeat in November for a stable Iraq? Yes, though I don't think we'll see that if Kerry is elected either. There is a strong connection between Bush and the current anti-American animosity we've seen growing in the world in the past two years. Bush is associated with his policies, regardless of whether or not Kerry (or Gore, or Clinton) would have done the same thing. I think things might improve marginally in Iraq under a new, "fresh" administration, simply because it would offer some psychological victory. A Bush victory would the equivalent of an affirmation that we agree, as a nation, with the way he has run things. So, yes, I think it would be better overall in Iraq and internationally if Bush left office. Just MHO. Unfortunately, I don't think the Kerry plans are any better, and the 'victory' would be very shortlived. I pretty much agree with Pat Buchanan on this one. In fact, Pat has been right about this for over a decade.

For those who oppose Bush: Would you trade a defeat in Iraq for a victory in November? No. Our foreign policy is a big problem right now. If Bush has a magic wand (which he has been hiding) to make it all better, I'd love to see him use it in his next term in office.

For either side: which is more important: winning the White House, or winning in Iraq? Winning iraq. I don't support any of the candidates this year.

Mrs. P: I would have to agree with you that Buchanan is absolutely right on this one (and, yes, has had pretty sound foreign policy positions for some years now). While Kerry is among the last Democrats for whom I'd like to vote, I still think that his Iraqi policy would be closer to that of Buchanan's. One thing's for sure: the neocon White House won't be taking his advice.

I can't agree with you, though, that "winning" Iraq is more important than "winning" the White House - though I don't think of either in those terms. The country losing the White House to Bush would be a far greater tragedy than an unstable Iraq. As I see any change in the hegemonic scheming of the Bush administration as an improvement, though, the ouster of Bush would be a win-win situation.

Artemise,

Iraq was not innocent. The majority of the people in Iraq were, of course, but not the dictator and his sons, who ran the country. So, it's not a "given". I do believe Iraq can become a democracy, but it won't be overnight, it won't be without struggle and I doubt it will reflect US democracy.

I said: more like we see in Afghanistan now.

You said: Now thats rich, since Afghanistan is exploding, the opium trade in full force and soldiers being killed each day by unfinished business, the peacekeepers unable to patrol but small areas due to excessive violence and resurgence of fighting.

Artemise, keep my comments in context, please. I said, "Sometime after June 30, I think we will still see the US military active in eradicating radicals, perhaps in a less visual way, more like we see in Afghanistan now."

I was speaking directly about how US soldiers have faded into the background in Afghanistan. I understand that the opium trade is a problem. I am unaware of soldiers being killed there daily.

According to the White House:
President Karzai has begun to remove provincial warlords whose control over large parts of the country complicates the security situation—including the powerful warlord-governor of Kandahar Province. He has extended central government control to the provinces by forcing warlords to send customs they collect to Kabul and by replacing governors, police chiefs, and other officials who support the warlords. The U.S. has actively supported this process by building central government capacity and providing resources.

Eight Provincial Reconstruction Teams now operate throughout Afghanistan.

Mustang could probably give us a better understanding of the situation in Afghanistan. I may be completely wrong, but it is my impression that the US military is not the visual force they once were, but are still involved in building the country and capturing or killing the opposition.

I said: But starting July 1st, Iraqis will be in charge.

You said: Really? Is that how you see it? Strange noone else in the US government or the CPA looks at it with such rose colored glasses, and it will not happen. Where do you get your info? The July 30th turnover is a pipedream.

What about my statement made you think I thought everything was rosy? Geez, Artemise! Did you miss the part of that paragraph that read, "I don't expect Iraq to be stable for a several months, perhaps years after the November election.”?

I get my info from:

Bush, Blair affirm June 30 Iraq handover
and here:
The Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq (CPA) agreed November 15 on a process to hand over power to a transitional government in Iraq no later than July 2004.
and on just about every television news broadcast and news print in circulation.

That doesn't mean we won't still be there lending a hand, but as Colin Powell and Paul Bremer said just this week, if the new authority asks us to leave on July 1, we will.

I said: Eventually, we have to move on to the next challenge. That may be Iran or North Korea and after Iraq, neither country has a doubt that we mean business.

You said: So you advocate more wars of the same ilk? Nice that you wont be going. Where do you think we shall get the forces and the funding? Do you actually believe the american public will put up with another bungling farse? Afghanistan isnt even finished, Iraq will not be done for another 10 years, nevermind starting some new and improved invasions. Bela, do you pay taxes? Do you live in some dream of an imperialist america? Where does this come from? Do you think the US government has a money tree and unending american lives to spare for ideologies. Get real.
We are completely overextended as is.

Artemise, I am guessing that you assumed something in my post that made you very angry, because your response to me was rather scathing and I really don't appreciate it. I don't address you that way.

Although I could have worded that paragraph better, nowhere in my post was there a reference of a desire to go to war in Iran or North Korea. "Moving on to the next challenge" meant just that. We must pursue change in other countries, Iran and North Korea being the two most important. Hopefully, that will be accomplished through diplomatic means. In my opinion, both countries have a much better understanding that diplomacy is the better route.

Please don't assume that I desire an "imperialist America". Nor do I desire that America be the world police. I desire peace, just as much as you do. We just have different opinions about how to get there.

The 3rd question is the only one that I care to address.

Winning the white house is more important to me than winning in Iraq. Or should we even ask that question since Bush supposely has already declared victory with his "mission accomplished" banner.

I don't believe American can take 4 more years of Bush for the following reasons:

1. The neo-conservative players that are pushing for world dominance and America being the military power and pushing our agenda in all parts of the world.

2. Bush and the adminstration showing utter disdain and arrogance to the rest of the world. Not caring to use diplomacy as the first priority instead of military might and power.

3. Pollution- relaxing on emission standards for the power companies(mercury,etc.)

4. Secrecy in the Bush Adminstration and declaring that the citizens don't need and shouldn't know what was involved in the Energy Commission(which was argued before the Supreme Court)

5. The Tax Cut that was advertised to help the poor and middle class, but really was about Bush helping out his rich friends that got him elected.

If Bush is re-elected America may never overcome all of his mistakes and disregard for the American middle class.

Wow, I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan. Thanks for the link Mrs. P. That was quite informative.

I think there is a concensus here that until defeat vs. victory in Iraq can be defined this question is nearly impossible to answer.

I want Bush out in November, period. I've never been more partisan in my life in that regard. Many would argue Iraq is lost no matter what we do so I'd rather focus on something I may have some control over. In either scenario, I think the greater good for Iraq is achieved with Bush out of office. I'll admit to a narrow viewpoint on that due to my extreme prejudice against the current administration.

Doc

With things getting harder in Iraq, I think its important that we keep our eye on the ball and not blame President Bush for things that have nothing to do with his policies, like this prison scandal. It is always more difficult to do the right thing, and besides, John Kerry’s history of supporting huge intelligence budget cuts, voting against sufficient supplies for our troops, and putting relations with France before American security actually DO do damage.

Excuse me, but Bush IS to blame.

Obviously, he didn't tie a leash to a naked prisoner's neck for a great photo-op, but Hitler didn't line up Jews into gas chambers himself either. To be clear, I am not comparing Bush to Hitler, however, the culpability in events is somewhat similar.

Bush took his "war on terra" to Iraq, a country that has never had anything to do with international terrorism. Yet, we throw "terrorists" into prisons when in reality, they really don't exist in Iraq. Nobody can name ONE Iraqi terrorist, nobody can name ONE Iraqi terrorist that has terrorized anybody (and if you want to debate these points, do your homework and start a thread), but we've rounded up people in an Iraqi prison to extract information using methods adopted to deal with "real" terrorists. But come to find out, 9 out of 10 of these people we kicked around had anything to do with anything.

This mindset of blurring the lines of the war on terrorism (which is "just" and necessary in my opinion) and the war in Iraq is completely Bush's fault.

Would you trade a Bush defeat in November for a stable Iraq?

For those who oppose Bush: Would you trade a defeat in Iraq for a victory in November?

For either side: which is more important: winning the White House, or winning in Iraq?
What would you call a sable Iraq ,10 americans killed a month ,maybe every six months? or maybe getting out 30 million barrels or oil a month and killing 6 extremest and 25 civilians with only one american death? how long has the region been unstable 100, 1000, 5000 years . Please send me a postcard anyone that will be vacationing in Iraq in the years to come. Stable ,never happen . So its bye bye Geogie. Now for a real president Rebulican or democrat that invaded this country for good reasons not self interest I would definitely be with them and a stable Iraq. This time were just going to have to pay for the sins of hour leaders and learn from it. Don't ever give one man to much power.

In my opinion most of what you say means to me you are avid BUSH haters and you dont agree with bush in any way, shape, or form. Ok and i believe somebody mentioned we should worry about our country and our country only, well why are you all saying you would rather have a stable Iraq opposed to Bush being in office. Screw the Iraquis we should be worring about america not "Peace in Iraq".

For those who support Bush: Is the major reason you support Bush because of the Stakes in Iraq?

N/A

Would you trade a Bush defeat in November for a stable Iraq?

N/A

For those who oppose Bush: Would you trade a defeat in Iraq for a victory in November?

Does this deserve an answer?

Define "defeat in Iraq".

You mean getting our soldiers bogged down in a country where they face serious danger every day while losing support from citizens back home, having their tours extended indefinitely, while their boss tells them there is no end in sight for the foreseeable future, or will every US soldier have to die in order for it to be a defeat? We are already being defeated in Iraq, this question is MOOT.

Go Kerry.

For either side: which is more important: winning the White House, or winning in Iraq?

Winning the White House. The current white house has gotten us into something that has no apparent end. I do not know what one would consider "winning in Iraq" would be. Ah-ha.....another topic for discussion????

I support Bush for other reasons, but I'd have to say that my main focus is on Iraq right now. You can be sure that if the Democrats get into control, all sorts of crazy things are gonna happen over there.

Because of pressure, the Dems would probably pull out ASAP. That could leave an unfinished situation over there. And, yes, reputation is on the line. If the dems got into control then you can be sure they'd either stop looking for WMD's right away, or do, for a lack of better words, a half-assed job about it, just to say "nyah nyah we're right and you're wrong."

And then, for all the questions pertinent to Bush getting elected and whitehouse over Iraq, I'd have to say that Bush victory is key here. In my view, we can't really get a full victory in Iraq without Bush in the oval office.

Vive la president!

"All sorts of crazy things are gonna happen over there"...

Like what?

Torturing and killing Iraqis who are in custody?
Thousands of dead Iraqis?
Hundreds of dead U.S. soldiers?
Thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers?

You think this is somehow NOT crazy? Your definition of sanity and mine are not in the same place, it seems.

As for your unfounded assertion that the Dems would pull out immediately... do you have ANY factual basis for this? Could it be something that you pulled from John Kerry's campaign web site? Something like this:



That sound like he wants to cut and run? Perhaps you mean a different Democratic party?

As to some of the questions:

Would you trade a defeat in Iraq for a victory in November?

Sigh. Well, if this is the trade we have to make.... I guess I could go along with it.

Seriously, it's not the likely outcome. Kerry has actually been ahead of the curve in stating what needs to happen in Iraq to ensure success. He seems to have a better grasp of what's happening than most Republicans would give him credit for having.

which is more important: winning the White House, or winning in Iraq?

Both are more important, than, say, who did what during the Vietnam war.

Unless the Democrats are planning on ruling every soldier with an iron fist, I don't think it's dair to say that those events were responsible because of the Republican Party.



Gee, AMF, you'd think it's like we're in a war or something. I must be crazy! Thinking that people would die during a war? And while it's unfortunate, let me point of that hundreds of dead falls nowhere near the category of serious losses.

And with all the Democrats saying that this war is bad, that we should never have gone, and the fact that they keep talking about exit strategies...... that would lead ANY sane person would be think that they're considering leaving.

Also, with Kerry the hypocrite, him saying that we won't leave yet points all the more likely to us leaving ASAP.



And I'm the crazy one?