Feingold Talks Like A Democrat

by tristero

I’m sorry to say that this kind of genuine straight-talk is so rare it’s refreshing:

“We must get out of our political foxholes and be willing to clearly and specifically point out what a strategic error the Iraq invasion has been,” Feingold, D-Wis., told a National Press Club audience.

He said some Democrats in Congress gave in to “intimidation” by the Bush administration when they voted to authorize the war in 2002, and warned: “If we do not show both a practical and emotional readiness to lead in the fight against terrorism, we will lose in ’06 and we will lose in ’08, just like we did in ’02 and ’04.”

In March, Feingold called for the censure of Bush over the administration’s warrantless surveillance program. So far, only two Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California, have signed on as co-sponsors.

Good for Feingold. However, I really would like to comment briefly on this next point of his, at the risk of being completely misunderstood:

Feingold, who also has proposed that U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of the year, rejected criticism that such a move could lead to chaos.

“I believe the situation would probably get better” if U.S. troops left, he said. “The lesson of insurgency is when the occupying power leaves, it tends to lessen, rather than increase, the level of violence.”

I disagree and the reason I do is because the tragedy goes beyond the dichotomy of stay or leave.

The truth is that as long as Bush is in power, it doesn’t matter whether the troops leave or stay. If they stay, the Bush administration’s utter incompetence will ensure that the way in which they stay will be fine-tuned to maximize Iraq’s slide into disaster.

Likewise, if the troops withdraw, Bush’s incompetence will guarantee that the troops will be withdrawn in such a fashion as to all-but-guarantee they will leave a catastrophic situation in such a state that it will rapidly get much worse.

An effective approach towards confronting the problems in Iraq may, repeat may, be possible once Bush is no longer in office and a sensible administration is in charge. Until then, which will not be until 2009 at the earliest, the situation is tragically beyond relief. No matter what this US administration does, they will make the worst of it.

Therefore, Feingold’s prediction that things could improve if the troops leave strikes me as unfounded. He has not properly factored in how poorly the Bush administration would handle a withdrawal.

If a responsible, competent government were in place, I would immediately side with those demanding immediate withdrawal. But given Bush, I’m afraid in Iraq there is only disaster, death, chaos, and a slide into the abyss no matter course he chooses to take.

I realize this is a dreadful position to take, that nothing can be done until 2009. To be clear: I don’t want to see US soldiers killed or maimed – or killing and maiming in the pursuit of an insane, pointless war – anymore than anyone else does. And I also don’t want to see innocent Iraqis slaughtered and brualized, either by US troops, each other, or other countries. But if Bush keeps the troops in place the slaughter will continue to escalate. But if Bush withdraws the troops the slaughter will continue to escalate. I see nothing good coming of either as long as this malicious scoundrel is president.

A responsible approach to ending the misery in Iraq can only begin to be imagined after Bush is back at his lake doing what he loves – pretending to be a great fisherman – and the country (hopefully) is back in the hands of mature, responsible people.

Arguments that it is the troops’ presence that are the main problem strike me as not quite accurate. It is the troops presence plus Bush’s incompetence that are the main problem. Ditto, arguments that if the troops leave the problems will start to lift are not accurate. If Bush withdraws, given the near perfect storm he’s created in every area and around every issue and action, then increasing disaster is all but sure to follow because of the way the withdrawal will be run.

Put another way, step one for Iraq is that Bush must leave. Discussions of the relative worth of different approaches to Iraq are pointless until then. And I think Feingold runs the risk of being tragically contradicted because he misuderestimates Bush’s sheer incompetence.