![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm very pleased at the outcome of Tuesday's elections, but...
I saw an interview with Pelosi where she commented that the only reason terrorists have to be in Iraq is that we're in Iraq, implying that we should just leave.
Sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Iraq is a mess, but it's OUR mess. Saddam wasn't a nice man, but until we decided to remove him, the average Iraqi had water, power, schools, hospitals, roads, and police. Most of that is gone, and we're responsible. Like it or not, walking away isn't the new direction we need to take in Iraq. Fortunately, I suspect that Ms. Pelosi will have people sit her down and explain this in detail, so I'm not terribly worried, but I am concerned.
Jim Baker is heading up a commision to figure out what to do in Iraq, and he was a very capable and effective Secretary of State and is a very smart guy. Whether you like his politics or not, he's capable.
I just sat down and had a chat with one of our guys here who was an SIS 4 (Senior Intelligence Service, the Senior Executive Service (SES) is the equivalent for the non-intel bits of the .gov) at Langley when he left the govt, and he's rather pleased at seeing Gates up for SecDef. He said Gates is mostly apolitical and unlike Rumsfeld trusts the intel agencies to do their jobs (which makes sense, as Gates was running the CIA for a while). Which is bad for us (meaning this office where I'm working) in the short term, as some of our contracts shifted from various three letter agencies to the DoD over the last six years and those functions will be shifting back. The former SIS in question is a Dem, so he's not just saying things to make Junior look good (and oh my, some of his rants on what Junior's done to the NRO and CIA over the last half decade have been impressive...), but really thinks Gates is a good choice and will do a good job for all of us, not just the half of us that voted for the Republicans.
He also pointed out that for most Americans, a lot of what we inside the Beltway take for granted isn't even on their radar for most of these issues. We look out a window here and have a view of the Pentagon, Arlington National Cemetery, The Capitol, the Whitehouse, and the Jefferson, Lincoln, and Washington Monuments/Memorials. For us, this IS local politics, but it's not for most people, and far too many of them don't really care.
So, I have hope, but until I see a policy and a real plan emerge, I'll remain my usual cynical self and expect things will go badly in absurd ways. Usually reality fails to disappoint, and I often find I wasn't being negative enough.
I saw an interview with Pelosi where she commented that the only reason terrorists have to be in Iraq is that we're in Iraq, implying that we should just leave.
Sorry, but that's the wrong answer. Iraq is a mess, but it's OUR mess. Saddam wasn't a nice man, but until we decided to remove him, the average Iraqi had water, power, schools, hospitals, roads, and police. Most of that is gone, and we're responsible. Like it or not, walking away isn't the new direction we need to take in Iraq. Fortunately, I suspect that Ms. Pelosi will have people sit her down and explain this in detail, so I'm not terribly worried, but I am concerned.
Jim Baker is heading up a commision to figure out what to do in Iraq, and he was a very capable and effective Secretary of State and is a very smart guy. Whether you like his politics or not, he's capable.
I just sat down and had a chat with one of our guys here who was an SIS 4 (Senior Intelligence Service, the Senior Executive Service (SES) is the equivalent for the non-intel bits of the .gov) at Langley when he left the govt, and he's rather pleased at seeing Gates up for SecDef. He said Gates is mostly apolitical and unlike Rumsfeld trusts the intel agencies to do their jobs (which makes sense, as Gates was running the CIA for a while). Which is bad for us (meaning this office where I'm working) in the short term, as some of our contracts shifted from various three letter agencies to the DoD over the last six years and those functions will be shifting back. The former SIS in question is a Dem, so he's not just saying things to make Junior look good (and oh my, some of his rants on what Junior's done to the NRO and CIA over the last half decade have been impressive...), but really thinks Gates is a good choice and will do a good job for all of us, not just the half of us that voted for the Republicans.
He also pointed out that for most Americans, a lot of what we inside the Beltway take for granted isn't even on their radar for most of these issues. We look out a window here and have a view of the Pentagon, Arlington National Cemetery, The Capitol, the Whitehouse, and the Jefferson, Lincoln, and Washington Monuments/Memorials. For us, this IS local politics, but it's not for most people, and far too many of them don't really care.
So, I have hope, but until I see a policy and a real plan emerge, I'll remain my usual cynical self and expect things will go badly in absurd ways. Usually reality fails to disappoint, and I often find I wasn't being negative enough.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
You have put your finger, in one sentence, on the only two things that worry me about the 110th Congress. First is Pelosi. I do not like Pelosi, and two days after the election, I have a concrete reason why. Read the Wikipedia page on Alcee Lamar Hastings and ask yourself why this former judge, impeached by a Democratic Congress for bribery and corruption, would make a good chairman for anything, much less the intelligence committee? This, after Democrats swept into power in the wake of massive Republican corruption.
This is one of those things that I raally, really sincerely hope is something that the Washington press circuit whipped up out of some casually misinterpretted remark; but in general, even beyond that, I do not think Pelosi matches most newly elected Democrats in politics or style.
Second is what you say about the war. Part of this is structural: Congress, antagonistic or supportive, has very few and very blunt tools to affect the prosecution of a war. Once they've voted for it, Congress is pretty limited to funding or not funding, declaring peace, or in the modern age, going through endless rounds of distracing hearings, which effectively kills all foreign policy, everywhere. What they can't do is say, "No, dumbass, do it this way," and make it stick. (Well, they can try to impeach, but aside from legal details this does more harm than good anyway.) Unfortunately, every bureaucratic bone in my body screams that the endless investigation route, leading to paralysis, will actually make things worse, not better. So will packing up and leaving.
My only quibbles with what you wrote are:
1) The Iraqi infrastructure was shitty before we got there, and the average Iraqi did not have 24/7 electricity or clean water. No one heard about it because the small subset of people who cared were prevented from hearing about it by that government itself. The man started war after war after war and got his ass kicked on a regular basis.
2) I don't trust the intel community to do their jobs, and it's not a political statement, it's a statement of historical record. Since the opening of the Korean War, what are their notable successes? I can name a string of stunning failures from 1950 to 2005.
From:
no subject
Having made my position clear, I have concerns about the same areas as you both. First, I doubt anyone wants an immediate withdrawal. That was a great republican talking point that I never heard back from the people they attributed it to. I think I may have heard Murtha say it once. Mostly what I heard was "a plan for extracting our troops". I am not a fan of permanent occupation and I doubt either of you are. Therefore, a plan for leaving is necessary and is not "cut and run".
As for Gates, I will need to see how he's changed over the years. This is the same guy who was involved in Iran-Contra. There have been some statements made that he was known for trying to make the intelligence fit his political need as well. I want to see all the facts before I say yea or nay on that guy.
As for congress changing the war, the one thing they could do is start enforcing the war powers act. That would be the one that requires regular updates on progress. It would be a much more reasonable place to start than either ordering things done or trying to impeach. Nobody wants to see a President Cheney.
I want oversight, dammit. I want people subpoenaed so they can answer for where the money has gone. I want to see accountability. You call it bureacratic, I call it the only option for stopping the waste, fraud and abuse.
I want to see competence being rewarded. I want to see experts from *both* sides of the issue brought in and then listened to. I want these anti-science, anti-education idiots gone. Gone. Gone.
From:
no subject
Unfortunately for all concerned, there is a very real sense in which "a plan for extraction" will have all the bad results of "cut and run" if said plan involves calendar deadlines as opposed to results based deadlines.
From:
no subject
I also have to say that I don't believe there is a chance in hell that the country doesn't fall apart the second we leave no matter what our method for withdrawal. In my opinion, we could stand up a solid government based on some good milestones for withdrawal and yet the second we get out, the civil war will start.
It really seems inevitable at this point. I hope I'm wrong.