A Biden/Hagel Washington Post Op-Ed, Dec. 2002

Here is an Op-Ed piece written by Senators Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel in December 2002, before the US invasion of Iraq.  Sen. Biden is a Democrat, and Sen. Hagel is a Republican. 

It is a well-written piece with impressive foresight and details into how it would take a decade to turn Iraq into a stable democracy, after the fall of Saddam Hussein.  I agree with every single thing stated in the article, including :

"Americans are largely unprepared for such an undertaking. President Bush must make clear to the American people the scale of the commitment. "

Also, this piece is notable for the absense of any mention of Saddam's WMD programs.  Even though the article is about post-Saddam reconstruction, this omission is notable given the sentence about how there is no doubt that coalition forces would prevail against those of Saddam Hussein.  This would suggest that this was not the Senate's primary reason for authorizing regime change in Iraq (even though Bill Clinton, in December 1998, did authorize a military campaign for the specific purpose of thwarting Saddam Hussein's WMD program). 

What is sad is that both Biden and Hagel are now voting to defund the troops and deliberately induce a defeat, 4 years into the undertaking that they themselves said would take a decade to complete.  What happened to actually being Statesmen (like Joe Lieberman, John McCain, and George W. Bush), rather than poll whores?  Fortunately, these Statesmen still appear to have the upper hand, and will ensure that victory in 2008 is still on track.

The good news is that the blogosphere is gaining in power and penetration, and will ensure that valuable articles like these will be discovered and brought forth for voters to see.  It will be increasingly harder for politicians to sway with the winds of fashion and hope no one discovers what they had said earlier.

Update : N.Z. Bear on how the Democrats have positioned themselves to lose if Iraq succeeds, a risk they did not have to take. 

Update : More from Charles Krauthammer, who is often makes very original observations and articulations.

Comments

[cee]

just read an interesting post about the folks doing all the yelling

http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/a-challenge/

check it out..

cee

[Alex]

coalition forces would prevail against those of Saddam Hussein

Right, they were outnumbered and they had much worse arms :)

It will be increasingly harder for politicians to sway with the winds of fashion

"fashion = fascism", isn't it, GK? :D
"with the wing of fascism" - that sounds more likely ;)

[GK]

Alex,

So what exactly are you trying to say? Do you even know yourself?

Then again, given that you insist 9/11 was an 'inside job' even though no elected Democrat Senator is supporting that position, your comments are unlikely to ever be logical.

[Josh]

This would suggest that this was not the primary reason for regime change in Iraq

...for these two individuals.

The good news is that the blogosphere is gaining in power and penetration, and will ensure that articles like these will be discovered and brought forth for voters to see.

Yes, because the Washington Post editorial page is so obscure!

Now stick to the script, GK; rather than defend your post from criticism, attack me for some position you assume I must hold.

[GK]

Josh,

I don't disagree with either of your two statements. The Washington Post is important, but it is the blogosphere that digs up these old editorials that publicizes them, while the authors themselves hope no one will find them.

And it appears you are suggesting that I said that the WaPo is not important. I did no such thing. The WaPo piece is the center of the article.

Unlike you, I debate points on individual merit, without the need for manufactured strawmen. That is why you have lost twice now, both here, and here.

[Sibylle Rauch]

[ What is sad is that both Biden and Hagel are now voting to defund the troops
and force the US into an artificially induced defeat ]

No worries, I read on your blog that the Crusaders would win in 2008.

[Josh]

The Washington Post is important, but it is the blogosphere that digs up these old editorials that publicizes them

I guess you've never seen a talk show on sunday morning, where this kind of thing is standard fare.

Unlike you, I debate points on individual merit, without the need for manufactured strawmen.

Actually, attacking straw men is the only thing you're good at. That, and misdirection to avoid conceding a point you can't win, as we see in the Zogby poll "debate."

hat is why you have lost twice now,

You keep telling yourself that if it helps your self-esteem.

[GK]

Josh,

You clearly stated :

Yes, because the Washington Post editorial page is so obscure!

I never said or implied this at all. You have blatantly erected a phony strawman, which is particularly egregious given how the WaPo piece is the cornerstone of the article.

This is due to your inability to argue anything on it's merits (as proven for the third time in the last few weeks). And this is not just losing to me, but additionally to Assistant Village Idiot, Ira Rabinowicz, etc.

The links are there for grown-ups to see and judge for themselves.

Period.

[Josh]

I never said or implied this at all.

Sure you did. You implied that, were it not for the blogosphere, this op-ed would be forgotten. Something written by two Senators would have to have appeared in a pretty obscure place to be forgotten five years later. I know drawing logical connections isn't your strong suit, but please try to think just a little bit before posting.

You might also want to consider using your real name when you blogwhore in other people's comment sections, GK/Thomas/Twix.

[Rich Casebolt]

Something written by two Senators would have to have appeared in a pretty obscure place to be forgotten five years later.

It is easier than you think ... considering that not only a large portion of the American people, but many of the Senators themselves, appear to have forgotten what they said in suppport of removing Saddam & Sons from power before they authorized the President to do so.

Ever think that the Sunday news shows, in this day and age, take some of their cues from the blogosphere ... as in the debate over the "fake but accurate" documentation of the President's National Guard service ... a debate that probably NEVER would have seen the light of day without the Men in PJ's?

GK is right -- and the talking heads of the major networks can no longer so easily and totally dominate the public discource, and lead the people astray ... unintentionally or intentionally ... as Walter Cronkite and his contemporaries did when they characterized our victories during the 1968 Tet offensive as defeat.

And Josh, once again -- by majoring on the minors -- you exhibit the shallow thinking that brings the terms "useful idiot" to mind.

GK ... what does it take these days to get quality trolls? Is the market for moonbattery that tight?

[Josh]

Ever think that the Sunday news shows, in this day and age, take some of their cues from the blogosphere ...

They were dragging up old op-eds to play gotcha long before anyone had even heard of the blogosphere. Are you really that ignorant?

And Josh, once again -- by majoring on the minors -- you exhibit the shallow thinking that brings the terms "useful idiot" to mind.

By not making any sense, you bring a similar term to mind. Except you're not even useful.

[Elisa (Italy)]

Hi, greetings from Italy. You have nice blog, visit and comment my site, please
Elisa

[Happycrow]

You don't have to bother with mine... but how 'bout a new post? YOur readers are waiting...

[John Bull]

Not visited for a while but gotta say I find Josh's arguments more logical than GK's (no offence); maybe it's the obvious, practised fallback positions of the 'arguments' by numbers, as described in another posting (about Iraq I think); as soon as one number is knocked down, another 2 or 3 appear, hydra-like.

I'd like to see GK elucidate his arguments away from the bullet points so he can show the breadth of goodsense inherent in his ideology, or if he can't do that, at least show he is above mere point-scoring.

Because of this I think Josh won the Zogby poll debate too, especially as he was answering 3 or 4 counter-arguments; a consummate & articulate commentator.
Keep up the good work fellas.

[GK]

John Bull,

I don't agree. Exactly what points is Josh making? He says that I am not giving importance to the WaPo piece, even though that is the cornerstone of the article.

At the same time, he won't concede that Biden and Hagel knew, in 2002, that the endeavor would take a decade. Thus, they cannot possibly be surprised by the task being incomplete 4 years later, proving their defeatism is political poll-watching.

Perhaps you can articulate Josh's arguments for us.

[John Bull]

Apologies GK but I don't want to create a tautology for myself by articulating the arguments of "a consummate & articulate commentator"; Josh needs no help from me!

I've been considering your piece & wonder why you're not more supportive of the senators since their votes to end the Iraq occupation within the next (let's say) 12-24 months would seem to verify the assertion of your earlier piece: that Iraq will be a success in 2008.

Maybe they believed in 2002 that it would take 10 years, but now, like you, they believe that it will only take til 2008?

[GK]

John Bull,

A key piece you are missing :

The Democrats + Hagel want the Iraq War to end in defeat. They want a withdrawal to appear like defeat.

Victory is what they don't want, because then Bush gets credit. Show me one Democrat saying the withdrawal equates to victory.

I said that Iraq will be a victory in 2008. This means it will be a stable democracy with functioning institutions. That does not mean than all violence will become absolutely zero (per capita violence in Iraq is already below that of a few rough US communities).

That also does not mean US troops will fully withdraw. We have troops in Germany and Japan for 62 years, South Korea for 54 years, and Bosnia for 10 years now. Why have none of those been withdrawn? Iraq will have US troops for many years to come, but they will function in a manner like those in Germany, Japan, and S. Korea currently do.

[Sibylle Rauch]

You think the American electorate will choose to watch their sons continuously killed for undefined objectives in Iraq?

What makes you think that, it seems to me they are already turning against the war now, and we've just started mowing you down.

You seem to be operating under the premise that the violence is waning. That is actually wrong: more Crusaders have been killed this April than in April 2003.

The fact is you are trapped: can't leave and can't stay.
You were too thirsty for blood back in early 2003 to consider the ramifications and how you were supposed to get out

[GK]

Sibylle,

If you are so powerful, why have you failed to conduct another terrorist attack on US soil for almost 6 years now?

In fact, why resort to terrorism at all, rather than a face-to-face fight?

[John Bull]

Thanks GK,
Your rationale then, is that any withdrawal, unless it's to concentrated bases that help to prop up the Iraqi government, is tantamount to defeat?
I can also see that US forces will remain in some form in Iraq indefinitely, the region is too important to abandon.

Do you think though, that US voters will fund an indefinite campaign, especially taking the spectacular seizure of both houses last year as evidence of widespread public dissatisfaction with Bush & his Iraq policy?

I do have to disagree about 'rough neighborhooods'; surely no US neighborhood is so rough that chlorine truck bombs (amongst other things) have been killing & maiming innocent civilans including women & children?

[GK]

John Bull,

Your rationale then, is that any withdrawal, unless it's to concentrated bases that help to prop up the Iraqi government, is tantamount to defeat?

Reid and Pelosi are certainly trying to create an assumption that withdrawal is in defeat, not victory. Do you deny this? Show me when they have ever said that they want to WIN the war. They have not, as that would give credit to Bush.

taking the spectacular seizure of both houses

I would hardly call a Senate with 49 Democrats a 'spectacular seizure'. The Dems could not even retain Joe Lieberman, their own VP nominee merely 6 years prior, simply due to Lieberman still thinking that the Iraq War was a good decision.

surely no US neighborhood is so rough that chlorine truck bombs (amongst other things) have been killing & maiming innocent civilans including women & children?

What percentage of Iraq's population has been killed by Chlorine truck bombs? By that token, how many Universities in the Kurdish region have had a VTech-type massacre? Anecdotal examples indicate an absence of statistical strength behind the point you seek to make.

The overall murder rate in Iraq (a country where 80% of the provinces are peaceful), is less than the murder rate in the worst US neighborhoods. I challenge you to prove this wrong in an honest apples-to-apples statistical comparison.

But it is interesting that you cite the Chlorine bomb example. This reveals that :

a) You concede that chemical warfare is being done by Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
b) You agree that terrorists are killing Iraqi civilians, which leads us to conclude that the presence of US troops is a plus for Iraqi security.
c) Therefore, withdrawal of US troops will cause the danger to Iraqi civilians to increase.

So why do Democrats want withdrawal from Iraq? Particularly if Germany and Japan (62 years), S. Korea (53 years), and Bosnia (10 years) are not candidates for withdrawal?

Because they want the US to lose, even if thousands of Iraqis are massacred by terrorists as a result.

[SanFranciscoJim]

Update : In the comments section, some have taken extreme offense to the suggestion that 75% of the data from Iraq is trending well, and just 25% is trending badly. Then again, these same people are opposed to the War in Afghanistan after 9/11, so it is safe to say they are strongly anti-American (even though they are ashamed to admit it). We will see these fifth-columnists become increasingly shrill and fanatical as Iraq progresses further,

Wait? Where is this success you promised us? Why should anyone pay any attention to anything you have said, when your predictions have been wrong again and again and again?

[GK]

SFJim,

er... what exactly have I predicted that has been wrong 'again and again'? It is not 2008 yet, you know.

Being honest about criticism can be useful.

So, why don't you answer the question you have copied? What percentage of the datapoints in Iraq are trending well, and what are trending badly?

A very simple question. You need to demonstrate that you are actually knowledgeable on the subject of the WoT.

[NoeValleyJim]

The overwhelming majority of important data points are trending downward: civilian casualties, the supply of clean water, electricity and sewage treatment, the support of the Iraq people for the Iraq government and the support of the Iraq people for the co-alition forces.

Currenty 66% of Iraqis say that conditions in Iraq are either "quite bad" or "very bad." Who are you, sitting behind your keyboard thousands of miles away, to claim to be in a better position to say?

[NoeValleyJim]

The overall murder rate in Iraq (a country where 80% of the provinces are peaceful), is less than the murder rate in the worst US neighborhoods. I challenge you to prove this wrong in an honest apples-to-apples statistical comparison.

The figures for Baghdad are 1800 civilian deaths a month, according to the Baghdad government. That works out to 22k a year, in a population of 9M, that is .25%.

In Oakland, California, there were 148 murders last year in a city of 415,000 people for a murder rate of .03%, which is about 1/10th that of Baghdad.

[GK]

SFJim,

The overwhelming majority of important data points are trending downward

Again, I asked for a specific percentage. Why can't you provide that?

You are ignoring the increase in GDP, phone ownership, school enrollment, and, most importantly, the number of provinces turned over to Iraqi control.

civilian casualties

Wrong. Last month was lower in terms of civilian deaths than any of the 5 prior months. You cannot claim a trend in either direction, at the moment.

Why are you being dishonestly selective in taking Baghdad's murder rate? Take Iraq as a whole, which is what I am taking.

Currenty 66% of Iraqis say that conditions in Iraq are either "quite bad" or "very bad."

And the majority still say they think the future will be bright in 6 months. Read the Brookings report. Who are you to choose which aspects of a survey to cherrypick to suit your political goals, sitting in front of a keyboard so far away?

Plus, you continue to dodge my questions :

1) You have not elaborated on what you claim I have 'been wrong about again and again'. This is probably because you have nothing. Name a specific prediction, for a specified date, that has been wrong.

Furthermore, you have not commented on the original point of the article. Biden and Hagel knew, in 2002, about where we would be for the 2003-13 period. The events of today are thus not a total surprise to them. Are they being phony today, or not?

[SanFranciscoJim]

Tell me exactly how many data points you found in the Brooking's Institute report and which specific ones you think are trending upward and which are trending downward and I will consider having a discussion with you on it. There are at least dozens and I do not believe that you actually sat down and measured them all.

Phone ownership is nice, but hardly of equal significance to civilian casualties.

It really takes a person bordering on delusional to look at the series of figures:

257
301
572
469
518
1524
640
463
592
344
590
688
901
808
969
738
1063
2733
3389
1315
1741
1629
1711
2864
2762
1521

and see a downward trend. Do I really need to graph this or do a least squares analysis to make my point?

It is actually quite amusing that you think that a comparison of the most violent neighborhoods in America to the entire nation of Iraq would be an apples to apples comparison, but comparing nation to nation, or city to city, or neighborhood to neighborhood is not.

And you accuse me of "cherry picking"!

[SanFranciscoJim]

As to a specific prediction of yours being wrong:

We will see these fifth-columnists become increasingly shrill and fanatical as Iraq progresses further,

As the anti-war position increasingly becomes the mainstream position, the proponents of it have become calmer and more reasonable, while the Coulterites have become more and more shrill and extreme.

[GK]

SFJim,

You still have not answered my two simple questions. As a result, I will add two more to the first two.

1. What percentage of the data is trending badly, and what is trending well?

It is really quite simple. You understand percentages, don't you?

I myself have said a number of times that I think 75% is trending well, while 25% is trending badly. What is your assessment?

but comparing nation to nation, or city to city, or neighborhood to neighborhood is not.

Nonetheless, my point is proven, that Iraq as a country is safer than the worst US districts (where Democrats are always in power). Your deliberate avoidance of the fact that 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are quite stable, and that violence is only in 3 of the 18, exposes your desire to suppress all positive news.

...and see a downward trend.

Don't lie. I did not say there is a downward trend, I clearly said that neither an upward or downward trend is visible. If you have to lie about what I clearly said in the previous message, that shows your intellectual bankruptcy, and also reveals that you are actually not rooting for America.

This brings me to question two that you have to answer :

2. Do you want America to win in Iraq?

I am asking about your desired, wished for outcome. So answer.

As the anti-war position increasingly becomes the mainstream position,

So are they also opposed to the action in Afghanistan? Are you?

So everyone who supports the WoT is a 'Coulterite' now? Are Joe Lieberman, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Christopher Hitchens 'Coulterites', as per you? And you think you are in the majority... heh heh.

When is the last time any anti-war leftist ever gotten 50% of the popular vote in a Presidential election? 1972, 1984, 2004 - go do your homework. In fact, one has to go back to 1964 to see the last time any Democrat has gotten 51% of the popular vote. The GOP has, meanwhile, gotten that much or more in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004.

This leads us to question 3.

3. If you think the WoT is not going well, what are your ideas for winning it? Surely someone who actually wants America to win, but disapproves of the current situation, will have ideas about how we can win.

Most of the other memorized talking points of your crowd are shattered here.

Fourth question (which you have dodged from 3 times already) :

4. You have not elaborated on what you claim I have 'been wrong about again and again'. This is probably because you have nothing. Name a specific prediction, for a specified date, that has been wrong.

Back up your accusation, or admit that it was the usual left-wing emotional tantrum detached from any demonstrable facts.

[SanFranciscoJim]

Sorry, there is no point in trying to have a discussion with someone who is either A) incapable of understanding the English language or B) deliberately lying to score imaginary points.

Enjoy your unexamined life of delusion.

[GK]

SFJim,

You did not answer my simple questions, because you know they disprove your points.

deliberately lying to score imaginary points.

How is asking questions (which you lack the courage and intellect to answer), and asking you to provide better ideas, lying?

On the contrary, you never even cited an example of a prediction in which I was wrong, despite claiming this. It seems that you have lied.

You have been comprehensively crushed in this debate, and you know it.

Remarkably, in your whole set of screeds, I see no hint of any disapproval for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, which would quickly institute laws to execute homosexuals (a capital offense in their ideology). It is amazing that, being from San Francisco, this threat to your own life is not even something you think about.

Readers, take note of another example of how questions about principles and morals cause such individuals to flee a debate, rather than back up their memorized talking points.