Hawking Harold's Heady Harticle

Harold Meyerson--just about the only real progressive left on The Washington Post's columnist roster--has just written one of the smartest columns I've read about Iraq since the invasion. It makes so much sense, in fact, that it's hard to imagine how he pulled it off in 800 words. SO MUCH SENSE, that, if I was asked to look into the future, based upon what tends to happens to accurate, thoughtful liberal columnists at papers like The Washington Post, I would probably say that Harold stands a good chance of losing his job if he keeps this up. Matt already flagged one important part of the piece, but I want to touch on two others. First, and in reverse order:

Many of my antiwar friends were furious at Democratic congressional leaders last week for their failure to attach withdrawal deadlines to or cut funding from our occupation of Iraq -- a failure chiefly attributable to the simple fact that the votes weren't there for either option. What they should recall, however, is that the much more heavily Democratic Congress that hastened the end of the Vietnam War during Richard Nixon's presidency did so by passing a series of incremental measures, each of which constrained Nixon's warmaking powers a bit more than the last. In succession, Congress banned the use of funds for military actions in Laos and Thailand, then (after Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia) banned the use of ground forces in Cambodia. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, one of the Democrats' foremost doves, three times introduced an amendment that would have ended U.S. involvement in Vietnam within nine months of enactment, but it never passed.

This is exactly right. One thing that's surprised me about this Democratic Congress is not the fecklessness with which it has thusfar operated, but the amount of headway they've been able to make on the more entrenched Bush policies that I seriously doubted would ever be reversed. This is not to sound obvious (newsflash: liberal prefers Democrats!)--some things could have probably been done better, faster, or both. But to say that the Democrats haven't done enough to end the Iraq war is really to say that Congress itself is devised--in my view foolishly--to hinder itself from doing big, smart things quickly. It is a lumbering behemoth arm of the government and not the nimble body that it ought to be. This is not about Reid's or Pelosi's determination. If he had been named House Speaker, Dennis Kucinich would have been unable to do more.

Next:

Every day, George W. Bush asks young Americans to die in defense of an Iraq that has ceased to exist (if it ever did) in the hearts and minds of Iraqis. What Iraqis believe in are sectarian or tribal Iraqs -- a Shiite Iraq, a Sunni Iraq, an autonomous Kurdish Iraqi state, an Iraq where Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani or Moqtada al-Sadr or some other chieftain holds sway.

These are the Iraqs for which Iraqis are willing to kill and die.

Whatever their merits and their shortcomings, they are at least rooted in reality. These Iraqs have adherents and territory. The Iraq for which Bush compels Americans to fight has neither.

I've stopped believing, at this point, that the administration doesn't understand what's happening in Iraq--that, say, the Pentagon is staffed by people who are fueled and guided by a sense that there are some impulses in societies that are universal--that yearning for this fairly recently conceived mode of government is, in fact, an almost genetic tendency.

But there was a time, I think, when this was at least partially true, and when the same instinct ensnared a great number of Americans. Captive to that illusion, nobody stopped to ask what sort of Iraq Iraqis were voting and fighting for and whether there was one answer--simple and reassuring--to that question. And because that question was never asked, the idea that we're fighting for something that doesn't actually exist still has a lot of purchase.

Comments

[PBI]

Brian,

I agree with you that, overall, this is a very smart and incisive piece from Harold Myerson. However, while I would love to be able to attribute the incrementalist approach he cites to today's Congrssional Democrats, there is an important piece missing.

While in the Vietnam Era, there were indeed successive, incremental moves that ultimately served to extract the U.S. from that conflict, what was missing from the most recent supplemental spending bill for Iraq was any sort of progress on restraining the Iraq War, incremental or otherwise. Certainly, there was some loose talk about "benchmarks," but even those are advisory only - there is no penalty if they aren't met.

I have been generally impressed by Nancy Pelosi (less so by Harry Reid), but with the utter capitulation of the Democrats to President Bush with the last supplemental, I think Myserson gives them far too much credit for doing anything to advance the end of the war.

[Dadler]

Myerson is beyond naive if he doesn't understand the difference between the American public now and during Vietnam. There was a draft during Vietnam, which was what powered the anti-war movement -- the reality that everyone was potential meat for the war grinder. It's not like that today and, as a result, Americans are separated from this war as none before. The Democrats are acting as if a few hundred or thousand more deaths don't mean anything as long as they play nice. Defunding required no majority, only spine from the leaeders, and they had none. My congressperson, California Dem. Susan Davis wrote back to me yesterday in response to my letter expressing my disgust for supporting this bill and capitulating to Bush. Her letter was B.S., marked by comments that sounded right from the Republican fear machine, and then she included this line that says it all:

"I would not have voted for this measure if I thought it meant the war would end soon."

If Myerson thinks this is the mindset leading to a quick end to this war, or an end in the next decade, he is out of his mind.

We are going to occupy that country indefinitely to secure oil. Myerson seems completely ignorant of this. Does he not understand the REAL reason Iraq was invaded.

[CL Tamaz]

What about Froomkin? He daily pillories all things Bush, in exhaustive and extensive detail. If he's something other than a progressive I want to know party it is, because I'll be in line signing up.

But, your post was dead-on!

[ML]

With friends like these, who needs enemies?!

Meyerson dances for the DLC as proclaims Pelosi and Reid to be the best anti-war leaders possible.

The Dems continue to fall for the line that they'll be portrayed as weak on defense. If you can't win when 70% of the public is behind you, when can you win? How much of the public has to oppose the war before the Dems will stick their necks on the line?? 80%?? 90%??

As long as Meyerson supports antiwar Democrats who don't actually stop the war, I don't think he'll have any problem keeping his job at the Post.

[Batocchio]

Speaking of Froomkin and Meyerson, I read Meyerson's good column courtesy of Froomkin's link yesterday.

Meyerson's right on about the situation in Iraq, which the Bushies refuse to discuss honestly.

He's on shakier ground talking about the Dems in Congress. I think he's right that all is not lost, but still, their bill was a disappointment. Of course the Dems aren't as bad as the Republicans, and I understand the feeling, but I get really sick of hearing those sort of false equivalencies. The Dems do need more pressure to get it in gear, though. We can't afford to wait four years for this occupation to end.

[Brian]

PBI:

I think we agree. I think Harold's point, however, is more about keeping in mind the limitations inherent in the something as hulking as the legislature and less an apologia for the actual steps Pelosi and Reid have taken. Maybe a little more could be done at the margins, but in the end they're at the helm of a battleship when the waters require a motorboat.

[Charlotte]

I don't think we know enough to know what Iraqis want. Those who are not willing to slaughter one another are not being heard right now. While I advocate that we pull out asap, this is because our staying is not helping. But Meyerson's "analysis" allows us to assuage our guilt -- leave them to their just if violent ends. The even worse tragedy is that the many (perhaps majority) of Iraqis who do want a non-sectarian, secular, pluralistic society will be even more hopelessly put at the mercy of Iraq's version of the wingnuts. This will be our lasting legacy, our eternal shame. Perhaps the Democratic so-called leadership knows this too and just can't face it. I have a lot of trouble doing so myself.