Jonathan Freedland (Guardian Unltd): No time for war opponents to be smug

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Wednesday October 29

No time to be smug
The anti-war camp has been proved right on every point. Now we need a fast-track plan for a peaceful pullout
By Jonathan Freedland

It's easy to be smug. It's easy to see every new attack against the US or its allies in Iraq, including yesterday's bomb in Fallujah, as a tragedy, yes, but also a cruel vindication of the warning the anti-war camp gave again and again - but which would not be heard. It's tempting, as we watch the American (and British) effort in Iraq sinking into the bog, to clamber to the rooftops and shout with a full throat: "We told you so!"
Heaven knows events in "postwar" Iraq have given those of us who opposed the adventure every reason to feel self-satisfied. The anti-war camp has been proved right in almost every particular . . . .
We . . . cannot be blamed for wanting to wallow in self-righteousness. As Michael Moore might bellow: "We were right and they were wrong." That is true, but we cannot leave it there. We have to do better than that. We have to move on.
For what is going on now, the daily killing of foreign troops, the bombs hurled at aid agencies and the unending hardship of Iraqis, means more than settling an argument millions of citizens had with George Bush and Tony Blair. All the issues that were at stake then - what is right for Iraqis, the Middle East and the world? - are at stake again now. If you cared about the war, you have to care about the peace - or lack of it.

Read more.

[grytpype]

1. I don't agree.

I don't agree that the anti-war people are obliged to come up with a solution to the Iraq crisis.

We already gave Bush the best possible advice: don't invade Iraq. That advice was ignored. And now we have to come up with a plan to solve the problem we urged Bush to avoid? I don't think so.

I think whatever happens in Iraq is 100% the responsibility of Bush and the war party. Even if we have to pull out early and leave Iraq in chaos, that's still Bush's doing and it will be on his head.

[candy331]

2. They will not

listen to anyone but themselves. It's sad that people have to die for their stupidity but as someone mentioned they have to "reap what they sowed" and some of that reaping unfortunately will affect this whole nation.

[1songbird]

3. We don't have to find a solution

for these arrogant idiots. Many scholars tried in vein to warn this
administration about the aftermath that would result in Iraq after invading the country. They called these scholars overly pessimistic and unpatriotic! The * administration has the blood of our soldiers on their hands. They were the ones that sent them to war without adequate equipment. They now have the audacity to demand 87 billion dollars after the fact. Once again they have branded those that don't go along with their program as not supporting the troops. Well who the hell sent them to war in the first place with "jacked up" kevlar vest, THE * ADMINISTRATION! We should just keep demanding that our troops are sent home....

[Jack Rabbit]

4. To those who say we don't have to find a solution . . .

If not us, then who? We certainly aren't going to depend on the junta to do it, are we? They already screwed things up beyond all recognition. They have no answers. And if they said they've got an idea, would you believe them? After as many lies as they've told?

No, I agree with Freedland. We need to assume the responsibility to find a solution. It is our desire to push Bush aside because he does not know how to govern. That means we have to show that we do.

[Capt_Nemo]

7. Unfortunately, my friend, there may be no solution to this problem, but

to let things play out.

Like with environmental disasters the damage was done and now we
have to stop interfering and let the system relax to a new state
of equilibrium.

It maybe terrible but if you try to fix it now you may end with
an even worse outcome.

[maha]

14. It's moot ...

The Bushies are determined to maintain control and do things their way; therefore, nothing can save them. God herself could show up tomorrow with a fool-proof plan to get out of Iraq in six months, and you know the Bushies would reject it if it means they have to relinquish power.

So there really isn't any alternative to standing by and waiting events out until there's a change of power in Washingotn.

[belle]

16. Gee, I have a solution.

It may not solve the Iraq mess, but it at least will minimize the chances of embroiling ourselves in even more and deeper messes (rule #1 of holes: when you're in one, stop digging).

ready?

KICK BUSH AND HIS ENTIRE SHIP OF FOOLS OUT OF OFFICE. AND BLAIR, TOO.

The focus group has spoken.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Everybody at DU agrees

That's step one.

[maha]

11. We may not have to agree on a solution ...

But I'm already seeing people on DU who demand that we adhere to THEIR solution, which is immediate withdrawal.

A lot of us who were opposed to the invasion to begin with are opposed to immediately withdrawal that would leave chaos and a power vacuum. The problems caused will have to be dealt with by the next Democratic president, and by us, and we shouldn't just blow that off as being irrelevent.

This is not just about kicking Bush, but about taking care of America. Reasonable people with moderate, multi-phased exit proposals should not be blasted as being dupes of the Bushes or supporters of the occupation.

I think it's OK if those of us fighting to get Bush out of office don't agree all the time, particulrly on the difficult question of how to get out of Iraq. But that means that we need to respect a diversity of opinion within our own ranks and not demand we all be on the same page regarding an exit strategy.

And yeah, sometimes I'm hard on people who want immediate withdrawal from Iraq with no thought to the consequences. I will try to behave.

In regard to the candidates -- with the possible exceptions of Lieberman and Gephardt -- ALL of the candidates propose getting the U.S. out of Iraq, and all but maybe L and G (I'm not sure where they are) are opposed to a prolonged occupation. They're all talking about turning the mess over to multinational forces for a transitional period and restoring sovereignty to Iraqis as quickly as practicable. Some think this can be done in a year or less, and other think it will take two or three years. But I'm not hearing opinions expressed by the candidates outside that general framework. If we can all respect that, no problem.

[Resistance Is Futile]

5. Absolutely not

The pro-war zealots broke Iraq. Now they've bought it. Those of us who knew better are under no obligation to bail them out from a mess of their own making. Our only obligation is to sit on our hands until the Iraq disaster has grown to the point that the pro-war zealots have been utterly and completely discredited.

Bailing the zealots out will only encourage them to invade another country. This cannot be allowed to happen regardless of how many dead must come home from Iraq to prevent it.

[maha]

12. I agree nothing will happen until the Bushies are gone.

As long as Bush is in the White House the neocons will want prolonged occupation and business opportunities for profiteers. The Bushies are not going to change their basic strategy. They may make noises about change, but you know they aren't going to do it. Nothing CAN be done to bail out the zealots as long as the zealots are in charge. The real debate is about what will be done about Iraq after the zealots are gone.

[Capt_Nemo]

6. Sorry Johnatan but now there is a choice you have to make

Either you are with the war criminals of New Labour or you are
on the side of legality and justice.

You want us to "move on", I say "Never Forget!"

I don't care who the hell makes up the Iraqi resistance for
that argument could be used to justify the Nazi campaigns in Stalin's
USSR. That argument is pure bullshit.

The warmongers have made clear that they will resort to any means
we have no option but to do the same. The Iraqi resistance is
fighting aggression. I realy couldn't care less who they are or what
means they use, for the US didn't care at all to destroy the country
in an unwarranted, illegal war.

Oh, by the way, take your wishy-washy pandering to New Labour and
shove it where the Sun doesn't shine.

[T_i_B]

8. You don't have to be that hostile

you see, the "new" labour position on this matter is simply following the PNAC, which Freedland is not doing in the slightest. I have yet to see Tony or his cronies make the case for a UN takeover since we invaded. This article is not pandering to the Blairites in the slightest.

"Move on" does not mean "forget it". It means showing the madmen in authority how to learn from their mistakes and pointing out how best we can build a better Iraq. Plus IMHO there are electoral benefits to be had in having some proper ideas on how stop the Iraqi quagmire from worsening. Not to mention the benefits for the Iraqi people of a genuinly altruistic reconstruction policy designed to improve the quality of Iraqi life. That sort of progressive policy is not what the likes of Bush & Blair want.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Well said, TiB

Mr. Freedland is challenging us (and he is one of us) to come up with the ideas to transition Iraq to an Iraqi regime. Leave that to the Bushies and it will never happen.

The madmen aren't going to fix it. We may throw them in prison and confiscate their fortunes to help finance any real solution, but they will not be part of the solution. Given their track record, we wouldn't want them to be. One does not ask Willie Sutton, after he has robbed the bank, to put the money back and guard the vault.

[Skittles]

10. I DON'T KNOW ANY OF US WHO ARE BEHAVING "SMUG"

I see OUTRAGE.

[T_i_B]

13. Very true

When Saddam fell a lot of chickenhawks on the press were writing snotty articles along the lines of "how can we ever take the left seriously again?" when in fact it is their own arguments that have been proved spectacularly wrong. Yet despite this we on the left have by and large refused to gloat. Mind you, Freedland does set out the case for gloating very well in his article, but that's by the by. It's not his point.

Instead we have outrage, outrage because things are worse than before and we always knew that is how it would turn out. It would actually have been quite nice to have been proved wrong and to be able to behold a peaceful, democratic Iraq IMHO. In my opinion when making a pessemistic prediction you should always hope to be proved wrong.

However, since we have not been proved wrong on Iraq it is time for us to point people in the direction of getting things right in Iraq. The chickenhawks have been shown to be incapable of this. Therefore it is up to us to guide the way as much as is possible.

[DemoVet]

15. One lesson we can learn from the Bushies in this

is that you can win the war and lose the peace. I agree with the author, our "victory" will only be validated if we are able to develop sound positions on how to proceed from here in reconstructing Iraq. Whether you were for or against the invasion, we as a nation are now responsible for the welfare of it's people. I'd like to see the Democratic candidates begin to move past just bashing Bush (although a certain amount of that is still needed) and begin to articulate policies and plans for helping the Iraqi people recover from the damage this country has done to them. I think the idea of a UN mandate is a good one, providing that it is admininstered mainly by civilians and troops from Middle Eastern countries, although the US and Britian should foot most of the bill.

[bpilgrim]

18. i say hold the neoCONs to their PROMISE and set up a TRUE DEMOCRACY

with a constitution that lays the power in the hands of the people.

put the UN in charge politically and the americans if they want in charge of the security.

that is what i would recommend for starters...

but i am sure the neoCONs wouldn't buy it so then i would prescribe more patience and allow the us to learn through practicle experiance anything else would be too dangerous either by enabling the neoCONs and therfore butting more contries at risk or by pissing them off even more and risking a dirrect assult.

got my fingers crossed that they surrender political authority to the un asap

peace

[Jack Rabbit]

19. . . . and then what?

You know as well as I do they'll fail. You know as well as I do that democracy is the last thing they really want in Iraq. If Iraq were a democracy, I'm not sure which the Iraqis would through out faster: US troops or Halliburton.

So let's skip that. Let's assume we've thrown Bush and the other crooks out -- and sent them off to The Hague in chains for good measure.

We still have our troops in Iraq. Iraq still needs reconstructed. How do we leave without allowing the country to descend into civil war? How do we pay for rebuilding Iraq? You may call it grants or war reparations, as you choose, but we need somebody there to whom we can turn over the money and know it will be spent as it should. That eliminates Chalibi, for what that matters. How do we go about helping the Iraqi people choose a new government that is responsible to them?

[Lexingtonian]

20. No problemo.

Step 1: Bush's entire administration, the Republicans in Congress, Blair, Aznar, and Berlusconi all resign effective immediately.

Step 2: The U.N. takes over nominal sovereignty and in a few months the military aspect of Iraq.

Etc.