Is Howard Dean really an elitist hawk,

[Alex88]

just wearing a different shaded suit?

"It's true that he opposed the war in Iraq, he says, but he supported the 1991 Gulf War and the Bush campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. More interesting, at a time when many politicians are shuddering at President Bush's ambitions to remake the Middle East -- conservatives, because they are skeptical of such grand reshaping ambitions; liberals, because they see resources being diverted from social causes at home -- Dean sounds if anything more committed than Condoleezza Rice to bringing democracy to Iraq.

"Now that we're there, we're stuck," he said. Bush took an "enormous risk" that through war the United States could replace Saddam Hussein and the "small danger" he presented to the United States with something better and safer. The gamble was "foolish" and "wrong." But whoever will be elected in 2004 has to live with it. "We have no choice. It's a matter of national security. If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States."

And "bringing democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition. Having elections alone doesn't guarantee democracy. You've got to have institutions and the rule of law, and in a country that hasn't had that in 3,000 years, it's unlikely to suddenly develop by having elections and getting the heck out." Dean would impose a "hybrid" constitution, "American with Iraqi, Arab characteristics. Iraqis have to play a major role in drafting this, but the Americans have to have the final say.""

"Dean is almost as sweeping about Afghanistan, where "losing the peace is not an option" and "pulling out early would be a disaster." Five times the current level of troops are needed, he said. "Imagine making deals with warlords to promote democracy. What are these people thinking?""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40299-2003Aug24.html

[FlashHarry]

1. I totally agree with Dean.

We cannot pull out of Afghanistan now. Remember what happened after the Soviets left? Also, the 'war' on the Taliban was justified, since they harbored Al Qaeda. However, the 'war' on Iraq was totally unjustified, as there was no connection between Hussein and 9/11, and he posed no imminent threat to the US. The original Gulf war was justifiable, because a US ally was attacked. This was nowhere near the case in 2003.

In short, Dean's got it right.

On edit: We can't leave Iraq now, either. If we do, the power vacuum will almost certainly be filled by an oppressive fundamentalist regime that could actually pose a serious threat to the stability of the region (even more than the Bremer regime poses now). These guys have a history of starting things only to let them fizzle out (see Afghanistan, or any of Shrub's campaign promises). We must not let that happen with Iraq. I opposed the war. But, now that we're there, we must help the country get back on its feet any way we can. We owe them at least that much.

See here:

[Alex88]

4. The father of Islamic fundamentalist regimes is the US

"We can't leave Iraq now, either. If we do, the power vacuum will almost certainly be filled by an oppressive fundamentalist regime that could actually pose a serious threat to the stability of the region (even more than the Bremer regime poses now)."

It was the US toppling of the democratically elected leader of Iran 50 years ago and subsequent 26 years of support of the repression regime of the Shah there that created their "oppressive fundamentalist regime".

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1022066,00.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan08192003.html

[Alex88]

13. All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup And The Roots of Middle East Terror

This is an Amy Goodman interview of Steven Kinzer, the author of
"All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup And The Roots of Middle East Terror".

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/25/1534210

[DrFunkenstein]

14. Do You Remember Why The Soviets Left?

Afghanistan was a tombstone for the Soviets. The same people we trained to fight asymmetrical warfare there have shared their knowledge and surely are helping to ensure that Iraq becomes our tombstone.

This is not to disagree with your position - I think a failure in Iraq would be an enormous setback in the war on terrorism - but that we must be aware of the forces we are up against.

I'll leave you with a question. You say that Dean has a good plan for the future. Is there any part of Kerry's plan for the future that you disagree with?

[wtmusic]

2. I guess Dean is a hawk

if you consider needing to respond to 9/11 and needing to stop Hussein's invasion of a sovereign country.

Let's get it straight--GW1 and Afghanistan are one thing, Iraq is another. Why? Because the first were legal the other wasn't. Big difference.

[Darranar]

3. Uh...

how is invading a country, destroying its infrastructure, and killing several hundred innocent civilians justified? The war in Afghanistan could have been conducted for national security, by going in there with Special Forces with air support and knocking out terrorist training camps. It wasn't conducted for national security; it was conducted for national imperisalism.

[Sinistrous]

5. I must quibble about supporting the invasion of Afganistan

BTW, I am leaning Dean at this point.

The invasion of Afganistan was as major a war crime as the invasion of Iraq, and, it was carried out for the same reason: oil. Remember the pipelune to the Uzbeck (sp?) oil fields?

However, Gov. Dean knows that (a) nobody remembers the pipeline , and (b) too many potential voters think the Afgans had something to do with 9/11, so opposition to that war is not politically adroit.

[Rose Siding]

6. People are SO anxious to slap a label onto Dean

Today's NYT's piece says the attendees at rallies are "Birkenstock liberals".

The Seattle Weekly's got Wiener writing, "He's the exemplar of the radical middle..." WHAT is the radical middle?

Dean's a three dimensional, common sense, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, unashamed Democrat. What's so hard?

He wants to internationalize the effort in Iraq, repairing Bush's folly as best we can, without maintaining any empty arrogance. Honoring the interests of others, at this point, will ultimately best honor our own. This makes sense to me.

It's almost as though the only Dem candidate that will be good enough, is the one that doesn't say any more about what they think than does George Bush.

[dsc]

7. Whom are you supporting?

OF the nine candidates running at least seven supported the war in Afghanistan. Every candidate who is in Congress now (including Kucinich) voted for it. So unless you are a Sharpton or CMB supporter (and I don't know her position to be honest) you have no business criticising Dean and only Dean on this issue.

[Alex88]

8. Does American military dominance promote democracy or piece?

Invading Afghanistan had broad support and is one thing. How does putting in "Five times the current level of troops" to not "lose the piece", "promote democracy"?

Its the "bringing democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition" comment, which means he supports a long occupation in Iraq belief and "Americans have to have the final say" comment that are counter to the sentiments of many progressives and opponents of the Iraq war.

As I point out in reply#4, US repression in the middle east creates extremism, not the other way around.

I'm undecided which candidate I prefer.

[dsc]

10. you conviently left out

that he wants UN troops not US ones. And I agree with him that we need to have final say. We will have another Iran if we don't. BTW your original post made no distiction with regards to invading Afghanistan and my point still stands.

[Alex88]

12. The US created Iran

,check reply #4, and never accepted responsibiliy for what it did there and tried to normalize relations and trade.

"BTW your original post made no distiction with regards to invading Afghanistan and my point still stands."

The original post said nothing about the decision to invade Afghanistan. No distiction was necessary

[Thomas Jefferson]

9. In a word

Yes

[Larkspur]

11. No, he's a pragmatist, a la Harry Truman

When the Soviets blockaded West Berlin, US generals wanted to go to war against the Soviets, but Truman said no and the Berlin Airlift was created and it broke the Soviet blockade.

Like, Truman, Dean will use the military when he has to but as a last resort, and Dean would follow through on rebuilding a failed nation, like Afghanistan, into a modern state.

Bush uses war as a primary response and the way the Bush Admin uses war is the equivalent of a corporate hostile takeover. Look at how the Bush Admin treated Iraq and compare it to how a giant corporation commits a hostile takeover of another corporation -- undermine the opponent's marketability, take the resources, purge the company of workers so as to have more capital for the greedy execs, and run the new taken over company into the ground.

[Alex88]

15. Pragmatic hawk, elitist hawk, both are dangerous

Harry Truman dropped atomic bombs on two cities of a defenseless devastated Japan, against the advice of all his top advisors, killing at least 200,000 people. It was also in the backyard of the Soviet Union who was then occupying all of eastern europe. The bombings sent the Soviets a message and started a fifty plus year long cold war, and their troops remained in eastern europe for that long.

Truman also got the US in a "police action" in Korea and became so unpopular that he didn't even try get re-elected.

[Thomas Jefferson]

16. Truman was an honest man.

The comparison had to be a joke.