Matt Taibbi's article today gives voice to this feeling.
This supposedly grass-roots "anti-war coalition" met regularly on K Street, the very capital of top-down Beltway politics. At the forefront of the groups are Thomas Matzzie and Brad Woodhouse of Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq, the leader of the anti-war lobby. Along with other K Street crusaders, the two have received iconic treatment from The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of which depicted the anti-war warriors as young idealist-progressives in shirtsleeves, riding a mirthful spirit into political combat — changing the world is fun!
But what exactly are these young idealists campaigning for? At its most recent meeting, the group eerily echoed the Reid-Pelosi "squeezed for time" mantra: Retreat from any attempt to end the war and focus on electing Democrats. "There was a lot of agreement that we can draw distinctions between anti-war Democrats and pro-war Republicans," a spokeswoman for Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq announced.
...One thing he didn't really address is how compatible the goals of policy accomplishments and electoral victories are. There's definitely an argument to be made there. There just aren't enough votes to do anything significant now. The people in the article are mad that they didn't make more political hay.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a fellow caucus member, says Democrats should have refused from the beginning to approve any funding that wasn't tied to a withdrawal. "If we'd been bold the minute we got control of the House — and that's why we got the majority, because the people of this country wanted us out of Iraq — if we'd been bold, even if we lost the votes, we would have gained our voice."
But do the Democrats need that? Seems like there's lots of enthusiasm for Democrats in the primary.
And there's this:
"Can you imagine Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert taking no for an answer the way Reid and Pelosi did on Iraq?" asks the House aide in the expletive-filled office. "They'd find a way to get the votes. They'd get it done somehow."
How? I guess, maybe. But they couldn't get the votes for a lot of things. Think Social Security.
I don't know how you'd do this. Actually ending the war responsibly- i.e. not just pulling the plug on it- would take more power. The Democratic coalition is on board for ending the war (though maybe not everybody agrees exactly how to do that). The overwhelming challenge is to put more Democrats in power. And then they need to be pressured to end the war whose goals will never be achieved and is costing more blood and money than is conscionable. This interview with George Packer is worth a read. He's a former war supporter "liberal hawk" who supporteed it on humanitarian grounds.
What do you think has to happen to stop the downward spiral in Iraq and what do you think will happen? I don’t think there’s much we can do to stop it. The things that have arrested it are mainly Iraqi things, like the so-called Sunni awakening with Sunni groups forming a tactical alliance with the U.S. against Al-Qaeda. That’s a factor. The Muqtada al-Sadr organization has stopped its violent activities for the past six months or so. These, together with a better strategy on the part of Petraeus are the reasons, but the forces of disintegration are so large now that certainly the 30,000 American troops used in the surge can’t stop it.
Though technically in this interview he doesn't support a timetable or withdrawal date. Weird. Maybe one way to channel this frustration is to get politicians to all take concrete stands. Like "I want to end the war, and I think it should be done by doing XYZ."
Also in case anyone actually reads this thing, i heavily edited the original version of this post, which I thought wasn't appropriate.
No comments:
Post a Comment