CNN's Ware asserted that Democrats' call for Iraq deadline is "aiding the enemies ... of America"
On the March 8 edition of CNN's Your World Today, Michael Ware, a correspondent based in CNN's Baghdad bureau, asserted that "anyone trying to put artificial deadlines upon this conflict is only aiding the enemies, so-called, of America, Al Qaeda and Iran. ... [I]n terms of the broader strategic framework, it serves only America's enemies." Ware also said that "what the Democrats are saying about timetables may as well be happening on the planet Pluto for all that it counts to the bloodshed and the endless combat" in Iraq. Anchor Jim Clancy responded: "Michael Ware, calling it like it is, laying it on the line."
Ware was responding to a clip of Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) saying, "It is time to spend the money to keep [the troops] safe and bring them home." Schakowsky made her comments at a press conference in support of the Lee Amendment, which would require the "[f]unds appropriated" in a future supplemental spending bill to be spent on "the continued protection of members of the Armed Forces who are in Iraq participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Department of Defense contractor personnel who are in Iraq" and "the safe and complete withdrawal from Iraq of all members of the Armed Forces and contractor personnel ... not later than December 31, 2007."
From the March 8 edition of CNN's Your World Today:
CLANCY: All right. Back on Capitol Hill, another battle is being fought over the future of U.S. troops in Iraq. And Michael, I want you just to hear -- this comes from an Illinois Democrat, a lawmaker up on Capitol Hill today, [Rep.] Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]. Listen to this.
[begin video clip]
SCHAKOWSKY: Four and a half years ago, the president asked Congress to give war a chance. And despite our objections, he got that chance and he blew it. No more chances, no more waivers, no phony certifications, no more spending billions of dollars to send our children into the meat grinder that is Iraq. It is time to spend the money to keep them safe and bring them home.
[end video clip]
CLANCY: All right. Strong words there from that Democratic lawmaker. At the same time, the Democrats are pressing for a deadline, be it at the end of nine -- 2007 or 2008, to bring all U.S. troops home. How is that going to affect General [David H.] Petraeus, the Iraqi government, and the Iraqis themselves?
WARE: Well, Jim, certainly in terms of the Iraqis and the war that's being fought in the streets and the deserts of this country, I mean, what's happening over there, what the Democrats are saying about timetables may as well be happening on the planet Pluto for all that it counts to the bloodshed and endless combat that we're seeing day-in, day-out. All that it does -- anyone setting timeframes like that without real preconditions, anyone trying to put artificial deadlines upon this conflict is only aiding the enemies, so-called, of America, Al Qaeda and Iran. It allows them some leverage to know when to put the pressure on, to know that the clock is ticking, and to know where the pressure points are.
So, in terms of the battle day-to-day here, General Petraeus isn't looking more forward than five or six months. He's trying to make this surge work. But in terms of the broader strategic framework, it serves only America's enemies -- Jim.
CLANCY: Michael Ware, calling it like it is, laying it on the line there from Baghdad, Iraq, tonight.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
So Mr. Ware, how does that aid our enemies exactly?
Wow. I'm a little surprised at this. Ware has generally made realistic and sober assessments of the cluster f*ck in Iraq. To hear him spouting GOP talking points is disappointing.
I agree. This is really disappointing.
If I may parrott a GOP talking point of my own, just what does Ware suggest we do? What other plan has been offered to get us out of this mess besides the Dems?
One could argue that continuing the Iraq War actually "aids our enemies", because it means fewer funds and resources for the Afghan War, and fewer funds and resources for the war against the actual Al Qaeda terrorists. Right now, staying in Iraq is really only reducing Sunni vs. Shia vs. Kurd violence, at best. Judging by the increased number of terror attacks worldwide, it is not hurting Al Qaeda at all. It may, in fact, be increasing their numbers and radicalizing formerly non-radical Muslims. I believe even Pentagon reports and national intelligence estimates have shown this.
Ware has done a good job of reporting this war, so I take his statements on this subject more seriously than I do those of a clown like Glen Beck. Ware's rationale is that a timeline "allows them some leverage to know when to put the pressure on, to know that the clock is ticking, and to know where the pressure points are."
My question then would be, is that an accurate assessment? And if it is, what are the potential consequences? I hope CNN gives him the opportunity to expand on this.
How exactly does this aid our enemies? Our enemies have allready been given aid and comfort by the Bush crowd.
Doris, Of course this is conjecture........however, if your enemies know that you have put an artificial deadline on withdrawing yourself from a conflict, with no discernable conditions - smart and savvy enemies will hold back, pull back, re-strategize, reassess, shift pressure, re-evaluate and wait out any substantive fighting until that day comes. They are then stronger, smarter, more well-equipped, maybe even more rested.
I believe in timelines and deadlines, however I believe they should be unannounced, with conditions and subject to circumstantial change.
Tommy, we lost this war 3 years ago. Our enemies have won in that theatre. It is time to come home. Our deadline should be July 31 , 2007 .
Doris, Despite Bush's monumental mishandling of this war, for us to wave the white flag in defeat, in the context you've presented, would make us not only look inept and struggling, but weak, pathetic and cowardly.
And the consequences of that throughout the world for America are far more disastrous than staying put to achieve some level of success, in my opinion.
Tommy, I feel like I should start by saying I respect your opinion, because too often these kinds of conversations devolve into shouting matches. I'm not trying to kill you with kindness, but I feel the need to signal from the outset that I don't think you're insincere or dumb.
First of all, I feel strongly that it is not our war to lose. Iraq is in the throes of a multipartite civil conflict, with the U.S. military sometimes playing a peacekeeping role, and sometimes - intentionally or unintentionally - helping one side or another. The U.S. cannot impose a military solution, and there are not enough troops to stabilize (as is often stated as our short-term goal) the capital city. The situation will go on much as it has, with more soldiers and Marines dying every month, and the situation continuing to devolve.
My second point is we will have to leave eventually. All the sides in this conflict know this. There is no one with even the slightest understanding of the situation who imagines that the status quo can be maintained for more than a few years. So the canard that "setting a timetable helps our enemies" literally makes no sense. What would they do differently if we circled a date on the calendar and said, "all troops out by (say) August 2008?" Stop killing each other for a year and a half? Kill each other at an even faster rate? What evidence is there to support either idea?
We have exactly two options: end it now, this instant - and engage in an extremely long-term commitment to deal with the consequences of our foolish, murderous actions in Iraq; or spend a few more months or years creating more horror in Iraq and in the souls of more soldiers and Marines before taking the first option anyway. There are no other options.
Respectfully submitted.
Val, I appreciate your nice words, thank you.
But I for one do not view our mission there as "murdereous".
That being said, I don't really disagree with much of what you've said - except the artificial timetable which I've already said why. I think we need to tell the Iraqi government that we are leaving VERY soon, they need to step up and secure their own country and take responsibility. And if they haven't by an unannounced timeframe, then I agree, we should leave as best we can.
You make excellent points.
Thanks - I'm thinking of putting that up on my own blog, cause I am seldom coherent for more than a sentence or two...
I don't think the Iraqi so-called government (some petrified bureaucrats in the Green Zone) are not "step[ping] up and secur[ing] their own country" just out of, I dont know, laziness or whatever the belief is. My impression is that the so-called government does not represent any independent element in the civil conflict, but is just a patchwork of shifting alliances.
In any regard, what the hell do I know, I'm a network engineer for Goddess' sake. I guess I just wish our discourse was carried on with more humility - perhaps we would have made more effort to figure out what the hell we were getting ourselves into back in 2003 had we just stopped and admitted that we really didn't have a clue who the Iraqis are.
A timetable actually helps with Iraq's stability. The naysayers say that the insurgency will cease hostilities and simply wait for the US to leave. That's actually a good thing. If they do hold off, wouldn't Iraq be helped by the respite in violence? Couldn't they use the time to build up their forces and institutions to better quell the resurgent insurgency if and when it comes? How do we know that the insurgency will be as motivated without such a tempting target as the US there? The argument against a timetable is built-on a cavalcade of assumptions, none of which have been effectively reasoned or proven.
We accomplished our mission in Iraq. We deposed Saddam. It's time to declare victory and go home. Enough with mission creep. It was never sold as establishing Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, and thus that shouldn't be how we judge our efforts there.
After we pull out, I'm sure it will fall back into a theocracy. But Bush should have known that would be the outcome. Some of his advisers were telling him so. He only chose to listen to those with the rosiest of predictions. Us prescient lefties spelled out this exact outcome during the run up to the war. We knew Bush had no plan. We knew Bush had no restraint. We knew Bush had no clue. Yet, nobody listened to us. Well, here's to you: "We told you so!"
If you stop with the silly white flag of defeat nonsense I wont point out the stupidity of the Bush lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy disaster. There are usually two sides to ANY policy. The downside you mention is possible though not assured. However you miss the upside of a timetable. It is telling the Iraqis something they need to know if they are to begin making it THEIR country again. That we are leaving. That we have no designs on staying so THEIR government is THEIRS, its not a puppet regime. We need to not only announce we are leaving but that we are not keeping the permanent military bases. Thus signalling them that we dont want to dominate them. It erases the imperailism motive in their minds. It tells them that WE see Iraq as THEIR country and our caretaker mission is coming to an end. This is necessary for as long as they see themselves as an occupied country THAT is what will dominate their strategy. Once we announce we are leaving COMPLETELY that dissapears. It is a necessary first step
When we announce a withdrawal, the "enemies" are just going to pull back until we leave. And... We aren't talking about leaving for another 12 to 18 months.So... shouldn't that be enough time for the Iraqi government to establish itself, rebuild infrastructure, advance education, eliminate ethnic cleansing, etc, while the insurgents foolishly sit and wait for the U.S. to leave? Seems to me that by setting a deadline, rather than encouraging insurgents, we would have them unknowingly play right into our hands with this brilliant, innovative military strategy. That is, unless the whole premise is B.S.
In Iraq, let me be clear, in the country of Iraq, who the f**k is our enemy? These terms, our enemies is thrown around so thoughtlessly in terms of Iraq, it’s enormously annoying.
And any enemies we do have outside of Iraq are all peeing in their pants with joy that we are continuing to waste our political, financial, and human capitol there. I am sure they would just as soon have us spend the next 10 years there.
We don't conduct our foreign policy with respect to whether our enemies are "peeing their pants" or not. We conduct it based on our interests.
Wasting resources in Iraq, both human and monetary, does hurt our interests. That's the point of his post, and a well reasoned one at that.
Oh, now, CNN, you just KNEW you weren't going to be Fox News until you got on that "aiding the enemies of America" bandwagon about anyone who opposes blind continuation of this war.
You finally caught it! Good on you! The Ministry of Truthiness welcomes you into its honored halls - right next to Fox.
And the alternatives are what, exactly? Endless bloodshed for what? To secure a city or an area that returns to bloodshed as soon as we move to another one? Let's face it, we've failed entirely in securing Iraq. The alternatives appear to be either seek a regional diplomatic solution or just erase Iraq entirely off the map with a giant nuclear bomb so Iraq cannot be used as a future base for terrorist groups... and let's hope no sane American would endorse the latter solution.
What purpose, except temporary supression of the enemy, is the continuing fighting serving? The Iraqi leadership apparently won't work together to unify the country unless we threaten to leave. And leave we must, because we'll be there forever without a diplomatic solution. This is crazy...
Michael War.
Ware is actually one of the best reporters in Iraq. I'd heed his words.
Of course the "enemies" are going to try to take any advantage they can, and a divided U.S., politically, may give them help.
But as someone asked,in just what way wil the "enemy be served?" They get supersized fries with that?
The GOP is going to shred the DEMs politically if as the U.S. sets a "timetable" and the violence gets worse, or if the U.S. starts to withdraw and the violence gets even worse. The GOP will blame the DEMs and the Media will let them do it.
GA, I am in agreement that the "mainstream" media will do a job on the Dems no matter what they do or do not do about the crisis of the Iraq War. You are most likely prophetic that they will blame Dems if the violence gets worse and there was actually any "timetable" set (which cannot be done without Bush).
However, the "mainstream" media will ALSO blame Dems if the violence gets worse without any timetable set. Come 2008, when this is still going on, we will hear the "mainstream" media crow about how the American people want to hear a SOLUTION and that the "Democrats have no plan".
Never once does the "mainstream" media bother to ask Republicans, especially the Bush Administration, what the objectives in Iran actually ARE.
We either stay there - for some undefined period - or we leave. The fact remains that the Shi'a and Sunni will STILL be killing each other whether we are there or not. Ceasing SOME violence in and around Baghdad doesn't stop centuries of hatred going on all over other parts of the country.
But as far as Ware's words being heeded, I'd say that those particular words were worth no heeding at all. Ware is suggesting that somehow, our "enemies" - whoever they ARE at this point - are NOT fighting with all that they have at this time. He's suggesting that they are somehow holding back.
Who is doing this "holding back"? The drifter, unaligned Al Qaeda loons? The ONLY reason they're even there is because the US is. The Sunni insurgency? For what purpose are they holding back right now? They're in their "last throes" AGAIN? They're just going to stop hating the Shi'a dominated government and go home any day now?
Both assumptions are unrealistic, IMO.
If we could only hear a reporter who is supposedly "one of the best" reporters in Iraq actually come out and SAY that this could go on for decades, then perhaps we can speak of what solution proposed is "aiding our enemies" or not.
The main reason Bush wants to stay in Iraq is the cheap oil for all his corporate friends. Another may be pride. The two classic tragic flaws...
And it won't help our enemies. Insurgency is NOT the Whermacht or Confederacy or something like that. It fuels itself with violence. If the violence decreases, it will stop getting fuel, because fewer people will be willing to fight. Again YOU ARE NOT FIGHTING AN ARMY. An ARMY would have no chance against America. These things work differently. Case studies: VIETNAM; Russia in Afghanistan; Napoleon in Spain;
Kindly explain, step by step, how "cheap oil from Iraq" gets into the hands of "Bush's friends".
Just give us half a dozen or so steps in the process.
"We don't conduct our foreign policy with respect to whether our enemies are "peeing their pants" or not. We conduct it based on our interests."
Countries are free to work in their self-interest, but their actions must be informed by an understanding of the consequences they have for those affected, and be constrained accordingly when they unduly transgress the rights of others.
From a December interview with Chomsky:
"Invading armies have no rights, only responsibilities. Among them are the responsibility to pay reparations for their crimes, and to hold the guilty accountable. A crucial responsibility is to pay careful attention to the will of the victims. The US and UK governments run regular polls in Iraq. According to the latest State Department poll, two-thirds of Baghadis want the occupying armies to leave immediately. The polls generally reveal that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis demand a firm timetable for withdrawal, within a year or less. Consistent with their normal contempt for democracy, Bush and Blair respond to every such revelation by declaring that there will be no timetable for withdrawal.
You and I are entitled to our own opinions as to what the invaders should do. We can even have an academic discussion about the topic. But our opinions mean nothing, just as the opinions of Bush, Blair, Cheney, and others mean nothing. What matters is what Iraqis want the occupying armies to do."
([link to www.chomsky.info]
You mean alqaeda and the foriegn fighters blowing up Iraqi civilians those are OCCUPYING armies.. Please enlighten me on how they are gonna be kicked out since they are so brutal even the iraqis are afraid to stand up just like they were Afraid of Saddam.
Perhaps you missed all those sectarian militias they have....Mehdi Army alone is 60,000 strong. Maybe a grand total of 1000 foreigners involved in the insurgency (250,000 in the occupation), so I think Iraqis are well-armed to deal with any Al-Qaeda takeovers.
Incorrect. An army is a cohesive force with a central plan and/or nervous system (so to speak), case in point: the occupying forces of the US and its allies.
The polls conducted are specifically referring to the allied occupying forces - changing the terms of the polls afterwards is not permissable in reasonable debate.
If you leave the battlefield at a set time and declare defeat, that is clearly aiding the enemy.
There is no misinformation here.
LDoren, who is suggesting "declaring defeat"? Since that's 1/2 of the foundation of your argument, you should acknowledge whose strategy you're criticizing. Oh, you just made it up.Never mind.
If you continue with the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy THAT will aid our enemies because THAT is keeping with their agenda. It is only when the Iraqis see that we are giving them BACK their country that they can start thinking about THEIR future beyond getting rid of the occupation.
The battle was lost before it was won. It lacked even the most essential ingredients for victory. It can NOT be won. Just ask Sun Tzu. As for aiding the enemy, please tell us who the hell the enemy actually is! Fighting a war where noone can see endgame against an enemy that noone can define.....and when it's examined, it turns out it's all a war CRIME to begin with. So where's the loss of face in admitting defeat? Takes a far bigger man to admit he's wrong than one that has to keep KILLING to keep from having to admit it.
I love the comments on here You only listen to what you want to hear and not something you dont want to hear. The facts remain The central reason there is even sectarian strife is because Alqaeda instigated it. The baathists have now formed alliances with Alqaeda. So enlighten me how does running away from an enemy that has stated its main focus is iraq helping our cause any? And what your simple minds will not understand is as soon as you leave IRAQ all the foreign elements will shift straight over to afghanistan and Death tolls will increase in Afghanistan then you will be wanting to pull out of Afghanistan as well. I guess OSama bin laden was correct america is a paper tiger and not willing to Fight for what it believes in Freedom and democracy? This is a sad day if we actually go down the path alot of you are posting
The sectarian strife began because the US came in and stuck the religion of the Iraqis on all their ID papers. It began because the US and UK have propped up ethnic and sectarian parties against each other. It has happened because in 2002, some jerks from far away invaded their country and started a freaking WAR!!! That's why.
Let me guess, Sadie...once they run us out of Afghanistan, we'll be fighting them in the Wal-Mart parking lot...right?
The problem with the Right Wing liars is that they are still trying to frame this conflict within a WWII paradigm. THIS ISN'T WORLD WAR TWO! The war against terrorism must be fought on a multi-national level, using intelligence, economics, politics, law enforcement as well as special forces-type military. Terrorists are not going to fight a pitched battle against the U.S. or any other conventional army.
Iraq is NOT the central front on the "war on turr"...despite what the liars in the White House tell us. It is a sectarian civil war, and we're stuck in the middle.
As for a timetable helping our enemies...I don't buy it. If they are that well organized, why not just back off until we think we've won? If we then leave, they could start it up all over again. How is this any less likely than what the Professional liars are predicting?
"I guess OSama bin laden was correct america is a paper tiger and not willing to Fight for what it believes in Freedom and democracy?"
It is not our responsibility to spread "Freedom and democracy" at the end of a gun barrell to the nations of the Earth, and it was not the reason we were told that we were invading Iraq in the first place.
We have an obligation (a debt, as Chomsky would put it) to the Iraqi people to provide for them now that we've terrorized them, bombed them, ruined their infrastructure, and invited thousands of suicidal nutjobs into their cities to continue the War on the Occupying West in a country that needed little encouragement to explode into horror. We have an obligation to help them reach something approaching stability, and the present and the past has proven that this stability will not happen while there are Western Occupying Forces pretending to 'manage' the situation.