Say WA? Evergreen State ping
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
Posted on 08/23/2007 8:22:27 AM PDT by jazusamo
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Last time I wrote on the Iraq war I used the term "defeatocrats," and some readers and an editor at the almost-highest levels of The Oregonian thought this was name-calling. That certainly wasn't my intent. I was simply describing those Americans who have decided that Gen. David Petraeus' troop surge and counterinsurgency strategy cannot or will not -- or should not -- work. They're intellectually or politically invested in defeat in Iraq. I employed "defeatocrat" as a synonym for defeatist, and I now regret it.
I used lower-case "defeatocrat" rather than upper-case "Defeatocrat." But "defeatocrat" is just too close to Democrat and smacks of partisan name-calling. My bad.
I won't apologize for "defeatist," however. It's a simple descriptor. It describes those who think we have already lost Iraq or our defeat is imminent, inevitable or even desirable. It's not name-calling; it's truth-telling. Just as President Bush should be called to account if the surge fails -- just as he's been called to account for his war failings up to now -- those who have bet heavily on defeat there should be called to account if it succeeds.
Some defeatists are folks who actually want the Bush-Petraeus plan to fail. Unbelievable as it may be, a chunk of the public doesn't want the plan to work -- 22 percent of the general public and 34 percent of all Democrats, according to a January poll. Defeatists also include those who declared the surge a failure before all the additional troops were even in place. "I believe . . . this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in April. There are also those who ignore or minimize the obvious progress on the ground in Iraq and political reconciliation at the provincial level while almost lovingly recounting every bit of bad news out of Iraq.
Rep. Brian Baird is most certainly not a defeatist, and his honest assessment of the Iraq situation illustrates why "defeatocrats" much less "Defeatocrats" was the wrong word choice a few weeks back. It's also a cause for civic celebration.
The Washington state Democrat voted against the Iraq war in 2002 and voted for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops just last month. Baird still thinks the Iraq war is among this nation's biggest foreign-policy blunders. Yet last week he returned from his fifth visit to Iraq with two firm beliefs: One, we are making real progress. Two, pulling out precipitously would be catastrophic for the Iraqis and chaotic for the entire region and our own security. As a result, he'll no longer vote for premature-withdrawal resolutions. He now supports continuing the surge into early next year and then engaging in a gradual redeployment.
He says some war supporters do a disservice when they exaggerate the progress. "But the facts on the ground say we are making progress . . .," he told me Wednesday, "and we do an equal disservice when we deny the progress."
What Baird saw in Iraq was real synergy at work: "As we show success against the insurgents, there's more motivation for the average Iraqis to come forward, and the more people come forward, the more success we have against the insurgents."
Baird once thought Capitol Hill withdrawal resolutions would encourage Iraqi political reconciliation. But he's changed his mind. Iraqis won't step forward if they fear the political process will blow apart if the United States leaves. "When we talk about premature withdrawal," Baird said, "we actually make it harder, not easier, for Iraqis to solve their political problems."
Baird understands the impulse to deny any progress and wash our hands of Iraq. Many people are angry about Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and crew. "That just colors everything," he said. "But the stakes are too high to let that color our own decision-making."
He says both sides here need to "take a breath" and let Petraeus finish the job over there, because the alternatives to U.S. defeat in Iraq are all worse.
He knows this won't be easy -- "I know its going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars," he told The Olympian -- and he knows it won't be popular with his old anti-war allies. But Baird is determined to give his constituents the same brave and candid appraisal he made in opposing the war in 2002 when that wasn't the popular thing to do.
All this Iraq war opponent is saying is give the U.S. military forces and the Iraqi people a chance.
LOL! Heaven forbid, I guess all those lib editors are against name-calling.
Ping!
Say WA? Evergreen State ping
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
I won't apologize for "defeatist," however. It's a simple descriptor. It describes those who think we have already lost Iraq or our defeat is imminent, inevitable or even desirable. It's not name-calling; it's truth-telling. Just as President Bush should be called to account if the surge fails -- just as he's been called to account for his war failings up to now -- those who have bet heavily on defeat there should be called to account if it succeeds.
The error is that those who "bet heavily on defeat" of their own country are in fact traitors and should be called to account regardless of the outcome of their wager.
It's fairly obvious who these people are. There is plenty of room for honest disagreement; there should be no room for "hitching one's star" ... staking one's political success ... on the defeat of one's country.
I believe you make a good point. The behavior of these defeatists would not have been tolerated during WWII and it’s baffling to me that so many put up with it now.
Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, is a Defeatican.
Pigs are flying! I thought Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson were the only Democrats with a grasp of the long war we are in and the enemy we face.
Great point. I missed that but you are 100% correct.
How stupid is this? How could anyone think that abandoning the Iraqis would be anything but a disaster? I'm glad this guy came to his senses.
Pigs are flying is correct. Baird is my Rep and I was very surprised, he’s a lib but I wouldn’t classify him as a moonbat. This shows that he has some common sense.
Believe me, so am I.
Sounds like a problem he needs to discuss with his wife
The Rats said “we’ve lost” so much that when we actually make progress they’ve screwed themselves over. Kudos to Baird for waking up and using his brain cells.
Pat left the Republican Party to run as the Reform Party candidate (with a pro-choice platform). He is not longer a Republican.
Shouldn’t he be a Deform? (ie Defeat-a-form Party)
David, Rep. Brian Baird is a defeatocrat who just suffered an epiphany. He is still trying to understand it all, so do not feel sorry and even elated that this guy has FINALLY seen the light. For the truth is that he is still a member of the dark side and he will not convince any of the others within the defeatocratic party - for it is not in their best interest politically.
I agree. The slightest setback and this idiot regresses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.