http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/27/schumer-boxer-mistake-mission-in-iraq/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:45:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/27/schumer-boxer-mistake-mission-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-69939 midwhitecrisis Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:34:40 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/27/schumer-boxer-mistake-mission-in-iraq/#comment-69939 Thans for your ignorant liberal democratic agendas, soon to get us all killed. Our enemies want your head too. duh. Wake up America! Thans for your ignorant liberal democratic agendas, soon to get us all killed. Our enemies want your head too. duh. Wake up America!

]]> http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/27/schumer-boxer-mistake-mission-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-556 Across the Aisle » Policy Disagreements among our Friends and Enemies Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:43:43 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/27/schumer-boxer-mistake-mission-in-iraq/#comment-556 [...] The more important argument, though, is the political one, the case that internal debate about the best course of action in fact helps the enemy. This view pervades much more than just these comments about why Israel hasn’t defeated Hezbollah decisively. It also explains why supporters of the administration’s policy in Iraq call well-intentioned people looking for alternative ways to seek America’s goals unpatriotic (this New York Times editorial inveighs against this practice). And it at the same time provides their own explanation for why their grand plans for positive transformation in the Middle East have not come to fruition: doubters in the U.S. undermined our success; we cannot conclude from the situation in the Middle East today that their vision was wrong, only that it was not properly carried out. Convenient. A useful dodge from the more likely explanation that the vision itself over-reached and that we were always unlikely to be able to “cause stability” in Iraq, no matter how unified the American effort and no matter how free a hand was given to the American military. This argument about when debate is appropriate and when it is not turns up in unexpected places, too. On this blog, Seth Green and David Isenberg both criticized Senators Boxer and Schumer for walking out on the Iraqi Prime Minister’s speech to Congress because of al-Maliki’s pro-Hezbollah remarks. Neither of my fellow bloggers agrees with al-Maliki’s support for Hezbollah, but they also felt that Americans should not criticize him for his position, since he is just expressing the will of the people of Iraq — an expression of democracy. And American Senators, they argue, should not debate the democratically ratified decisions of foreign governments’ policy-makers. That position strikes me as wrong for two reasons. [...] [...] The more important argument, though, is the political one, the case that internal debate about the best course of action in fact helps the enemy. This view pervades much more than just these comments about why Israel hasn’t defeated Hezbollah decisively. It also explains why supporters of the administration’s policy in Iraq call well-intentioned people looking for alternative ways to seek America’s goals unpatriotic (this New York Times editorial inveighs against this practice). And it at the same time provides their own explanation for why their grand plans for positive transformation in the Middle East have not come to fruition: doubters in the U.S. undermined our success; we cannot conclude from the situation in the Middle East today that their vision was wrong, only that it was not properly carried out. Convenient. A useful dodge from the more likely explanation that the vision itself over-reached and that we were always unlikely to be able to “cause stability” in Iraq, no matter how unified the American effort and no matter how free a hand was given to the American military. This argument about when debate is appropriate and when it is not turns up in unexpected places, too. On this blog, Seth Green and David Isenberg both criticized Senators Boxer and Schumer for walking out on the Iraqi Prime Minister’s speech to Congress because of al-Maliki’s pro-Hezbollah remarks. Neither of my fellow bloggers agrees with al-Maliki’s support for Hezbollah, but they also felt that Americans should not criticize him for his position, since he is just expressing the will of the people of Iraq — an expression of democracy. And American Senators, they argue, should not debate the democratically ratified decisions of foreign governments’ policy-makers. That position strikes me as wrong for two reasons. [...]

]]>