Joe Klein on ’embracing defeat’

June 19, 2006

I know challenging Time’s Joe Klein has become something of a parlor game lately, and I don’t mean to pile on, but this week’s column is just, well, confusing.

What can the Democrats do? They can play politics or be responsible. The political option is to embrace “cut and run”; call for an immediate withdrawal, as Kerry did; and hope the public is so sick of Bush and sick of the war that it will punish the G.O.P. in the fall.

But embracing defeat is a risky political strategy, especially for a party not known for its warrior ethic. In fact, the responsible path is the Democrats’ only politically plausible choice: they will have to give yet another new Iraqi government one last shot to succeed.(emphasis added)

OK, so to hear Klein tell it, leaving thousands of U.S. troops in the middle of a civil war is not only wise, it’s the only “responsible” choice. Klein, in other words, is just parroting GOP talking points. As Judd at ThinkProgress put it, “This is the same false choice presented by Bush and Rove. Those who want a new direction in Iraq and a timeline for withdrawal are not ’embracing defeat.’ The way to embrace defeat, as the last three years have demonstrated, is to stick with this administration’s approach.”

Putting that aside, Klein argues that Iraq’s “last shot” should include six more months in order to see if it “succeeds.” Of course, he doesn’t define success, nor does he explain what happens after the six months are up. Greg Sargent suggests Klein meet a certain, self-imposed challenge.

Mr. Klein, If it does become clear to you by your own lights that the new government hasn’t succeeded, and that Operation Foward Together hasn’t stabilized Baghdad, will you then stop declaring that Dems who say the war may be lost are “embracing defeat”? Somehow I have my doubts, don’t you?

It’s a reasonable question. In fact, as Atrios has noted on multiple occasions, there’s always a call for another six months. Thomas Friedman has perfected the never-ending cycle — when six months elapses, it’s time to give Iraq another six months. If you agreed to wait six months before, you have to again, indefinitely — or you want to “cut and run,” whatever the hell that means.

Like Greg, I suspect in December very little will have changed. Iraq will still be a nightmare, and critics of the president’s policy will, as far as Klein is concerned, still be “embracing defeat.”

I have a challenge for Klein–if after 6 months we are still in this mess, he resign from what he does and resign from the pundit circuit, never to be heard from again.

  • What can the Democrats do? They can play politics or be responsible.

    Seems to me that the Republicans have done nothing but “play politics” since at least Jan 20, 1993 (remember Clinton’s first budget? – remember the gays in the military hoo-haa within days of his innauguration? – remember the complete lack of Clinton honeymoon?) – and look where it’s gotten them – in complete control of all three branches of the government. Does Klein ever take the Republicans to task for that? Why always the different standard for Democrats?

  • How anyone can urge “stay the course” after looking at the “death chart” or after reading Steven Pressfield‘s commentary on tribalism is beyond me.

    Incidentally, Paul Krugman today is excellent:

    for the past century, political polarization and economic inequality have moved hand in hand. Politics during the Gilded Age, an era of huge income gaps, was a nasty business — as nasty as it is today. The era of bipartisanship, which lasted for roughly a generation after World War II, corresponded to the high tide of America’s middle class. That high tide began receding in the late 1970’s, as middle-class incomes grew slowly at best while incomes at the top soared; and as income gaps widened, a deep partisan divide re-emerged….

    Before the 1940’s, the Republican Party relied financially on the support of a wealthy elite, and most Republican politicians firmly defended that elite’s privileges….

    But if the real source of today’s bitter partisanship is a Republican move to the right on economic issues, why have the last three elections been dominated by talk of terrorism, with a bit of religion on the side? Because a party whose economic policies favor a narrow elite needs to focus the public’s attention elsewhere. And there’s no better way to do that than accusing the other party of being unpatriotic and godless….

    I would like to offer some advice to my fellow pundits: face reality. There are some commentators who long for the bipartisan days of yore, and flock eagerly to any politician who looks “centrist.” But there isn’t any center in modern American politics. And the center won’t return until we have a new New Deal, and rebuild our middle class.

    That last sentence speaks volumes about our Party, its position statements, and our choice of candidates.

  • For some reason or another I found myself this past Sunday morning watching Chris Wallace and his churlish interview of John Podesta and Simon Rosenberg. On the topic of “the troubles” in Iraq, Wallace’s response to either of his guests was, “But the Democrats aren’t unified. At least the Republicans are unified.” (“At least” suggests to me a concession by Wallace that Iraq ain’t exactly example A of a resounding operational success.) Again and again, this was what the conservative host replied to any suggestion or comment by Podesta and Rosenberg on what Dems would do differently. The implication, I gather, was that unity of purpose, singularity of mind, really does trump all, even if – admittedly – things aren’t turning out all that hot.

    How, then, save in scale and consequence, is this any different from people standing in a hole without immediate benefit of any means of egress, watching as those of their number armed with shovels all dig deeper and deeper, insisting that, while it might not be the best plan, at least they were united in their commitment and firm in their resolve, unlike the others, who stood thee offering a variety of ideas – “We could call for help.” “We could stop digging” “We could dig stairs” etc, etc. Nope. That shows a lack of coherence. Better to keep digging deeper, digging ever deeper.

  • It’s time to tell Joe Klein that he’s even less a democrat than his shower buddy, Joe Lieberman. Birds of a feather, and all that… I hope neither of those two ever has to lean over in the shower to pick up the soap.

  • Joe Klein is what passes for a progressive voice in the right-lovin’ Time Magazine. He is a big reason I cancelled my subscription after 25 years; Ann Coulter as cover girl was the proverbial straw.

    Eeyore #5; Remember, if you keeping digging until digging’s last throes, you’ll reach China, just in time for dim sum! Of course, if you’re not Christian, you may reach hell. Now dig, you liberal traitor!

  • Why doesnt he enlist, nows the chance to make up for missing Vietnam what are you a chickenhawk?

  • It’s not really GOP talking points. Hillary is espousing it too. Unless I misunderstand Klein. But I find that the most apt analogy is Colin Powell’s prescient warning: you break it, you buy it. We fubared Iraq, it’s now our job to fix it. We can argue whether Bush is doing anything to fix it it, or whether immediate withdrawal will fix it, but fixing the country we broke is the only responsible thing for any future president- or even the current president- to do. I say the country “we broke” because from an Iraqi’s perspective, they aren’t going to forgive the tens of thousands of lives lost, the chaos and turmoil they are now stuck with, just because we elect a Democrat or withdraw. It’s not how we earn international. goodwill.

  • My take on Klein is that he’s implying we’re being defeated in Iraq and we need yet another six months to turn that fabled next corner. Isn’t that a damning implication for such a war apologist to take at this point? We won the “major combat operations,” Saddam’s on trial, Bush says there’s good news coming out of the country every day, they’ve had multiple free and fair elections and now have a bipartisan government in place … aren’t the Dems embracing victory? We won – let’s go home?

    For the Repubs to stick to stay the course implies that they know that over three years later they still haven’t had the plan, the means, the will or the guts to do what it takes to win. The Dems should rise up and shout “Why haven’t we won yet and what are you going to do to win?” And Klein and Friedman should be asked how many more dead soldiers, and not how many more months, before we say this isn’t working and do something to change the course to victory.

  • Klein is an effing moron.

    Democrats led us into WW I, WW II, Korea, and Vietnam.

    Republicans led the courageous assaults on Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Irag.

    And the Iraqis are kicking Republican butt.

    I think the difference pretty much speaks for itself. A lot more Democrats are opposed to war because a lot more Democrats have actually gone to war. All the anti-war people I know are veterans.

    • Comments are closed.