How to prove a point to al Qaeda, Take 1

February 13, 2007

For me, this summarizes perfectly the entire current state of the debate over the war in Iraq.

A friend on the Hill responds to GOP Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s argument on the House floor that, by withdrawing from Iraq, America would show al Qaeda that we can’t stomach combat casualties:

“Which raises the question, just how many more soldiers should we get killed in order to show them that we can take mass casualties? By that logic, wouldn’t a worse Iraq strategy actually keep us safer by getting more of our people killed?”

And thus concludes today’s edition of “why the debate over Iraq policy is like a bad Twilight Zone episode.”

Honestly, listening to some of the war supporters’ speeches on the House floor makes me wonder if even House Republicans believe what they’re saying.

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) asked his colleagues, “How can you support the troops but not the mission?” I don’t know; maybe because the troops didn’t pick their mission?

It’s debate-as-root-canal-surgery at its most painful. The GOP message in a nutshell is that real supporters of the military want to send more U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war without the equipment they need, without a coherent plan, and without an exit strategy. If you disagree, you shouldn’t say so, because terrorists are listening. And if all this makes sense to you, you’d fit in well at the next GOP caucus meeting.

Wake me when it’s over.

There was, however, news on the other side of the Hill.

In the Senate, the plan has been to bring Sen. John Warner’s (R-Va.) watered-down anti-escalation measure to the floor. Not anymore.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dropped his support Tuesday for the Iraq resolution condemning a troop increase chiefly sponsored by Virginia GOP Sen. John Warner.

Instead, Reid said he will use the Iraq resolution that is expected to pass the House later this week as the main Democratic resolution when the Senate revisits the debate later this month.

Reid said Warner will have to submit his resolution as an amendment if he wants it considered on the floor.

Earlier Tuesday, Sen. Warner reiterated that that he will try to get his resolution passed in the Senate — and said he might try to block other legislation as a tactic to get it considered.

Warner said he does not know at this time if he’ll support the House language.

It looks like the GOP had their chance, but Warner backed a filibuster of his own bill, and now the Dems have moved on and embraced the House resolution.

Stay tuned.

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen could so easily confound her critics. By putting her money where her mouth is, and volunteering to become a combat casualty statistic.

She’d get at least as much press as Pat Tillman.

  • I’m waiting for a right-wing apologist to argue that, no, it isn’t about having as many casualties as possible, it’s about having an ‘optimal’ number of casualties.

  • I’m glad the watery bill Reid was pushing isn’t coming back. A majority of Americans want our troops OUT OF THERE, and that bill was some weak shit. Dems should be pushing the envelope, not dragging up the rear.

    And shouldn’t the rabid war supporters be out encouraging their followers to join the Army? I never hear any of them asking anyone to enlist.

  • I suppose it would send some kind of stunning Old Testament message of resolve to kill more of our troops to spite al Qaeda, but wouldn’t it be cheaper and faster to just line up a few thousand of them at a base stateside, and gun them down ourselves? I mean, if we’ve decided that sound foreign policy is dictated by doing batshit insane things in order to influence hypothetical responses in barbaric enemies, why not?

    Frankly, since we’ve now learned from Mr. Boehner that the war began with the hostage taking in Tehran back in the Carter administration, I’m surprised no one has made this suggestion before.

    I’m very proud of Ms. Pelosi for giving everyone on the Republican side a chance to talk, so their pathologies can be fully documented.

  • “I’m waiting for a right-wing apologist to argue that, no, it isn’t about having as many casualties as possible, it’s about having an ‘optimal’ number of casualties.” – gg

    THe wingnuts force Clinton to leave Somalia after eighteen casualties.

    Eighteen for the death of 2000 Somali gunmen. That’s a 100 to one ratio. Wasn’t there some wingnut blog recently bragging that we are killing 20 insurgents for every American casuality? Is that the best the Bushites can do?

    It’s a pretty dumb argument when you get right down to it.

  • I’m with Racerx on this. The Senate bill was mush and too Republican. The House Bill is simple and straightforward at least.

  • Repubs are painting themselves into a really tight corner with all this anti-withdrawal talk…..being as cowardly as they are when push comes to shove in the height of 2008 election season (with 75-80 percent of Americans pushing for withdrawal) and these same Repubs flip flop and push for withdrawal, the loss of life and blatent hypocrisy will not be lost on the average voter…believe me

  • Fallacy #1 – We’re fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Not so much. The main problem are various Sunni and Shiite groups, not foreign al Qaeda fighters.

    Fallacy #2 – Al Qaeda (or whomever) needs to be shown we have the stomach for a fight. Wake up. This argument states we’re as willing to see our soldiers killed as groups that use suicide bombers. They have millions. We’ll have less than 200,00 troops in country when the surge peaks. This is an argument we can’t win. Nor should we want to.

    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is basically saying, “Go ahead, kill our troops, we don’t care.” Talk about not supporting these guys. Hey troops, the Republicans want you all to die for this country because it will make it look like they have balls. Obama is right — this is a waste of our soldier’s lives.

    Precious Boehner moment from today: “And who doesn’t believe the terrorists will just follow our troops home?” Note to the Pentagon: when the last troops do eventually come hom from Iraq, please shoot down that C-130 filled with bad guys from the other side that is following you home. There, war won.

  • Man, there’s a stunning argument. We have to get our troops killed to prove we’re brave enough to put them in harm’s way. So in theory, we need to keep getting them killed in a kind of militarized human sacrifice in order to scare Al-Quaeda (who isn’t really fighting us all that much in Iraq).

    This reminds me of a game of chicken. However the problem is that, in loosing a game of chicken you may look bad, but in winning you run the risk of hurting or killing yourself.

    The Republicans honestly think like stereotypical, snotty, spoiled teen-agers with no sense of the real world.

  • “Precious Boehner moment from today: “And who doesn’t believe the terrorists will just follow our troops home?” Note to the Pentagon: when the last troops do eventually come home from Iraq, please shoot down that C-130 filled with bad guys from the other side that is following you home. There, war won.” –petorado

    Seriously, think of all that money we would not be spending in iraq. All of it could go to security and intelligence gathering. We’ve made these terrorists in Iraq; we’re giving them combat experience! Even if terrorists did come over, following our exit, just think how fast we’d snap back. Boston bridges were shut down tight because of some suspicious nite-brites. I feel their rhetoric of fear doesn’t really have the weight it use to.

  • by withdrawing from Iraq, America would show al Qaeda that we can’t stomach combat casualties

    By this “logic” shouldn’t we show Al-Q how tough the country is by asking them to fly a few more planes in to skyscrapers? Yeah, let’s just drop all of our national security measures. That’ll show ’em!

    But perhaps this is what the ReShrublickans meant when they said debate would hurt troop morale. “We’ll be saying dumb ass shit that will depress the hell out of anyone fighting to keep our fat sorry arses safe! Yeeehaw!”

  • “by withdrawing from Iraq, America would show al Qaeda that we can’t stomach combat casualties:”

    Personally, I can’t stomach watching our men and women getting killed and maimed in an unnecessary war.

    Maybe she needs to accompany the military officers and chaplains when they perform that one visit all military families dread, and tell them why the sacrifice of their loved one was necessary.

    Let’s see how much stomach Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has herself.

  • You would think these guys would remember what Patton said, you don’t win the war by dying for your country, but by making the other poor bastard die for his country.

    But that is just responding to a pathetic talking point.

    The question is not if we will win or lose, Bush already lost. The question is how much longer do people have to die for Bush’s vanity?

  • 2Manchu: “Personally, I can’t stomach watching our men and women getting killed and maimed in an unnecessary war.”

    By the same token, I can stomach as many casualties as it takes for a necessary war, assuming such a thing exists.

    This is where Ros-Lehtinen misses the point. It’s not that we’re tired of seeing legs & arms & heads getting blown of per se (at least, I’m not tired of it, but I’m a heartless bastard); it’s that the entire effort is being wasted. The cause be not good, as the Bard put it.

    In fact, when Ros-Lehtinen suggests that withdrawal = weakness, that is what will give comfort to our enemies. We’re going to withdraw someday. We could leave on our own terms, if they would quit talking about how leaving is losing.

    • Comments are closed.