Moving The Goalposts

  •  January 31, 2005

This from Balloon Juice:

First, critics* said the elections couldn’t/wouldn’t happen.
Then, critics* said they would happen, but they would be wracked with violence and no one would vote because the ballots were too confusing or the security situation would keep people away from the polls.
What happens when you are wrong twice? Why, you continue, undaunted, to make dire predictions.

This is just the beginning.
I’ve been watching Iraq election coverage on CNN and MSNBC all day and the general theme of the coverage seems to be “what’s next.” Seems like a lot of these “experts” would like to erase the memory of this victory from mind as soon as possible so that they can move on to the next negative story.
“What’s next” is a valid question, but its one that’s already been answered. As the President has already decided, we will continue to assist the newly-elected Iraqi government in whatever role they deem as acceptable. The future of Iraq has been handed over to the Iraqi’s this day.
“What’s next” is a question to be answered by them.

Tags:


«
»
  • Andrew

    Yea, I had seen an interview with Hersh after all that controversy. I guess in this case leaking does serve a good purpose. I hope however that some of the predictions made in that article end up being false. This country can’t afford to start a war with Iran as early as this summer.

  • likwidshoe

    “we invaded on the basis of a lie”

    No we didn’t.

    -defeating foolish leftist rhetoric one post at a time

  • Jadegold

    The rightwing is actually preparing to move the goalposts. As the security situation in Iraq deteriorates (there are a number of likely scenarios, including Shiite infighting or coalition breakups), the rightwing will all claim in unison: "Well, we gave them democratic elections!?!!"

    This is phase one of Operation Cut 'n' Run.

  • atomic_amish

    Jadegold,
    How is allowing the Iraqis to have their own free elections 'cutting and running'? Are you saying that we should stay there indefinitely?
    Shiite infighting and coalition breakups are two possible outcomes, but isnt a free and democratic Iraq a possibility as well?
    How is it that you know so well what the 'rightwing' is about to do? Didnt the 'Rightwing' say there was going to be an interem government set up? Didnt the 'rightwing' say there would be elections in January?
    The 'rightwing' is also saying that we are staying in Iraq until the job is done, and i for one believe them.

  • http://Array likwidshoe

    Moving the goalposts? They've moved into a different stadium. One where assumptions, assertions, and opinion polls count as "fact".

  • Jadegold

    "How is allowing the Iraqis to have their own free elections ‘cutting and running’?"

    One has to remember what Dear Leader's objectives were at the start of this misadventure. To claim today has satisfied even a small fraction of those objectives is beyond ridiculous.

    My belief is the Bush Admin. will fall back on its usual strategy of initially setting out grandiose and fantastic expectations, only to move the goalposts back and back until even the most minor achievement is hailed as a great success.

    "Shiite infighting and coalition breakups are two possible outcomes, but isnt a free and democratic Iraq a possibility as well?"

    Certainly. So is a return to power by Saddam Hussein. So is a Kurdish civil war. The trick is to assign a probability to each potential outcome.

    Now, our own CIA and DoD assessments of the likely outcome aren't promising. Various military and foreign policy thinktanks have also reached similar conclusions.

    "Didnt the ‘Rightwing’ say there was going to be an interem government set up? Didnt the ‘rightwing’ say there would be elections in January?"

    The Rightwing has said an awful lot of things that didn't come true; WMDs, connections to Al Qaeda, we'd be greeted as liberators, we don't need more troops, mision accomplished, etc.

    Merely setting dates are pretty easy things to carry out.

    "The ‘rightwing’ is also saying that we are staying in Iraq until the job is done, and i for one believe them"

    Devil's in the details. What constitutes "the job is done?"

  • Jadegold

    BTW, Cole's argument is a strawman. I can't find any lefties who said elections "couldn't/wouldn't happen."

    I've found lefties, and a few rightwingers, who said the elections should be postponed because of the security situation. I've found a few who said the elections awouldn't be truly democratic since certain areas of Iraq couldn't vote and/or the widespread ignorance of the candidates by the electorate.

    But that's a far cry from "couldn't/wouldn't happen."

  • atomic_amish

    I agree with some of what you said-not all of it -but some. So instead of getting into a dumb internet brawl that probably wont change either of our minds i would like to take a different approach.
    What would you do to solve our problems in Iraq? Im looking for a solution that would spare more americans and Iraqis lives while also ensuring a democratic Iraq. I believe we both believe Iraq can be a democracy- I just think we have different ideas about how to go about doing it.

  • Jadegold

    A-A: Actually, I'm not certain or optimistic Iraq can be a democracy. I used to believe in the 'Pottery Barn' approach to Iraq; we invaded on the basis of a lie but the damage was done, so let's make the best of a bad situation. Lately, however, I don't see a nice neat solution beyond getting our troops out of there now.

    Regionally, we've created a terrible mess. It's very likely the Iranians are the beneficiaries of today's elections in Iraq. Shiite leadership in Iraq basically is what the hardliners in Tehran could only dream about.

    So, my solution, in broad strokes: pull our troops out of Iraq now. Begin deep and serious negotiations with Tehran that will likely include the following US concessions: a guarantee of US non-interference in Iran's sovereign affairs, full normalization of diplomatic and trade relations between the two countries, allow Iran to pursue nuclear power. In return, we should demand Iran recognize Israel's right to exist, Iran's assistance in stabilizing Iraq and helping to resolve the Israel/Palestinian issue.

  • atomic_amish

    Also wouldnt pulling our troops out now pretty much assure that chaos would break out? Isnt it better to bet that we can make a positive difference in Iraq than to give in and pretty much make the worst case scenerio that you painted a certainty? What about all of the people who voted today? Who will stop the reprisals of all of the former baathists against them? They were only trying to help rebuild their country after all. Without us there wouldnt what would keep the shiites and the sunnis from starting a civil war any way? My point is- if we dont help Iraq-who will?

    sorry for my poor spelling

  • atomic_amish

    Interesting. But what if Iran reneges on our deal? I mean if we do normalize our relations with them and allow them to pursue nuclear technology for the next 5 years and they decide to change their minds about Israels right to exist and also start interfering with Iraq- what could we do to stop them? Diplomatic solutions havent worked very well so far, and military options will be out of the question if they deveop nuclear weapons.

  • atomic_amish

    Three hours without a rebuttle?! I WIN!

  • Jadegold

    "But what if Iran reneges on our deal?"

    There's always that chance in any deal or treaty. That's a bridge you cross when you come to it.

    "Diplomatic solutions havent worked very well so far, and military options will be out of the question if they deveop nuclear weapons."

    Martial solutions have definitely not worked. Remember, war should be a last resort–not the first option.

    And it may be that we can't prevent Iran from getting nukes.

    "Also wouldnt pulling our troops out now pretty much assure that chaos would break out?"

    Yes. Your choices are bad and bad. Choice #1 is bugging out and leaving Iraq to chaos. Choice #2 is staying and living with a lesser degree of chaos but we continue to lose troops and spend money.

    "Isnt it better to bet that we can make a positive difference in Iraq than to give in and pretty much make the worst case scenerio that you painted a certainty?"

    The problem is the current best case scenario is Choice #2 above.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Choice #2 is staying and living with a lesser degree of chaos but we continue to lose troops and spend money.

    This is, of course, an assumption you've made based on a negative viewpoint of the situation in Iraq born of a hatred for the sitting President. Some of us are more optimistic.

    Freedom is not something that comes quickly. I, for one, am not willing to give up on that ideal becuase you're impatient.

    And as for your strategy for dealing with Iran, I'd point out that it didn't work in North Korea.

    Iran needs regime change, and democracy.

  • Jadegold

    "This is, of course, an assumption you’ve made based on a negative viewpoint of the situation in Iraq born of a hatred for the sitting President."

    On the contrary, this is the assessment of our CIA and DoD.

    "And as for your strategy for dealing with Iran, I’d point out that it didn’t work in North Korea"

    One size fits all foreign policy.

    "Iran needs regime change, and democracy."

    With whose Army, Rob? If you have us staying in Iraq–we don't have the resources to go into Iran.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    If you have us staying in Iraqâ€"we don’t have the resources to go into Iran.

    All in due time, Jadegold. We're not done in Iraq yet, but when we are Iran seems like an excellent exit strategy.

    Patience. You're not very good at it are you?

  • Andrew

    Speaking of the possible future war with Iran, did anyone happen to read an article by Seymour Hersh titled "The Coming Wars"? It's in the New Yorker (I know, a liberal mag), but is very well written and extremely interesting. I recommend reading it.

  • Jadegold

    Andrew: What's interesting is that when Hersh wrote that story, this administration denied it and smeared Hersh up one side and down the other.

    Then a Pentagon memo was leaked that essentially verified everything Hersh was saying.

    Leaking does have a purpose.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development