Shadi Hamid: "David Letterman gets Iraq Wrong"

[BurtWorm]

For the record, I think Shadi Hamid gets this wrong. "Winning" is totally beside the point. That the Bushists even dare talk about "winning" after declaring Mission Accomplished one month after the bombs started falling is an indication of how bottomless their shamelessness is. But at least their hypocrisy is comprehensible. What's incomprehensible to me is how a Democrat (Hamid was head of Muslims for Kerry) can allow himself to get trapped in that thought morass.


http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2006/10/david_letterman.html

You got to respect David Letterman taking it to Bill O’Reilly on Friday night. The tense exchange was certainly fun to watch. But something that Letterman said - or didn’t say - made me feel really, really uncomfortable.

They were discussing the Iraq war. O’Reilly in his usual abrasive way asked Letterman “do you want the United States to win in Iraq?” To my surprise (and dismay), Letterman appeared totally unable to answer the question and paused, as if really having to ponder the options. O’Reilly then added that “it’s an easy question.” Letterman, in what may have seemed like a good response to daily Kossacks but in my mind was rather pathetic, replied “it’s not easy for me because I’m thoughtful.”

I’m all for nuance and embracing complexity since most things in life are not, in fact, black and white. But, come on! Do you want the US to win in Iraq? What answer could you possibly give but “yes.” Letterman’s response captures all that is wrong with the hard left’s approach to foreign policy. It’s reactionary, simple-minded and all too often descends into laughable self-parody. Moreover, if I was living in some Red State watching Letterman doing his best John Kerry impression, I would probably freak out and pull the lever for the Big Red (elephant).

Yes, I dislike O’Reilly just as much as the next liberal, but let’s not lose sense of what’s at stake here. The Iraq War is not about scoring points against conservatives – it’s about trying to do what's best for the Iraqi people who deserve and demand more than the spectacle of disaffected liberals using Iraq as an excuse for reactionary Buchanesque forays into foreign policy.

[Straight Shooter]

1. What drivel. We will never win. We'll be lucky if it ends in a stalemate.

No one has yet expressed a clear definition of the term "win." We can't "win" until we know what our goal is in Iraq, and a plan for achieving those goals.

People who talk about "winning" are putting the cart before the horse.

[BurtWorm]

4. He might be taking the standard "centrist" line that you always answer

that question ("Do you want America to win?") with an unhesitating "Yes!" because the media can't deal with nuance, and any other response opens you up to Republican manipulation. But I say fuck worrying about Republican manipulation and how answers play in the media. Caution plays worse, usually, because it usually comes across as timidity or dishonesty, which is what it usually is.

(I should say that caution for caution's sake plays worse; thoughful caution is another matter.)

[Straight Shooter]

11. You're right.

People like Bully O'Reilly want everyone to respond in mindless lockstep.

My only problem with Letterman is that he didn't respond to O'Reilly with, "Define win."

[walldude]

2. HA! All about doing what's best for the Iraqi's?

Well considering that they can't line up for day labor without getting the shit blown out of them I think America leaving would be what's "best" for the Iraqi's...

[Hulsey13]

3. A different standard for answers?

So, Letterman is supposed to give a simple "yes" answer, even though there is no understanding at all what that "yes" would mean? I don't think so.

Why is it that these neo-con right wingers demand a direct answer to their questions, yet when pressed to define what "winning" would mean, can only reply with, "it's complicated."

It's because they value cheap words over real results. It's easier to say "win" than to actually do it... hell, to even know what it means.

[Straight Shooter]

12. "Cheap words over real results."

You nailed it.

Welcome to DU, Hulsey13. :hi:

[saracat]

5. What Shadi Hamid doesn't understand was David's struggle was with

determining "What" was doing what was best for the Iraqi people and doing what is best for the American people.David opted for stopping the killing of Americans because the killing of American soldiers is not stopping the killing of Iraqis who are engaged in a civil war.Our continued presence there is only worsening the situation and is bad for both countries. I agree that this isn't an easy question. We can't even answer what winning would be.There was nothing "simple minded" about Letterman's answer. Letterman is no "disaffected liberal making a Buchanesque foray into foriegn policy.Shadi Hamid ought to be ashamed of himself, and ask himself both at what point is it in both countries interests to withdraw and at what point does America's protection of heraself and her soldiers come first?

[RevolutionStartsNow]

6. Wow, did he miss the point of that Letterman-O'Reilly exchange

O'Reilly was trying to trap Dave into validating the simple-minded "We must stay until we win" talking point, and Dave was smart enough to catch it before answering.

What the hell does "winning" in Iraq mean anyway? Killing everyone? Taking control of their oil?

Or does it mean a stable government, more than a few hours electricity per day, rebuilt cities, schools for the kids, an end to civil war?

[InternalDialogue]

7. "Wanting to win" is a rhetorical device

"Wanting to win" is merely a tool used by the right to separate out one political side from the other.

But wanting the United States to win in Iraq means no more to actually winning than wanting your favorite sports team to win means to their contest's actual outcome.

So O'Reilly's question doesn't lead anywhere except to try and either force respondents to appear unpatriotic or to accept a host of assumptions that aren't true.

Dave's response was arguably appropriate, but maybe misworded. Rather than say it wasn't easy to say whether he wanted the U.S. to win, he should have said, "Whether anyone wants the United States to win in Iraq ignores the question of whether we've done what it takes to win, or more important, whether we should even have begun the war to start with. The question of whether we want to win -- and how best to do it -- should have been part of a real, honest national and congressional debate before any invasion whatsoever."

If I were watching a football game and the team I favored was playing a grossly simplistic, one-dimensional game plan that was doomed to fail, it wouldn't matter whether I wanted them to win. I would know, in fact, that they will lose, and my cheerleading won't make a difference. Instead, if I had any influence over the game, it would be to realistically tell my team, "You have made grievous errors in planning and executing. If you continue playing this way, you are destined to lose. Let's rethink our strategy and assess what we can accomplish."

That's not rooting for my team to lose, but O'Reilly would like to make it seem that way.

[uncle ray]

8. Shadi ignores the fact that letterman did go on to answer the question.

it's just too bad that he couldn't give an even better answer. NO. that's right, NO i DO NOT want us to "win" this war. i want the war to end. i want our country to maintain what little honor we have left. it's clear that we started a war we shouldn't have, or stayed too long. okay, i hate to go there, but i'm gonna go there...what would us Americans say about a German in the late 40's or 50's who admitted that the war was wrong, but that they should have fought it out and WON dammit! we would want them tried right alongside the nazis, similar to the disgust Iraqis are devolping for the American people.

[C_U_L8R]

9. what is winning?

killing everyone?
taking all the oil?
how do you know when you've won?
Did somebody surrender?

These are all weasel words.

[Cocoa]

10. since when is Letterman a spokesman for the left?

let alone the "hard left," lol. My guess is that Dave is normally a republican.

His line at the end was perfect. "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I don't think you do either." O'Reilly had just stumped Dave about Ansar al-Islam. A spokesman for the "hard left" (lol) would be expected to have the facts to counter O'Reilly's blatant lie, but Dave gave a great answer as just an ordinary guy thinking for himself. He simply told O'Reilly he doesn't believe him.

[tanyev]

13. If they really wanted to win, why didn't they take Shinseki's

recommendation of 500,000 troops more seriously? It looks like the moment for "winning" is long gone.