(As I told the Senator it wasn't an interview - I won't break my word and ambush him, I'll protect his identity as a matter of respect) He is a Republican from a northern Midwestern State.
Text of discussion (as best I can recall):
I started, "Sen X, if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask you a question?"
(Sen. X looks a little dubious).. looks up. (It's understandable with all the ambush wackos running around)
I continued, "Sir, I’m not a reporter, I’m not recording anything, but, full disclosure, I am a Democrat, but I’d like to ask you a question if you don’t mind."
"Ok –go ahead."
I said, "Sir, as you probably know there were a couple of Iraqi members of Parliament in front of Congress this week. The first one attributed the success at beating AQI not to the surge, but to Gen. Patreaus’ change in tactics, the other said that perhaps as high as 70% of Iraqis, or more, want us to leave. If they vote for us to leave.."
“Then we should leave, in a heartbeat" he said.
"I'm glad to hear you say that," I replied.
" – but also, I don’t believe that 70% of the Iraqis want us to leave. I’ve been there and interviewed them, that’s not what I’ve seen or heard.”
Thinking to myself, well, they (the Iraqi dignitaries) were sent by the Al Maliki governemnt, so they seem credible- and you choose to not believe them why not?, but saying that would be confrontational, and disrepectful, so I decided to move on. I said, "Yet, many of the Shiites would seem to logically want us to leave because as the vastly dominant ethnic group, they see us as an impediment to taking full control."
“I don’t see that, I’ve talked to Al Maliki. The only Shiites who want us out is Al Sadr’s group, and he (Al Maliki) has them on the run.”
So, I go on, "Well, that at least is what the member said, and I’d assume he was considered credible by Al Maliki, since he was sent by Al Maliki to testify."
“I don’t believe that 70% of the Iraqi’s want us to leave.”
"Ok, and I understand you've talked with them, I haven't. Second, do you support our troops being present in Iraq where we have the right to act without permission of the Iraqi government, and where our troops are above prosecution."
He replied, "Well, the first part is what we do everywhere, you don’t want your troops subject to the laws of foreign governments.
"
Me, "Except I think our troops have been subject to those laws in Korea and Japan, for example in rape cases."
"Yes, but I suspect we agreed to turn them over (perhaps so I said) Well, I’d have to review the “Terms of foreign forces” agreements, but no one in Congress feels they should be subject to the laws of foreign governments. As to the second part, that’s only in defense of our troops."
I replied, "Understood, but one of the things being reported is that we want to determine what constitutes an attack upon Iraq and act unilaterally."
“I don’t believe that’s true, I believe it’s that we are only looking to define what’s an attack on us,” says Sen X.
"Well, it is what has been reported by a number of sources, but as you say, that may be wrong," I said.
“I don’t believe any long-term security agreement should be reached without going before the US Congress, I’ve told the administration that, and that’s what the Iraqis believe. It’s for the next Admnistration to decide.”
"Yet, it’s being pretty widely reported that President Bush wants to conclude just such an agreement this year. That he wants to do so unilaterally, without Congress’ approval, " I respond.
“I’ve told them (presuming the administration) that we shouldn’t do that, and they’ve told me ‘we get it’, so I don’t think that’s going to happen,” says Sen X.
I said, "Senator, I appreciate your time – I certainly hope you didn’t find my comments confrontational, I am glad to hear that you don’t believe we can or should stay if the Iraqis don’t agree, and that the conduct of our forces in protecting Iraq must be limited to what the Iraqis approve."
“That’s what any long term presence of forces agreement MUST agree to – we have to be able to protect our own troops, but we cannot act inside another country without their permission.” he said.
I say, "I have a great deal of respect for Gen. Patreaus – I wish we had taken his advice wihle he was in Anbar, rather than waiting three years, it would have saved a lot of lives." (which , by the way, I DO have a lot of respect for Gen Patreaus - unlike the right-wing nutjobs who dismissed his approach for 4 years - people who know something about how to actually WIN a counter insurgency found Patreaus credible, and the conduct of the Administration deplorable, if not criminally negligent in it's contempt for the plight of Iraqis generally).
“I couldn’t agree more,” says Sen X - meaning, he couldn't agree more that he ALSO wished Gen. Patreaus' approach had been tried earlier, that people had listened to him while he was in Anbar.
"Thanks again," I said.
“Thanks for taking the interest, you're obviously informed,” he said. Which was nice to hear, even from someone I don't agree with.
(end of discussion)
Now, I took maybe 5 minutes, maybe less. I was congenial and respectful, as was he. I intruded briefly on his time, but I suspect that comes with the territory. I ask my ‘friends’ on the right if they’d have conducted themselves as decently, if they’d have asked questions as coherently, without seeking to focus on nonsense. The questions posed were pretty damned important, they did point out a fundamental difference between his views and I – namely, I don’t think that inside any nations borders, you get to act unilaterally, even to protect your own troops, except in very narrow terms. If you are being shot at, you get to return fire. If we took off after some people in Germany, who bombed one of our bases, not in hot pursuit, but just to ‘go get them’ , even if we were right, we’d be asked to leave the country permanently.
As well, Sen X simply didn't believe people who related, I believe honestly, their impressions, and what is borne out by internal polling, but that's his right. I can feel he is ignoring some real evidence. He also didn't believe the press reports which the administration hasn't chosen to refute or deny - again, his choice. Yet, I'm very glad to hear he will insist upon the admnistration getting Congressional approval for any long term presence in Iraq, and that he considers Iraqi soveriegnty to trump our personal desires to act within Iraq. Those are positions of understanding and even comprimise. They are sensible. They are also out of alignment with neo-con absolutists who think might makes right (it seems).
That said, clearly Sen. X differs vastly from the reported stance – and that’s important – it’s the reported stance of the Admnistration. I’m not trying to sew the seeds of discontent, but all those folks on the right who claim comments like “we can’t seek to act unilaterally” or “we can’t stay if they don’t want us to” – all of you who claim those are illogical questions or erroneous to worry about, when they’re being reported upon, and when the right has generally so very clearly said they will NOT show much regard for the will of the Iraqis – well, clearly Sen. X is in far greater agreement with the center – than he is with you, and sees those issues as pretty real, and pretty important – while you wrongly claim them to be not worth consideration.
One final comment, actual rational people find comments like “defeatist” to be highly objectionable, and they’d consider people who utter them lunatic fringe for using them. I suspect Senator X is included in the group that thinks such comments are asinine. Put another way, in a discussion among the three of Sen X, one of the ultra-right wackos, and I, I’m reasonably confident he’d find someone like Mitch Berg, should he comport himself as he does on his blog, to be an irrational flake, incapable of staying on point (at worst) or a shallow, ill-thought through extremist (at best). It's amazing what common ground can be found when you discuss things civily. Most people aren't evil, or ignorant. Some will lie to obtain power, some won't.
No comments:
Post a Comment