Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

A fairly even-handed portrayal of the war>>>>

Posted By: Observer on 2005-08-25
In Reply to:

Lack of Mandate on Iraq Haunts Bush





 


“Iraqi support for the overthrow of Saddam was real, but ultimately insufficient to the full scope of the American project. ”

 

 

NPR.org, August 22, 2005 · Among the many lessons the U.S. is being taught in the travails of Iraq, one stands out because it should not have been necessary. Let's call this lesson the rule of proportionate mandate.


The rule is this: the scope of your plans must be matched by the breadth of your support. Remaking the Middle East by overthrowing its ugliest autocratic government was a bold undertaking. In concept, it may have been visionary. But to attempt it without overwhelming support from key constituencies was to court disaster.


Much that we have learned in Iraq has become clear in hindsight. But this one, basic rule should have been clear from the outset.


Before invading Iraq, the administration of President Bush needed the broad backing of three constituencies: the Iraqi people, the international community and the American public. In each case, the administration heard just enough of what it wanted to hear to conclude it had sufficient support. In each case, it was wrong.


In 2003, U.S. intelligence was satisfied it could count on resistance to Saddam Hussein among Kurds in northern Iraq, who were already semi-autonomous. The Shiite Arabs in the south were also presumably anti-Saddam. And if some Sunni in central Iraq remained loyal to the Baathist regime, they would be relatively few and readily isolated.


We know now that support for a U.S. invasion was overstated, that very few Iraqis backed a long-term U.S. occupation and that even a remnant of determined Sunni can sustain a deadly insurgency indefinitely. In other words, Iraqi support for the overthrow of Saddam was real, but ultimately insufficient to the full scope of the American project.


In the international sphere, the U.S. move into Iraq was supported by Great Britain and some other European states. But the United Nations preferred a course of more deliberate pressure on Saddam. More important, the U.S. did not have the Islamic allies it had in the 1991 war to oust Saddam from Kuwait. Most of these states feared the consequences of a greater American presence in their geographic midst.


So despite the much-invoked "coalition of the willing," the U.S.-led invasion looked disturbingly unilateral in 2003. And the ongoing occupation looks even more so today, as the ranks of coalition partners have thinned.


As for the third constituency, the American public, we were sold on the war intellectually as a defensive strike to rid the world of a tyrant who had (or would soon have) weapons of mass destruction. On a more visceral level, the war had appeal as revenge for the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- even without a connection between Iraq and those attacks. Today, of course, the weapons justification is regarded as either an error or a sham. The second basis remains, and the president now regularly refers to the war in Iraq as making Americans safer.


In 2003, the war pitch worked well enough to win a polling majority. But it was never an overwhelming majority, as in the case of Pearl Harbor or the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001. This lack of a full mandate, proportionate to the ambition of the war policy, cast a cloud over the endeavor from the start.


Because the margin in favor of war was never that great, the inevitable dwindling of support in the face of adversity and frustration has now reduced the level of public support well below 50 percent. In the latest Gallup polls, 54 percent said the war was a mistake, not worth its cost. An even greater percentage, 57 percent, said the Iraq war is not making Americans safer.


This is far from being our first experience with the rule of proportionate mandate. Most Americans supported the wars in Korea and Vietnam, at least at first, but not enough to maintain the kind of national effort those wars turned out to demand.


The need for broad backing affects domestic issues as well. The obvious example was President Bill Clinton's abortive attempt to redesign the nation's health care system in 1993 and 1994. Clinton's 42 percent plurality in the three-way election of 1992 was nowhere near enough to propel that kind of change in the face of concerted opposition. In similar fashion, President Bush has found that his historically narrow re-election margin lent him little momentum with which to tackle the Social Security system this year.


This is not to say that no president can govern in a country so politically divided as ours. In the contemporary American system, the president must lead. Even those who have become president upon the death of their predecessors have done so.


But there are limits. All presidents must govern within the norms of representative democracy, and these include the rule of proportionate mandate. Push a minimal majority too hard and it will be a majority no more. Pushing further still raises fundamental questions of legitimacy.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

you obviously won't......it's already been handed over
nm
He is on Fox fairly often.
I know I've seen his 2 or 3 times already.  As far as him owning Fox....I don't think so.  He sounded like an moron to me.  Some of his comments are way out there.
Ahh....the writ handed down from she who...
decides who and who does not deserve compassion. lol.
It's sad that all are not treated fairly and equally...
- on this board or in the real world.  But that is the way things are and it's time to accept it, I guess.
Roe vs . Wade is a decision handed down...
by the Supreme Court invalidating a state law which made abortion illegal. At that time many states had an abortion law on the books. And from that all abortion law was abolished. The Constitution of this country clearly states that only the legislative branch can enact law. The Supreme Court superceded that and made law. Rowe vs. Wade is unconstitutional on its face and should be overturned. Then, the Congress of the United States can inact a real abortion law, or leave it to the states to decide. It should reflect the will of the people, not a few judges. Of course, the pro CHOICE people run backward at the thought of people actually having a CHOICE as to whether or not carte blanche abortion should be legal. Pro choice...right. Where is the baby's choice in all this?

The fact of the matter is, if put to state discretion, there are several states that would enact carte blanche abortion law. But there are some who would not. As with any law, it should be the will of the majority...is that not what democracy is all about? CHOICE?
Obama caught red handed.....

He finally said the words "SPREAD THE WEALTH" when asked by a plumber about raising his taxes.  THe plumber told him he could not afford to have his taxes raised because that would keep him from being able to expand his business, EMPLOY more folks, etc.  Obama told him yes he would but ONLY to help "spread the wealth" and make it fairer for others.  That man couldn't care less about small businesses.  If that isn't about the most ignorant/self-absorbed/SOCIALIST thing I have ever heard.  Anyone who still thinks he's a good deal needs a reality check. 


Even the Wall Street Journal says his policies are going to put businesses OUT OF BUSINESS because they cannot afford these ridiculous policy mandates.  This man is looking out for only one people and definitely NOT the country.   Now, he is going back and asking his "advisors" to REDO ANOTHER ECONOMIC POLICY so the one everyone is jumping on as WONDERFUL NEWS...be advised, it is changing again!!!


He is now wanting MORE money to give to MORE people so we can keep MORE PEOPLE on the welfare roll.  KEEP IT UP BUDDY.....SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM!!


 


Thank you but I'm fairly familiar with the Constitution.
You could, however, educate me as to where the Constitution says that children born to ILLEGAL parents are automatic U.S. citizens.
You have no basis in fact that Bush is doing a rewrite...you hate him, which is fairly obvious.
Then go ahead and blame Clinton, if you believe there's enough blame to go around, but I don't see you taking up space doing so.