In Defense of Lieberman

• Lieberman's Motives
• Lieberman is to be trusted more than his opponents. He supports the war in Iraq, and, furthermore, he publicly supports more troops. Both of these are extremely unpopular positions. The only reason he would support them is because he genuinely believes them the best course of action for America. As to his opponents, they are merely following polls, moving with the herd, so to speak, not to mention settling grudges, as many Democrats are very upset over Lamont's defeat.
  

• More American Soldiers is just part of Lieberman's solution
• Lieberman- "To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government."
• Lieberman- "The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a democratic government can move forward."
  

• However, more troops remains an integral part nonetheless
  

• What Losing Iraq Means
• Lieberman - "On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism."
• The people waiting for us to leave in Iraq are not citizens fighting for their liberties, as were we were in our own revolutionary war, nor members of a movement fighting for Iraq's nationalist right of self determination, as were the Vietnamese. They are kidnappers and criminals, they are terrorists, they are militias, and they are foreign proxies. If we leave Iraq, they, and their supporters (such as Iran) will be the ones to fill the power vacuum. Not only will the situation indubitably germinate larger problems down the road, such as terrorism, regional instability, and threats to Middle Eastern oil flows (and consequently our economy), but all those who have supported us in Iraq, all those who dared to dream of a better, more democratic, and more just tomorrow, will flee or perish.
  
• Kurdistan is the notable exception- they are run by a movement fighting for their right of self-determination and citizens fighting for their liberties. We've also left Kurdistan. They also love the Americans.
  

• A secure Iraq is necessary for the construction of democracy in Iraq.
  
• Lieberman - "More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite. Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front -- possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides."
• Try running a democracy when people will shoot you because of who you are. Not who you chose to be. Who you are. Your ethnicity. Your race. These people were born Sunni-Shi'ite, and they're getting killed for it because we cannot deliver basic security.
  
• Try making improving a society when people shoot you for that to. Teachers. Policemen. Soldiers. Politicians. Judges. People who rose when we asked them to make a democracy are now getting mowed down (or are fleeing Iraq altogether) because we never bothered to provide adequate security.
  
• According to Iraqi tallies, 13,896 Iraqis died in 2006, 1,539 of which were from the security forces. According to the UN and a John Hopkins study, the number is much higher. Furthermore, it is estimated that as of Nov. 2006, 1.6 million Iraqis have fled their neighborhoods and 1.8 million Iraqis have quit the country altogether. An additional 100,000 are fleeing monthly.
• Lieberman- "The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation."
• There can be no doubt that what is impeding the progress of Iraqi society, what is impeding the progress of their economy and institutions, is the security situation. Without security, we, and the Iraqis, cannot nation-build in Iraq.
  

• We cannot trust Iraqi forces to bring about that security without us.
  
• "Those [Iraqi] forces, already struggling with corruption and infiltration, have shown little willingness to stand up to political pressure, especially when the Americans are not there to support them. That suggests, the commanders say, that if the Americans leave soon, violence will redouble." Link.
• "Among Sunnis, there is absolutely no faith in the ability, or desire, of the Iraqi Army or police to provide protection." Link.
• "American officials, who are overseeing the training of the Iraqi Army and the police, acknowledge that police officers and Iraqi soldiers, and the militias with which they are associated, may indeed be carrying out killings and abductions in Sunni communities, without direct American knowledge." Link.
• According to the Human Rights Watch: "Iraqi security forces are committing systematic torture and other abuses against people in detention"
• Without the strong political and societal institutions that cannot be built (democratically) without security, the Iraqis cannot build a competent police force and army. How are you to build a non-sectarian, competent police force when any Iraqi runs the risk of having his family gunned down for doing his job right? That leaves the task with us. There is nobody we can pass the buck to. It is up to America, as the principle agent in bringing Iraq to its present situation, to provide Iraq with basic security. A necessary component of delivering that security is more American troops.
  

• More Manpower works
• Ramadi - An escalation of US troops, coupled with cooperation of the Sheiks, has almost pacified a one-time insurgent stronghold and led to the successful creation of a 2000+ man police force in a city.
• Fallujah - Another one-time insurgent stronghold has been turned into a "safe-haven" for Sunnis fleeing Baghdad due to a strong and effective American security presence.
• At the beginning of the war, we did not know what we were doing. Now, as evident in Ramadi and Fallujah, the American military has developed extremely effective pacification tactics. With the appointment of Gen. Petraeus, the same man that just oversaw the recent drafting of the military’s counterinsurgency manual and who promises a shift of tactics from Casey's strategy (consolidate and prepare to leave) to the same strategies that have worked inRamadi & Fallujah- small outposts with many patrols, we can finally trust our manpower will be effective.
  

• Commanders' Opinions
• It is a tradition- and a good tradition- that military commanders refrain from commenting on policy. That keeps the military controlled by the civilians, not the other way around. It is then to be expected that military commanders do not voice their opinion on the number of troops in Iraq, and when they do it is either muted or private.
• Nonetheless, a poll of the actual military reveal that as of 2006, almost half of respondents think the U.S. needs more troops in Iraq and only 13 percent said the U.S. should have no troops there.
• Additionally, historically the most consistent opinion of those involved in the Iraq war is that we did not have enough troops:
• Bremer : "Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on."
• General Shinseki (2003): "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this."
• Furthermore, commanders will often be appointed according to the opinions of the civilian leadership. Thus it was to be expected that the top man in Iraq underRumsfeld , Gen. George W. Casey Jr, who was appointed to oversee reductions in the troops in Iraq, "initially expressed public wariness about any short-term increase in troops in Iraq" (Link). Troop increases would be a rubber stamp on his failure to implement his own plan. Much more than a rubber stamp is the fact that he is now being replaced by Gen. David H. Petraeus, a man whose personal pride will not stand to be hurt by changing tactics in Iraq and who actually supports more troops.
• Iraqi Opinions
• It is to be expected that the most Iraqis (excepting the Kurds) do not like us- we broke their China bowl, so to speak, and now we will not clean it up. Those that do not want us there are either those that believe the conspiracy theories that we are there to set up a Christian empire, or are those resisting us, who, asafore mentioned, are miscreants whose opinions are not to be respected when it comes to making decisions about the course of a society.
• On Campaign Promises
• The core reason the liberal left does not like Lieberman is because of his unflagging support of the war in Iraq. They may say otherwise, but that is definitely where he has received the most flak. Thus, to call him alier for supporting more troops after he supposedly promised otherwise during the campaign is to be hypocritical. The left opposed him during his campaign because he supported the war in Iraq, the left still opposes him now for supporting in Iraq, and neither side has shifted its position dramatically. Find me a citizen of Connecticut who voted for Lieberman and is outraged that he now supports more troops in Iraq and I will take him seriously. As to those claiming moral outrage who have always hated him, they have no grounds for additional anger.
• The Case.
• The Bush administration has done a terrible job with the occupation of Iraq. Such a terrible job that, were we to go back to the beginning, knowing what I know now, I would have actively opposed the undertaking from the onset. But the fact of the matter is that we are there, and our inability to deliver basic security is to blame for Iraq's desperate plight.
  
• Furthermore, our army has gotten much more competent at being an occupation force in the last (almost) four years. With increased manpower, there is a valid possibility we can succeed.
  
• There can be no doubt right now that Bush, and the Republican congress that did not hold him responsible, is to blame for the incompetency that got us here. I also think there can be little doubt that the Democratic congressional victory can be credited for making Bush fire those responsible (Rumsfeld) and change his strategy in Iraq.

• After having caused such a reversal, for the Democratic majority to throw away even the chance for victory by pushing for a full withdrawal is a cowardly, partisan, and politically easy solution to a very difficult problem on par with the Republican decisions that got us here.
  
• Furthermore, while a withdrawal will certainly spare America much sacrifice in the short run, it will be little less than a betrayal of Iraq to leave them with the mess we made.
  
• The Democrats, and all of America, should stand for competency and accountability, not partisanry and defeat. Lieberman seems to understand that. The Democratic leadership, I'm afraid, does not.