Posted without comment, except Atrios has more.

Just to follow up on my long post about Iraq, here’s Graham trotting out the same re-enlistment issue in January with a calmer and more interesting response by Webb.

This was going to just be a video post, but after watching the clips several times, a couple of thoughts seem worth sharing. First, the clips, found via Atrios’s blog and My Left Nutmeg.

First, Webb’s comments on the war:

Now the shouting match (and, as the folks at C&L said, Graham really looks like he overloaded on the caffeine this morning…):

Ugh. So, two U.S. Senators go on TV and the best we get is this bullshit. I will say again, I am tired of this type of news show. We need stronger moderators than someone like Russert who sits by and lets things degrade into a shouting match.

In particular, a couple of points stand out to me and are worth tying together with this video.

First, Graham’s question about whether Webb has been to Iraq is bull and should be called out as such. Graham goes to Iraq visiting troops selected to see him and he goes as part of a little traveling show. More importantly, Webb would never have had a chance to go because he wasn’t a Senator until quite recently. It’s not like they even let reporters go over there and interview soldiers as they want. This is not Vietnam, and the military is exerting more control over the presentation we get here.

Second, on the issue of re-enlistment. I would love to have Graham finish his thought. Why are they re-enlisting? Seriously, I would love to know that. I have seen numerous, varied reports putting the reasons all over the place, but political considerations haven’t really been on that list. After spending a few hours searching around, it’s clear to me that no one actually knows, or at least isn’t reporting about it. For example, going through Stars and Stripes, I found a lot of voices with differing opinions about re-enlistment. A story from 2003 with a re-enlistment NCO spells out his opinions on why people go back. I found a military wife who was proud her husband re-enlisted in 2003 even without a bonus because he believed in what he’s doing. Flipping through letters to the editor in Stars and Stripes shows a pretty wide array of opinions.

My point is that Graham brought that up as bait, as if the act of re-enlistment was an endorsement of policy and president. It is just as likely to be neither (enlistment bonuses are up, troops don’t want to let down their brothers-in-arms, etc.). Graham was simply using it as a debating tactic rather than a substantive point and that’s stupid.

This also goes toward the larger issue with information from Iraq. There is so much effort being expended criticizing sources of news out of Iraq, with right leaning folks like the one I linked to above only trusting the military, and with left leaning folks only trusting non-military and non-Fox sources (and barely, at that). Ultimately, we end up with little information that we (either side) can trust. Journalism out of the area is pretty bare, as well. Often, I wonder about whether it’s good we get our info from TV… in large part, TV news requires a filter of a face and voice we can understand (e.g. no major accent, etc.). At least with print, accents aren’t an issue and translations are understandable as long as the language is understood.

Regardless of that aside, though, reporting is a big part of another of Graham’s assertions. He stated quite loudly that Iran is killing our men and women over there. Today, however, a report by the LA Times highlights that the U.S. has captured more Saudis among the foreign fighters in Iraq than any other nationality. More than Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc. E&P has more on the story, but it puts some question marks onto why we don’t criticize Saudi Arabia in the same way we criticize Iran. The report, by the way, oddly leaves out the percentage of Iranian fighters captured, something that would seem to be relevant. Based on the percentages left over and assuming that a non-significant portion come from other places like Jordan, that means Iran would be second. Again, it’s unclear from the report, so that makes that a bit odd in my mind. Webb brought this up during the shouting match, though it was drowned out by Graham’s ranting.

Of course, the biggest issue I have with clips like these is that while they feel good to those of us debating the political realities of a withdrawal/redeployment vote, the fact is they’re quite useless to the debate. So, it’s unsurprising to me to see this clip getting a lot of play on blogs of both sides with headlines like “Sen. Webb (D-VA) levels the warmongers” (not to pick on MLN particularly). It might feel good, but it’s pretty useless on the debate at hand. The clip does make Graham look like a petulant child and that was surprising as well as disappointing, but it didn’t inform me at all. I think that’s true of the whole debate.

For what it’s worth, I am in favor of a redeployment of U.S. troops the way Murtha and company described a year or so ago. Draw down and maintain an over-the-horizon presence to help the Iraqis in limited ways. I have come to that position after considering two issues that get little actual discussion outside of a partisan frame. First, the President is unwilling to admit mistakes on any front beyond the sort of general hand-waving, “Mistakes have been made” sort of way. While I have faith in the abilities of our military generals, I don’t believe it’s honest to say that they’re defining the mission. They’re defining it within a pretty narrow set of guidelines imposed by the civilian leadership. I don’t have faith in this president or the judgement of his staff, and all the good intentions and nobility in the world can’t counteract stupidity at the top.

Second, no one has made a convincing case that what happens in Iraq will be more important to the national security of the United States than what happens in Afghanistan, the border region with Pakistan, and in Iran. There is little doubt in my mind that a draw down of U.S. troops in Iraq would allow us to put more troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and to apply more tactical resources to the real war on real terrorists. How anyone can look at Iraq as a “central front in the war on terror” after reading that al-Qaeda is at it’s strongest level since 2001 is amazing to me. They’re not there. The people that attacked us on 9/11 are not in Iraq. They never were, and the decision to open up a second front in Iraq was absurdly stupid. There’s not a nice way to say that.

That’s not to say that we won’t have to deal with the consequences of leaving Iraq, not the least of which will be the well being of those Iraqis who sided with the U.S. and assisted our troops there. Asylum and evacuation might be a requirement, and should be something that’s part of any redeployment decision.

Anyway, I’ve written enough ramble for today. My point simply is that we should be talking more about the last three paragraphs I’ve written above than counting how many times Graham and Joe Lieberman have visited the troops in Iraq, or why the troops are redeploying. Those are vapor debates meant to boost the standing of the politician uttering them rather than substantive points about the debate. Graham is right that what happens over the next 20-30 years will determine the value of the war, but he’s wrong to suggest that the only way to move forward is to stand by the President. I wish that would end up in the debate as well.

I’ll end with a slightly related topic, which is that local citizens are finally realizing that Joe Lieberman lied during the 2006 elections. He has no intention of following up on his promises during the campaign to help withdraw troops as early as possible and has, quite frankly, lost his connection to reality when it comes to Iraq policy. The editorial I linked above is worth reading in large part because the Courant endorsed Lieberman in 2006. They were wrong to do so, and I hope they realize that Lieberman is bad for our state.

Webb was former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, served in Vietnam, and covered war zones as a journalist in between. Oh, and he wrote an editorial warning about the consequences of invading Iraq BEFORE the war. Lieberman has no military background and has a political interest in his position.