Jim Webb on Meet the Press

"Iraq, is the military surge working?"
Webb's answer was essentially that the "Sunni awakening" in Al Anbar was happening "well before the surge began."  In addition, Webb believes that Al Qaeda "badly overplayed their hand before the...surge was announced."  But, according to Webb, all this is temporary, and won't necessarily help us long term.   We've also got a temporary period of calm because "Sadr, who is the most aligned with Iran, has cut, basically, a six-month deal here where he's looking at the Maliki government."  Regardless, the most dangerous places for terrorism right now aren't even in Iraq, they're in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  And then there's the volatile Kurish-Turkish situation in the north.   So, we have a "moment," given to us by the U.S. military, now "We need to take advantage of this in a regional way, not simply an Iraq way."

Webb's right on all counts, excellent analysis of the situation.  We have a "moment" thanks to our military, but now we have to exploit it politically.  Without that, it won't last.  Unfortunately, we have an administration that doesn't seem to understand the word "strategy," let alone to develop one and implement it effectively.  We'll see what happens, but it's hard to be optimistic with this bunch of jokers in the White House.

"But should President Bush receive credit for undertaking the surge in other areas?"
Again, Webb emphasized that Bush's surge "was a tactical adjustment; it didn't change the overarching strategy of what we were trying to do."  Unfortunately, despite the great job done by the U.S. military, the Bush Administration has failed "for the last five years to match the quality of our military performance with robust regional diplomacy."  Also, the Iraqi government has failed to take charge in the provinces or to put $10 billion into reconstruction.  What you've got in Iraq is "a very weak central government surrounded by strong, armed tribal factions, each of which has their own agenda."  

Again, Webb nails it.  Military force without a broader strategy involving diplomacy, economics, politics, etc., will not succeed.  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration doesn't seem to understand "hard power" very well, let alone "soft power."

"Should the Congress continue to fund the war in Iraq?"
Webb blasts the Bush Administration for "constantly us[ing] fear tactics." The bottom line is that "no one in the Congress...is going to interrupt funding that goes to the ability of the military to take care of the present responsibilities."  The question is, how long are we going to be in Iraq, "the next 50 years" as some Republicans are now saying?  But the bottom line is that cutting off funding for the war is "just not a winning formula."

No disagreement here in terms of the politics of the situation.  Congress is simply not going to cut off funding with our troops in harm's way.  But in terms of longer term funding, that's a different story.
"Do you believe people who voted for that resolution, in effect, were voting for war with Iran?"
Webb says that "if you turn around and say that a, a piece of an actual foreign army is a terrorist organization, essentially what you're saying is that we are at war with that country, because we are at war with actual foreign terrorist organizations."

As much as I despise Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, I think Webb's right that designating them a terrorist organization is probably not the way to go.  What does it accomplish?  Having said that, I definitely believe we have a major problem with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, and with other aspects of Iran's behavior, that we need to address.

"Senator Biden said that if President Bush attacks Iran without authorization from Congress that impeachment charges should be brought against the president.  Do you agree with that?"
Webb says Congress should do "an appropriations retrenchment, say there will be no money to start an activity rather than saying there will be a bad result if you conduct the activity."  Webb also says the votes aren't there for this approach.  If Bush goes ahead and attacks Iran without approval from Congress, Webb says "there would be a lot of people, I think, who would step up and perhaps call for some sort of retaliatory action against the president."  In other words, impeachment appears to be on the table.

I see no way that Congress could stop Bush from attacking Iran by cutting off funding using an "appropriations retrenchment."  There's plenty of money sloshing around the Defense Department budget for the Bush Administration to launch air strikes. Then, once we're at war with Iran, does anyone seriously believe Congress will cut off funding, any more than it's done so in Iraq?  Uh, don't think so.  Finally, I don't see impeachment happening, mainly because there simply isn't enough time to do it if Bush takes a whack at Iran in the summer or fall.  I'm more interested in how this will affect the 2008 presidential election, frankly.

"2008 presidential election, do you think the Democrats can capture Virginia in a presidential race?"
Webb says the Democrats have a "very good chance" in 2008.

It depends on who the Democratic and Republican nominees are.

"If that nominee said to you, 'Jim Webb, I want you to run as vice president because you can help me carry Virginia,' would you run?"
Webb doesn't rule it out, seems uncomfortable talking about it, says "never answer what ifs."

"Are you more receptive to Hillary Clinton?" "She make a good president? "How about Barack Obama?"
Webb is complimentary of both Clinton and Obama, saying they'd each be "a good president" and other nice things.

I agree, either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would make an excellent president, certainly better than any of the Republicans out there right now.

Comments