Biden’s track record: You heard it here first

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 9:03am

The New York Times quotes this blog. My first question: Is anyone over there besides Peter Baker working? I mean, when this guy isn't on their front page, I worry that he is ill.

Anyways:

...And others, more harshly, argue that Mr. Biden's judgment on foreign policy has often been off base.

They point out that he voted against the successful Persian Gulf war of 1991, voted for the Iraq invasion of 2003, proposed dividing Iraq into three sections in 2006 and opposed the additional troops credited by many with turning Iraq around in 2007.

"When was the last time Biden was right about anything?" Thomas E. Ricks, a military writer, wrote in a blog on Sept. 24. Mr. Ricks is affiliated with the Center for a New American Security, a research organization founded by Democrats.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Thomas E. Ricks | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

In a response to your Sept 24

by Oldpilot on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 10:11am

In a response to your Sept 24 blog, a reader sighed: 'COIN as operational art has to be continually reinvented'.

How true! Will anyone ever learn this most basic law? If it worked yesterday, it won't work today, because the other guy also took note of how that encounter worked out. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

I shall STRONGLY object that you deride Mr. Biden in this way!

by Kenneth Sorensen on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 10:39am

Mr. Biden has shown himself to be an honorable person able to think for himself, whereas you disband old loyalty to realists like the honorable Mr. Stephen Walt, when you in this typical journalist fashion switches side now to support an interventionist idealistic intervention in south East Asia. A journalist can report anything, he can describe anything - that is what he does. That is his trade. But for him to issue any deep understanding or sovereign own thought -that is rare - whereas all of them steals with arms and legs everything that others have written.

You had some good punch-lines on CNN and other places when you vehemently critised the Iraq war, but this defense of the Afghan Campaign is just pathetic.

Comment

by sassafras on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 10:38am

When is the last time Joe Biden was right about anything? Well he was dead-on about Iraq. Prior to the invasion he predicted the breakdown of ethnic religious groups leading to civil war. NOBODY ELSE saw THAT coming, did they? The guy does his homework. Give him a break.

And then...

by rpm on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 12:24pm

He voted for the war anyway? How do you reconcile that little fact?

In the senate Biden was interesting, sort of a foreign policy gadfly. He had interesting opinions and got to travel around a lot. But no one ever considered handing him the keys to the car. He is too erratic, too concerned with his hair, and mostly too prone to self-congratulatory opinions that often seemed designed to put himself into the discussion rather than actually be policy suggestions rooted in reality.

And LOTS of people saw the potential problems inherent in the invasion of Iraq. A state department memo foreshadowed the challenges in detail. The Rumsfeld Pentagon just chose to ignore facts that did not fit their misconceptions. A sad chapter indeed, but hardly any ringing endorsment for the brilliancy of Joe Biden.

The great challenge for Obama is what to do with Joe in '11. He can't be seriously considered for president after Obama and you have got to believe these folks will want to manage that process a bit better than the Republicans did in'07.

Ambassador to the Duchy of Grand Fenwick?

Here's a journalist who can

by Kenneth Sorensen on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 10:46am

Here's a journalist who can think for himself.

THE INDEPENDENT, 11 October 2009: Robert Fisk: Obama, man of peace? No, just a Nobel prize of a mistake

by Robert Fisk

Mr Obama advertised the Afghanistan conflict as the war America had to fight – not that anarchic land of Mesopotamia which Mr Bush rashly invaded. He'd forgotten that Afghanistan was another Bush war; and he even announced that Pakistan was now America's war, too. The White House produced its "Afpak" soundbite. And the drones came in droves over the old Durand Line, to kill the Taliban and a host of innocent civilians. Should Mr Obama concentrate on al-Qa'ida? Or yield to General Stanley McChrystal's Vietnam-style demand for 40,000 more troops? The White House shows the two of them sitting opposite each other, Mr Obama in the smoothie suite, McChrystal in his battledress. The rabbit and the hare.

No way are they going to win. The neocons say that "the graveyard of empire" is a cliché. It is. But it's also true. The Afghan government is totally corrupted; its paid warlords – paid by Karzai and the Americans – ramp up the drugs trade and the fear of Afghan civilians. But it's much bigger than this.

The Indian embassy was bombed again last week. Has Mr Obama any idea why? Does he realise that Washington's decision to support India against Pakistan over Kashmir – symbolised by his appointment of Richard Holbrooke as envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan but with no remit to discuss divided Kashmir – enraged Pakistan. He may want India to balance the power of China (some hope!) but Pakistan's military intelligence realises that the only way of persuading Mr Obama to act fairly over Kashmir – recognising Pakistan's claims as well as India's – is to increase their support for the Taliban. No justice in Kashmir, no security for US troops – or the Indian embassy – in Afghanistan.

Then, after stroking the Iranian pussycat at the Geneva nuclear talks, the US president discovered that the feline was showing its claws again at the end of last week. A Revolutionary Guard commander, an adviser to Supreme Leader Khamenei, warned that Iran would "blow up the heart" of Israel if Israel or the US attacked the Islamic Republic. I doubt it. Blow up Israel and you blow up "Palestine". Iranians – who understand the West much better than we understand them – have another policy in the case of the apocalypse. If the Israelis attack, they may leave Israel alone. They have a plan, I'm told, to target instead only US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their bases in the Gulf and their warships cruising through Hormuz. They would leave Israel alone. Americans would then learn the price of kneeling before their Israeli masters.

For the Iranians know that the US has no stomach for a third war in the Middle East. Which is why Mr Obama has been sending his generals thick and fast to the defence ministry in Tel Aviv to tell the Israelis not to strike at Iran. And why Israel's leaders – including Mr Netanyahu – were blowing the peace pipe all week about the need for international negotiations with Iran. But it raises an interesting question. Is Mr Obama more frightened of Iran's retaliation? Or of its nuclear capabilities? Or more terrified of Israel's possible aggression against Iran?

The 1991 vote is the most troubling IMO

by alex_lerman on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 10:50am

I supported Kerry in 2004, but with real reservations about the 1991 vote - which most other Dems including Biden opposed.

Just what did they expect Saddam Hussein to respond to after engulfing Kuwait and making ominous moves towards Saudi Arabia?

Opposing the "bush doctrine" shouldn't meaning opposing any use of military power - and hopefully Obama understands this.

Counting my blessings

by Jupiter on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 11:40am

His idea of fighting an insurgency entirely with remote-controlled planes was pretty dumb, but as far as vice presidential foreign policy expertise goes, things could have been much worse.

Well said

by bpb1979 on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 1:05pm

Well said, Tom -- that pretty much slams the nail right on the head. It's about time that someone told the vice president that he's talking beyond his area of expertise. (I also enjoyed the rather snippy response from his office in the NY Times. ;)

Still got the inferiority complex, eh?

by Norwegian Shooter on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 3:35pm

If you read Baker's work regularly, you'll know that he hasn't included a single quote in opposition to escalation in Afghanistan, so he had to eventually get around to you.

Still, he tried to peg you as leftist to provide "balance." I loved the "founded by Democrats" line. Yeah, so? Neocon-ism was founded by Democrats too.

Cheers (all in good fun, right? When I stop commenting, I've stopped caring)

PS Is there something in the water at the WaPo that breeds hawks?

CAPTCHA - "one dominion" I hope that's not a reference to the goal of CNAS!

Let us refocus...

by Bill Keller on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 3:43pm

take a look at the four Marines photographed in the NYT today "Stanley McChrystal’s Long War" - look at their faces, they were in mid elementry school, when Washington was joyfully with vengence, trifectas, hubris,...this is a boy's club distraction.

I am heartened that they are seriously making considerations and accepting differing points. I have a grandson who now is the age these Marines were when it all started.

Rory Stewart seems to agree with Biden.

by afr114 on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 4:22pm

Mr. Ricks,

I understand you disagree with the VP but it seems that he has plenty of company who agree with his position including Rory Stewart.

And Rory Stewart has plenty of experience with the country and the region.

Don't you think they have a point?

Joe Biden -- Iraq War architect

by Don Bacon on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 6:12pm

Senator Joe Biden was one of the principal architects of the Iraq War. Stephen Zunes:

More than two months prior to the 2002 war resolution even being introduced, in what was widely interpreted as the first sign that Congress would endorse a U.S. invasion of Iraq, Biden declared on August 4 that the United States was probably going to war. In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the America public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing.

Senator Biden appeared on Meet The Press on April 29, 2007 and flat-out lied about Iraq.

When, when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had. everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so?

"Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says 'We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed' or not." "But he did have material that, in fact, could theoretically be weaponized."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/page/2/

but--
The UN weapons inspectors were withdrawn at the direct request of the US so that the US could bomb Iraq in Operation Desert Fox. The UN never said Iraq still possessed WMD. Biden is talking about documents prepared by the UN about the theoretical maximum amount of biological and chemical weapons Iraq could have produced before the Gulf War in 1991. Just for instance, the head of the CIA's WMD section privately believed that Iraq had "not much, if anything."

Biden would have known this if he had allowed Scott Ritter to testify at the Iraq Senate Hearings that Biden chaired. But he didn't. Also, according to Zunes again: "Nor did Biden even call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims of their ideologically-driven superiors. He was willing, however, to allow Iraqi defectors of highly dubious credentials to make false testimony about the vast quantities of WMD materiel supposedly in Saddam Hussein’s possession."
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492

As always you get down to the Bacon, Don

by Kenneth Sorensen on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 1:07am

As always you get down to the Bacon, Don. It is good to remind us of this. But what he says here about Afghanistan could be right. Now Don I want to use your processing power to help figure out this: Do you think it is possible that Mr. Biden was 'allowed' to take this position by The Lobby? They are very clever guys, and first of all we must remember why he was chosen as Vice President in the first place, - because of his vagueness and the other problems with his character that you briefly address. They did not want another Vice President --like Cheney -- who could become powerful and start to run things on his own.

But do you think they gave him this position to speak out about, because they knew it would be a dead end - that it wouldn't be his point of view that was going to prevail? To have 2 opposing views in the top of the white House shows a reflective and diversified way of making decisions, which is nice window-dressing from a Public relations point of view, and it shows the American people that all options are being thought about.

The problem is that just

by Risen on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 9:19pm

The problem is that just because you're wrong on some issues doesn't mean you're wrong on the next one. He could be wrong on every issue since he was a third-grader, but dead on when it comes to Afghanistan.

Now I'm no fan of Biden, but this discussion is pretty silly. Any one who acts as if they have international relations figured out probably knows little of the subject.

You're the smart one --

by Don Bacon on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 10:06pm

you don't know anything about international relations and so you don't discuss it, and that way you're never wrong (except when you claim that others who do know something are silly to discuss it).

Umm....no. I have studied

by Risen on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 9:20pm

Umm....no. I have studied international relations for quite some time. But again, you're not answering the fundamental issue - which is that its pointless to argue Biden's past beliefs when discussing a completely different scenario. Nice try though, Don.

Photos of Military Deaths in Afghanistan Banned

by admiral on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 11:43pm

"NEW YORK The U.S. military in eastern Afghanistan recently changed its media embed rules to ban pictures of troops killed in the war."

Information warfare in action. Its amazing to me how our Army is becoming so much like the Red Army.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004022471

When Biden

by kunino on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 1:29am

Biden was right to vote against the first gulf war. Bush I ordered Iraq out of Kuwait by a nominated time under nominated coinditions. A senior peace-seeking team of negotiators from Moscow went into Bagdad via Amman and obtained Hussein's agreement to these conditions, and the Iraqis started to pack up. This news being conveyed to Washington, Bush I brought out a new set of conditions and a new deadline. The Russian team took a deep breath and went back in.

Hussein agreed to the new conditions aand his forces continued to pack up. The Russian government, by this time aware that it was probably Bush's intention to invade whether or not this was the right thing to do, woke up and called out the international press in Moscow for an unusual midnight briefing in the Kremlin. This second Russian uccess was put before Bush well before the Bush deadline, and in the most remarkable statement ever made by any US commander in chief, he said "It's too late. I can't stop the invasion." Kind of makes you wonder where the element of command really lies in the US defense machine.

All of this was public at the time.

Let's not forget that Bush and his wife initially justified the planned attack on Iraq by telling Washington reporters that they had read a international charity's report on beastly things that had happened in a Kuwaiti hospital on the day the invading Iraqis arrived -- and the charity made it clear the Bush account had been untruthful. Congress in its turn was aroused to martial fervor by testimony from an attractiobve young Kuwaiti woman who claimed to have been a nurse in that hospital on that day. She was in fact the daughter of the Kuwasiti ambassador to Washington; not a nurse; and extensively rehearsed in her testimony by one of the larger US public relations agencies. Remarkable that Biden wasn't swayed by this nonsense.

Anyway, if the first gulf war was all that good, why did we need a second one so soon after?

Thank God for Saddam Hussein!

by Watson on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 9:03am

...was the cry of the Beltway military contractors at the time.

There had been an expectation in some quarters that a “peace dividend” resulting from the end of the Cold War would permit resources to be re-directed from Pentagon spending to domestic projects.

Saving Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

by Don Bacon on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 5:42pm

Well, the US got Iraq out of the Kingdom of Kuuwait, a hereditary monarchy, where at least now (since 2005) women can vote, even though there are no national elections.

And the US kept Iraq out of Saudi Arabia, also a hereditary monarchy, where there are legislative elections but women are not allowed to vote but they can be stoned to death for suspected adultery.

Obama's Dithering, Biden's Withdrawl

by 11bravo on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 3:56am

Mr. Ricks,

Is not President Obama's "public dithering" and VP Biden's withdrawl plan going to cause some pause on our allies in Nato about their own troop levels? Why would any of our hesitant Nato allies send more troops, if the Americans themselves are hesitant to send more troops? It seems the White House has created the perfect opportunity for our allies not to send any more troops. Nato is always looking for an excuse, with President Bush it was that he was very unpopular and now with President Obama that he is unsure about the war. The war of necessity, becomes the war of circumstances.

Biden Says

by R.Howe on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 12:14pm

"Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent.