I’ve just got a brief comment on Bush’s Iraq analogies, to Vietnam, Korea, or otherwise: What is the purpose of such analogies? Bush uses them to try to convince us of the importance of “victory” in Iraq — whatever that means at this point — and to outline the dire consequences of “failure.”
And that’s all very interesting, and worse, it may even be true. I can’t tell you that if and when we withdraw from Iraq, there won’t be unbelievable bloodshed, similar to if not worse than similar power vacuums upon a departing superpower in Southeast Asia, or the partition of India. Yes, it could happen, and it’s extremely grave, and in an ordinary situation with an ordinary President of ordinary good faith, we’d be having a real conversation about how to prevent such a thing … back in 2002.
But President Bush has had four-and-a-half years to deliver victory, with virtually a totally free hand and endless funds from Congress and the public. And he’s failed, utterly. For argument’s sake, let’s focus on the “competence issue”, forgetting that the decision to go into Iraq was disastrous from the start: If victory, as opposed to doing-it-his-way, were really the most important thing to our President, he would have made necessary adjustments throughout the war, from the number of troops going in at the beginning, to protecting civilian society, to guarding weapons caches, and on and on.
It’s far, far too late for this President to lecture us about how important it is to succeed. Not only has he proven himself to be incompetent to deliver victory, he seems to have made it impossible for anyone else to do so. So what’s left?
that there hasn’t been more “escalation” talk, at least on the right. It’s possible — not really in character, but possible — that Bush feels handicapped by the 2006 election results and fears an escalation would bring more violence and wipe out any GOP chance in 2008.
<
p>
Inferred there was no downside to our cut and run in South East Asia Asia circa 1973.
<
p>
No problemo—-let’s cut and run. Pull everyone back to Ft. Cambell, Hood, Polk and Knox. And while we are at it—let’s get everyone out of Europe. There is no reason for us to be there since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s an absolute waste of our tax dollars.
<
p>
Anything we need to do we have other resources.
Folks returning from visits to Iraq have suggested the surge is working.
<
p>
This includes liberal politicians, too, most recently Senator Dick Durbin, D-IL, a sharp critic of the Bush administration.
<
p>
So if Durbin, and others like Michael O?Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the left-leaning Brookings Institute, feel we have prospects for military success in Iraq, your claim utter failure is weak, if not wrong.
<
p>
One can complain about muddled strategies and tactical missteps, but if this is “a war we just might win,” to quote Pollack and O’Hanlon, don’t we owe it to ourselves to see the commitment through?
<
p>
I think the prejudiced pronouncements of people like Harry Reid (saying months ago the surge has failed before it was fully operational) are fueled by partisanship and BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome.)
<
p>
Often, what I sense progressives dearly covet most of all is US failure. We seem to be winning the military battle in Iraq. Why not see it through so we can foster political success there, too?
<
p>
Or would that too bitter a victory for liberals and progressives to bear?
Would seem to disagree, however.
We went into this war in Iraq for the following stated reasons:
<
p>
1. Iraq supposedly had WMDs
2. Iraq supposedly was a threat to the United States
3. Saddam was a tyrant
4. Saddam supposedly was partly responsible for 9/11
<
p>
Since items 1,2, and 4 turned out to be false, and 3 has been taken care of, it seems we have accomplished what it is we went into Iraq for in the first place. The majority of Iraq’s parliament signed a letter in May asking the US to set a timetable for withdrawal- so if it’s really about setting up an Iraqi democracy, than we should respect their wishes to set a date and leave.
<
p>
Let’s bring our brave troops home in very short order. There is no benefit to overstaying our mission/ welcome.
First of all, Pollack and O’Hanlon are hawks, so there’s a good dose of CYA in their “findings”. Furthermore, O’Hanlon has admitted that he was shown around by the military; he didn’t just go on walkabout in the country. Potemkin Village, anyone?
<
p>
Shep, I would have been thrilled to be wrong about this war. Honest to God.