Nov 30 2005
Just What’s Needed for “Victory in Iraq”: Shiny Marketing Material
In his umpteenth ‘major speech’ trying to convince the American people that things in Iraq are going really really great, President Bush brought some new material with him for once in the form of a shiny important looking brochure.
Just like some musty old binder hidden away in KFC headquarters that contains the Colonel’s Secret Receipe of herbs and spices for fried chicken, this document is supposed to contain the untill now secret receipe for a winning strategy in Iraq.
Why we’re only now being told the winning strategy for a war started three years ago is another discussion.
The point is that this document from the ‘National Security Council’ is supposed to change American’s minds that the war Iraq has been going just great so far, is only going to get better, and the President really does have a clue about what we’re doing over there.
However, just like a piece of KFC fried chicken, it’s not a whole lot of meat surronded by a bunch of unfilling deep fried fluff. Here’s the definition of ‘victory’ in the short term:
An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
So uh, when do the troops get to come home again according to this? And what’s ’short term’, ‘mid term’ and ‘long term’ exactly?
Like I’ve said a hundred times before, the Bush administration should start laying out real examples of what it’s going to take to at the very least end the war in Iraq, not just recycle the same slogans and sound bites into a flimsy ‘victory’ document stampted with an official sounding name.
If he’s unwilling or unable to do that, it’s up to Democrats and Republicans in Congress to start taking on the issue and forcing and end to the war.
I guess since I am older than some of you at least, maybe my view of war is different than yours. Since when and in what war in the past has anyone ever given the American public “a winning strategy” on a war, or a time that it would take. I feel that would be impossible A war is fought until you win or you lose, or you quit. And 2 1/2 years is not a long war. My God, we are still in Germany, Japan and Korea. This is the most ridicules debate over the most redicules issues I have ever heard. God help us as a country if us as Americans can’t move forward in positive debates, and all help in moving us onward. Anyone with a brain knows we can’t just leave Iraq, its not like Vietnam, when we left there they did not come after us, if we leave Iraq they will come after us. But quite honestly I think maybe that is what it will take to wake some people up to the fact that this is a serious war we are in. I don’t know if we should be there, if I knew what I know today, I would probably have voted no. But it is to late for that debate.
By the way, how come nobody asks when are we bringing the troops home from Kosovo, they are still there, Clinton told us then it would be 6 months. Just wonder why nobody seems to have any concern about that, maybe it is because war is not a game where you can control all the elements. Seems like the other side in a war has some say in when you are done, and sometimes they just don’t cooperate. Trying to speculate on “a winning strategy” and a time that we are done and can come home, just dosen’t add up, you have the other side who is doing everything it can to spiol any plans you make. But , Oh yea, that would be another thing Bush could be hammered with, he gave us a strategy and a time but didn’t deliver!!!
Give me a break, this is the dumbest debate I have ever heard.
Boater:For me, it’s more about making sure the government does not have even greater ability to wage war at the expense (lives and money) of our citizens without their consent. The consent is supposed to come via the Congress (and longer term via elections), but how can citizens give consent when they have been completely lied to about why we are there? War is a horrible thing, but it is often justified. How can I, as a citizen, make a judgment of justification on a war when I have been told it is waged for Reason A, Reason B, and Reason C, if it’s really being waged for Reason D? It does not matter if Reason D is noble.In my view, the “give me a winning strategy” and “give me a troop move-out date” demands come from a citizenship who must now reconcile their anger about the build-up for war and desire to undo some of what has happened with the realization that we cannot just pull out now that we are there. It is us saying “Ok, I don’t like what has happened, but it has. But now that it has, I want you to show me that you aren’t going to leave things worse than when you came. I want some justification for all this destruction.”
mwarden -
I’m with you on the gov’t not being able to wage war without our consent, but “we” did give them consent by your own admission. “We” (Congress via 296-133 - house vote and 77-23 senate vote) gave the go ahead for the use of force in Iraq based on the intelligence “we” had at the time.
how can citizens give consent when they have been completely lied to about why we are there?
Are you claiming Bush lied to you (as in, us) about why we went to war?
What reasons would “justify” this war for you?
Unfortunatlely, it’s much harder to justify a war after it’s been fought compared to justifying it beforehand, especially when the reasons for justification change somewhere in between.
The only justitification the administration is really using these days is the “If we leave we’re dishonoring those who’ve already died” line, which in and of itself is both illogical and untrue.