This is another one of those comments that went on and on until I decided to turn it into a post. It started like this: Uncle Elmer wrote, in part…
Brad you’re completely wrong when you say "it’s not about Bush," of
course it’s about him! He’s still in charge, and still following the
same pattern of bad decision making and ignoring history that has
become his trademark. Given his absolute refusal to work with other
countries, build consensus support here in the US, or even explain
himself in any other way than beating the Al Qaeda drum what choice is
there? I think a lot of the "pull out now" crowd is really saying "I
don’t trust him and won’t trust him" and what they are hearing you say
is "trust him!"
Exactly (to that last part). And I’m trying to get them to hear the opposite, which is that Iraq has a real-world existence that is independent of what you or I or anyone else thinks of that serial bungler in the White House. What we do from this moment on is what matters. We’re stuck with Bush as president until January 2009, which is really, really bad, but it has nothing to do with whether we need to maintain our commitment in Iraq. The only issue we have before us in terms of who the president is, or what we think of the president, is the 2008 election.
Let’s say there is some "Plan A" that is the perfect thing to do with regard to Iraq. Maybe it’s go with the surge. Maybe it’s run like a scalded dog. Maybe it’s a phased pullout. Maybe it’s institute a draft and inundate the country with U.S. troops. Maybe it’s declare martial law. Maybe it’s to pull back to remote bases, or try the Biden plan of partitioning the country. Whatever.
Now mind you, even though "Plan A" is the one most perfect thing to do, it "won’t be a fairy-tale ending," as RTH said in the same string. The "perfect" plan under such circumstances (that is to say, in the real world) is merely the best result you can get. That is not, and never was, the bogus "Jeffersonian democracy" that various people who didn’t want us there to begin with seem to set as the impossible standard, short of which we should just give up. (If they’re waiting for us to have a "Jeffersonian democracy" in THIS country, I hope they’re not holding their breaths. Given that reality, we would be looking for something short of that in Iraq.) No, the standard is that things will be better. Greater peace, greater prosperity, greater stability, greater self-determination, better relations with neighbors and with the West, etc. And Plan A gets things "more better" than anything else.
Whatever "Plan A" is, it’s what we should do — at this point in time, in this situation. And let’s say we can just wave a wand and make it happen. Of course, one thing we CAN’T do, because it’s a one-wish wand, is change who the president is. We’re stuck with Bush until January 2009, just like in the real world.
That means, when you wave the wand, whatever orders have to be issued — whether the orders are to keep fighting, withdraw to neutral corners, skedaddle, whatever — will go through him, acting as the commander-in-chief. Just like in the real world.
Now you can either wave that wand and implement Plan A, or refuse to do so because it will involve that guy you don’t like. Me, I’d wave the wand. There seem to be a lot of people who would refuse to do so, because as soon as they tried to implement it, "Plan A" would seem to them like the "Bush plan," and they would feel obliged to hate it.
And what I’m saying is that that’s crazy thinking.
Now, the Petraeus Plan is not "Plan A," in my opinion, and probably not in yours, either. The difference between us is that MY idea of "Plan A" would be more like institute the draft and and blockade every crossroad in the country. But you know what? There’s no chance of my plan A being implemented. That’s because there is no magic wand. But Petraeus’ approach — that of far more targeted reinforcements applied where they will do to the most good toward creating a more secure environment in which to seek political solutions — is as close to Plan A as we’re going to get, and more likely to produce a good result than anything else we are likely to do.
So I support it, and I do all I can to get other Americans to support it, because if they don’t, then neither this nor any other plan will ever succeed in making things appreciably better.
That doesn’t work, for you? OK, how about this: "(Extremely rude four-letter word starting with an "F") Bush. Forget him. Nothing you can do about it. All we can do about Iraq is the best we can do. We get to change presidents 18 months from now. Let’s do whatever we can to make the situation there as good as it can be when that new president takes over."
Related Posts
Brad, Mr. Bush is welcome to implement any good ideas, even mine if he thinks it’s good. He can even claim credit (see my response under ‘dumber debates’. I don’t care who gets credit. What I do care is continuing a policy that doesn’t do what it needs to do. In case you haven’t noticed, all ‘the surge’ is doing is causing al Qaida, and/or other insurgents to attack elsewhere. There are other options. Oh, yes, we still have some large holes in our security (you can probably name is many, or more, than I can, but lets not. What we need to do is plug those holes, and develop an over all prioritized methodology of continuing to develop homeland security. I forgot to put that in the other post.
I agree that the surge seems to be the best option right now, but I disagree with just letting the president run the war however he wants because he is commander-in-chief. If he truly believed that this is a struggle for civilization, then he would ask ALL Americans to make a sacrifice in order for the country to be victorious. By not doing that, he displays a sense that he doesn’t understand war and what it really means. And sadly, the democrats are even worse, so it makes him look good in comparison. As a citizen and former Marine, I personally cringe when he makes a public statement about how important victory in Iraq is, but then turns and criticizes the democrats. How about lead, dammit? That’s his job, right? I’ve written Senator Graham about policing his own (an incompetent Republican leader of the country), but received only an indirect response, understandably.
THat’s all a rant, but I truly believe that the war will never be won until we as Americans claim it as our own personal responsibility to ensure we win it, day in and day out. And that does start at the top, so it’s not acceptable to just let the president run the show for the next 18 months when he’s doing such a poor job.
The only real question for historians, since the neocon idea of occupying a middle eastern country for reasons of sustained geopolitical American hegemony goes back nearly two decades, is why on earth didn’t Poppy Bush just go ahead and drive on into Bagdhad and begin the operation in 1991?
There is no end to this “war” and there cannot be “victory” because there is no war, whether in Iraq or on the amorphous concept that is terror. (When you hear them declare war on such intangibles as poverty or drugs, you better look out, folks.) The occupation of Iraq (the correct term) is a long term project on the order of Korea, but for vastly different reasons.
Rightwingers are deluded by rah-rah rhetoric, and lefties by false intimations of actual progressive ideals. Does anyone with half a brain really believe that President Clinton II will “pull our troops our of Iraq?”
And why, Brad, do you not have a link to Dennis Kucinich on the list of campaign sites? I mean, if you got Ron Paul…c’mon, Bubba.
Here are the problems with F’ing Bush and going with “Plan A”, as I see it:
1)President Bush has driven us so far into the hole in Iraq that the only remaining Plans A which could possibly succeed (such as your suggestion) are politically impossible.
2)Even if there were such a Plan A, President Bush would never implement it because he is entirely incompetent to execute the office of commander-in-chief.
3)Even if there was a Plan A and President Bush did implement it, his Iraq policy thus far has made it politically impossible for the next president to do anything other than withdraw from Iraq at the soonest opportunity.
Brad, I believe that success in Iraq is important, and at those times when I’m not thinking about the details, I hold out hope that we can win. But I just don’t understand how you can look at what’s happening and see the slightest chance of victory.
Why shouldn’t Democrats who want us to lose the war be criticized for not being team players?
They authorized the bombing and invasion of Iraq in 1998 for Clinton to “remove weapons of mass destruction”. Clinton failed.
After 9/11, Bill Clinton, Hillary, Kerry, Daschle and almost all the Democrats declared that the intelligence they had seen while Bill Clinton was President had convinced them that Al Qaeda was being funded by Iraq, and they insisted on another vote to reauthorize the invasion.
With 650,000 tons of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and high explosive bombs 500 to 5,000 pounds each having been captured in Iraq, these same liberal claim they never saw any reason to invade Iraq.
Brad, thanks for the thoughtful post. I wanted to take a few days to think before responding. I have two brief comments:
a) It’s not that I don’t LIKE Bush. It’s that I don’t trust him to do anything competently anymore. I’m sure there are good ideas out there (diplomacy anyone? anyone?) that could lead to progress in settling the region. I’m just not sure he can implement them, and if any of them require other countries trusting us well forget it. However, to paraphrase the other great genius of this war, “you fight with the president you have, not the one you want.” (Doesn’t that summarize your post?)
which leads to the next comment:
b) Wally is right.
I’m going to add one more here because I am feeling extra self-righteous for some reason:
c) Shame on our congressional delegation for sitting on their hands instead of putting the heat on for diplomacy. Getting other countries back on board with us is the only chance we have to advance peace and minimize American losses at the same time. Instead, Graham keeps on cheerleading with his buddy John, DeMint keeps listening to the white noise soundtrack in his head, and Joe Wilson keeps on reminding everyone what a patriot he is. Gah.
Uncle Elmer, I think you have hit on the same points that trouble me about Brad’s post. He casts or thinking and motives in terms of disliking Bush, and resisting any solution that involves him. But as you note, your concerns about Bush don’t have anything to do with a personal dislike for him, or a desire to deny him credit for a solution, or a dislike for anything associated with Bush. Your concerns stem from a belief, based on experience, that Bush does not have the ability to execute a successful plan. Resisting a plan because your experience tells you it will not be successfully implemented is different from resisting a plan simply because you dislike the person who promotes it.
More importantly than that, though, Brad’s argument seems to be based on an assumption that I think a lot of people don’t agree with. His assertion that the perfect “Plan A” isn’t available is OK, but where I think the argument falls somewhat short is where he claims that following the Petraeus plan is the best possible course of action. I don’t agree with that, and I think a lot of Americans don’t agree with that. So it is premature to say that the only thing to do is to support the Petraeus plan because nothing else has a chance of making things any better.
I simply don’t agree that the Petraeus plan is the best plan, and I think there are other things we can do to achieve the most desirable (or least undesirable) result. I believe that withdrawal is a better plan than the Petraeus plan, and will achieve a better (or less bad) ultimate result. I believe that withdrawal strengthens America and puts us in a better position to solicit assistance from other countries interested in stability in the region. Continuing to follow the Petraeus plan continues to drain America’s strength and tends to keep us from being able to seek assistance.
So I think that there are better courses of action to be followed and I think that these courses of action can and should be followed. I agree that the proper thing to do is to make the situation as good as it can be when the next president takes over, but I do not agree that the Petraeus plan is the way to achieve that.
Just to add to what Tom said. there is ample evidence to show that the so-called Petraeus plan is an utter failure. Here’s part of an AP article to that effect:
“BAGHDAD (AP) — A minibus exploded Monday in a Baghdad market, killing at least six people – a brutal reminder of the dangers facing Iraqis, who only hours ago were joyously united after their underdog national soccer team won the prestigious Asian Cup.
The U.S. military also said three soldiers had been killed in fighting in Anbar province west of Baghdad on Thursday. The deaths raised to at least 3,651 members of the U.S. military who have died since the start of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
At least 93 people were killed or found dead across Iraq over the last two days.”
-AP
After a one month “lull” sectarian deaths are back up in July (1,604 so far). And the so-called success in Anbar appears to be just an illusion.
Ambien today.
Ambien today.