Thursday, June 22, 2006

War Strategery

Having finished with debates on the most crucial issues facing America (gay marriage and flag burning), the Senate turned to one of the minor ones: the war in Iraq and the toll it is taking on the country's psyche, economy, and credibility in the world. It is, however, an election year, so the debate has been couched in slogans and slurs. From the NY Times:

More than three years after it cast the votes setting the nation on the course to the war in Iraq, the Senate on Wednesday began the first extended debate on whether the time had come to end that war.

With polls showing that Americans believe the war is going badly but are ambivalent about how to respond, both Democrats and Republicans worry about how it will affect elections in November. They staked out starkly different visions in the debate. Democrats insisted that the war had cost too much and that the United States must begin pulling troops out, while Republicans equated any withdrawal with retreat.

...But Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, called any withdrawal of troops "a significant step on the road to disaster."

"The options on the table have been there from the beginning," he said. "Withdraw and fail, or commit and succeed."

...Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who is facing a primary challenge in Connecticut from an antiwar candidate, said he would vote against his party's amendments.

"The war to remove Saddam Hussein may have been a war of choice, but it is now a war of necessity," he said. "We must win it."
[Emphasis added]

I'm not certain the American public is all that "ambivalent about how to respond." Every poll I have seen makes it clear that Americans want the troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, and they want to see some clear progress in that respect. The problem is that this war was started and fought without any kind of sensible planning, so there is no plan for exiting. What should have been in place before the first boot hit the ground wasn't. To insist we "stay the course" is ludicrous because it implies a course has been laid out. It hasn't, and never was. Americans want such a plan and they want it now.

Why should the Iraqi government expend energy directed toward security and self-governance when the US has shown it is willing to "stay the course" and allow for the deaths of more US soldiers? Why should Iraqi soldiers and police officers do the dangerous and dirty work when the US insists it will? Where's the incentive?

The Democrats have proposed two different (and competing) amendments on the issue. One, supported by Senators Kerry and Feingold, demands a time table for withdrawing US troops. Another, proposed by Senator Levin, demands the development of benchmarks made by the Iraqis to determine the withdrawal of US troops. Both demand that a plan be developed.

The Republican's response to both has been "cut and run!" and "stay the course!" Those answers confirm what many of us have long suspected: the current regime has no intention of leaving Iraq. We are there permanently.

And as for Senator Lieberman? Well, in the wise words of a sister crone, Hecate, "He should just bite me."


Anonymous Anonymous said...


4:48 PM  
Anonymous Terry C, Patriotic Dissenter said...

anonymous said...


Gutless, misogynistic piece of shit,

5:35 PM  
Anonymous ronjazz, antibush said...

anonymous is merely looking for love in the only way it knows how, having been raised by a crack whore who couldn't tell it who its daddy was, so go easy. they're afraid of the light, and don't understand how to process knowledge and truth, like cave-dwellers, or Republicans.

Now there's a dirty word.

5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The truth, it burns these trolls...


6:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home