| Wednesday, June 29, 2005 |
| What is to be done? |
I think this about sums it up regarding Bush's speech last night:
"It was an artificial event; Bush was standing at the podium and reading words off a TelePrompTer that were written by a speechwriter not because he had anything new or significant to say but because the White House had no better PR alternatives at this moment." [David Corn] As badly as he needed to something to break the chain of bad news and declining war support, what Bush mainly seemed to accomplish with his speech was to whip up anger among the opposition -- and among members of the press -- for his insistence on waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 every time he gets in trouble. The NYT pasted the speech this morning.
Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.
The WashTimes editorial ignored the speech, instead spinning the latest WaPo poll to the president's advantage by emphasizing its finding that the majority of Americans do not want to pull troops out of Iraq.
But therein lies the problem for the president. Unlike the WashTimes editorial board, most Americans don't see their contention that the war was a mistake but we should keep troops their "until the job is done" as an oxymoron. Most have come to the conclusion -- many sadly -- that having overthrown the Iraqi dictator and precipitated the current violent situation in that country, America is obligated to see it thorugh, at least until Iraq is stable enough to stand on its own. Otherwise, we leave behind the legacy of a failed government, a failed state, and probably an even bloodier civil war. This would be a prospect even worse than our loss in Vietnam, because it would likely spread the chaos around the region, right in the middle of a huge patch of oil...
Tim at Crack the Bell, who originally supported the Iraq war, sums it up pretty well:
I think we ought to get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible. But here's the thing - "as soon as possible" ain't next week, next month, next year or even next decade as far as I'm concerned.
We're there. You can hate George Bush all you want for taking us there, but dammit, we can't throw up our hands in disgust now and leave the whole thing for somebody else to clean up. There are very real threats in the world, and not just from terrorists with car bombs and automatic weapons. No, people, there are still actual
countries out there with evil on their minds and sharp objects in their hands, North Korea and Iran coming foremost to mind.
Turning tail in Iraq would embolden these idiots to make mischief, and that ain't empty rhetoric. Good lord, anybody with a four-year-old can tell you that if the boy thinks he can do something bad with impunity, he's damn well gonna try it.
Unfortunately, even as someone who never supported the idea of invading Iraq, I have come to the conclusion that like it or not, we're stuck there for now. The Kucinichian "yank the troops" strategy is a recipe for American humiliation and increased danger from the real terrorists and would-be nuclear states who harbor them. If we are "beaten" by a disconnected legion of Iraqi insurgents and jihadis, then America becomes an instant paper tiger. The message it would send to the recalcitrant Taliban in Afghanistan alone would be chilling, let alone what it would signal to Osama bin Laden.
The Democrats know that, and that's why they're attacking the president's rhetoric but, for the most part, not the war, and even calling for more troops. The Republicans know it, but only a handful with integrity like Chuck Hagel are willing to vent their frustrations in public. Members of the military know it too, and that's why you rarely here someone who has actually served -- or is currently serving -- in Iraq say we should pull all the troops out immediately. They want to come home, to be sure, but not without winning first.
This dilemma is, of course, George Bush's fault. He didn't have to listen to the prattling Wilsonian neocons or make their Iraq dreams come true. But he did. And our uniformed military, at home and abroad, is paying for it. The best we can hope for now is that the military commanders in Iraq find a way to wrap up the conflict with America's honor in tact. The Bush administration, with its WMD ruses and human rights relativism, has already sunk our credibility, so honor is about all there is left to salvage.
About all the president can do at this point is give a canned P.R. speech, because most likely, he has no better idea how we're going to finally end the Iraq project than the rest of us do. |
posted by JReid @ 2:15 PM   |
|
|
|
|
