A Lesson in How to Kill a Talking Point
It's simple really: If the political opposition is using a talking point, co-opt it. That strategy worked pretty well for Bush today. Certain Lefties had consistently labeled Iraq "another Vietnam." So Bush came out swinging, saying, yep, it is, and just think of the massacre in the jungle when we left there. At which point, the Left swiftly changed messages, disgruntled with Bush's twisting of the same.
As I implied this morning, I think we've now reached a very scary place, where the entire world, Left and Right, are smoking crack. Once more, with feeling: Slaughter or not, a de-stabilized Vietnam had virtually no relevance to our national security. A de-stabilized Iraq will continue to have disastrous relevance to our national (in)security.
In other words, if you honestly think, as Historian Robert Dallek does, that "the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out," wait to see what happens if we exit foolishly. Begrudgingly, I think Senator Biden, quoted in the same LA Times article, is the closest to getting it right, when he says:
As I implied this morning, I think we've now reached a very scary place, where the entire world, Left and Right, are smoking crack. Once more, with feeling: Slaughter or not, a de-stabilized Vietnam had virtually no relevance to our national security. A de-stabilized Iraq will continue to have disastrous relevance to our national (in)security.
In other words, if you honestly think, as Historian Robert Dallek does, that "the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out," wait to see what happens if we exit foolishly. Begrudgingly, I think Senator Biden, quoted in the same LA Times article, is the closest to getting it right, when he says:
"The only relevant analogy of Vietnam to Iraq is this: In Iraq, just as we did in Vietnam, we are clinging to a central government that does not and will not enjoy the support of the people ... Unless the president acts on that lesson from history and works toward a federal solution in Iraq, there is no prospect that when we leave, we will leave anything stable behind."
8 comments:
Everyone wants a stable, democratic government in Iraq. The problem is how to get one. The President clearly has no clue. Nor do I, nor does anyone else I've read or talked to.
Personally, I don't believe any such thing was ever possible. It's as much a fairy-tale as the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Without a realistic plan to produce such a beast, and with no prospect of one such in sight, the continued annual killing of roughly a thousand American troops, a couple hundred thousand Sunni, Shia, and Kurds, and the maiming and displacement of millions seems to me futile and barbaric, like a mega-scale human sacrifice to Moloch.
(Not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
Nor the destruction of the US Army and Marine Corps as effective fighting forces.)
All we can hope for in Iraq is a secular strong man who can keep the different factions under control and not let the radical mullahs take over.
He would be troublesome and cause problems with his neighbors and probably the Kurds and we would have to use the U.N. to control his weapons programs and maybe even use embargos.....no, sorry, scratch that.
Would a destabilized Iraq really have such a major relevance to American security?
I mean, it's destabilized now and yet no terrorist have struck here.
Yes it does Alan,
Just as millions living in destitution in Africa have an impact on US National Security.
the Attack is the end result, National Security is impacted on every step leading up to the Attack (or the foiling of such an attack).
Let me get this straight.
I feel sure I must have misunderstood ...
is "interested" really trying to link the 9/11 "Attack" to US policy in Iraq?
I guess that explains all those Iraqis on the planes, then. Oh wait, there weren't any, were there? Nor were any Iraqis implicated in the planning or training of the attackers.
Joel,
I think by "attack" interested was referring back to what alan/tom was saying about a currently unstable Iraq and no attack here, not to 9/11. In other words, we can't judge security/insecurity on the basis of attacks on our soil since Iraq became de-stabilized because those attacks could be years in the future.
Uhh Joel,
how exactly do you arrive at that thought process
I do hope it is not a chemically affected one.
Thanks Pete, good way of explaining it.
The same things the Marshall plan was in effect to accomplish hold true around the world wherever destitution exists.
Post a Comment