"CW" Is an Appropriate Acronym...
...because sometimes I feeling like I'm watching "Teen Angst Drama #261" when I read opinions from the so-called "insiders" and "authorities" nowadays.
It would seem that now the Conventional Wisdom is: "We need to address what to do about Iraq."
But take my word for it, here's the NYT's Thomas Friedman:
While I admire Friedman's attempt to be "the opinion writer who changes the discussion," I really wished that (in this case) he cited some poll or statistic to back his claim that frustrations with the Bush Administration and/or feelings about invading Iraq were directly causing people to not talk (read: care) about the future of the country.
On the contrary: one of the many things that frustrate me about this Administration was its seeming lack of concern for post-war Iraq (maybe Friedman forgot about the stories of Donald Rumsfeld threatening his subordinates for even bringing up the subject).
As for the "should we have gone there" debate, I'd like to remind Friedman that the Bush Administration convinced enough people that the conflict (and following occupation) would be sort, the expenses would be paid for by the Iraqi oil reserves, the cost of life would be small, and Iraqis would but up little-to-no resistance. Well, since all of these things proved to be lies, alot of people became upset and began to believe that going their was a mistake. And I don't even feel like going into the people who saw through the flimsy "evidence" and called bull while the rest of us decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.
In other words: you have to factor the Bush Administration into this because the question "what do we do about Iraq?" involves reviewing the people and the strategies and the logic that brought us to this point. You can't separate "Smoking Gun = Mushroom Cloud," from what's going on right now.
But Friedman's not alone in this thinking, the Washington Post's Op Ed is also sending out journalistic Hallmark Cards (and unlike Friedman, they're also not being shy about who they're supporting on this):
Translation: "talking about leaving Iraq worked with the cool kids in the Democratic Primary, but the general election is a different game and Obama needs to wake up."
The WPOE using the tried-and-true line of "setting a timetable tells the enemy what you're planning on doing and allows them to adjust their tactics accordingly." Well, so does a public announcement of a "surge" of troops for a limited period of time.
Oh, and when you don't announce a withdrawal? That can work in their favor too because they can use the event as a recruiting tool and the location as a training facility.
In other words: the "enemy" will react to anything you do or don't do.
(I swear, watching this insipid "debate" carry on is like watching a shaky NBA coach go up against a Don Nelson team. Don Nelson always goes "Smallball;" it's a given. But people always want to argue over what's the right tactic: going small yourself to keep up or going big to try to overpower his squad. Hmmm...why not just put your best five players on the court and run the offense you've been practicing sense training camp? Why concentrate on "matching up" with the opponent, when the object is to force them to play your tempo? God, this annoys me to no end.)
Sadly, the Bush Administration's strategy has been to react: to terrorism, to Iraq insurgents, and to their sympathizers. The bulk of their planning has revolved around two things: military and holding elections. As long as soldiers are killing the bad guys, and citizens can vote (while dodging bullets) democracy is practically inevitable. Simply put, the Bush Administration and (the people who support them on this issue) haven't given a rat's ass about another crucial component regarding Iraq: creating a stable, trustworthy government. And why should we be surprised? After all, they tell us not to depend on government almost monthly.
So now, all of a sudden, Obama has to start detailing a plan for rebuilding Iraq? After years of conservatives and Republicans saying that it wasn't a concern for America or that al Qaeda needed to be destroyed first? Reminds me of when the GOP Congress went earmark-crazy during the Reagan and Bush I years and then when Bill Clinton came in, demanded that he balance the budget (and guess what happened when Republicans got back into the White House?).
I have a simple solution regarding Iraq: take our troops out, and bring them home. Send in more diplomats to get the "provisional government" off their butts (we should keep some presence in Iraq to protect them). Announce that we will cease using Iraq as a terrorist-magnet. Stop sending mentally and physically wounded troops back in a war zone.
Is that enough to start a "dialogue?"
It would seem that now the Conventional Wisdom is: "We need to address what to do about Iraq."
But take my word for it, here's the NYT's Thomas Friedman:
Iraq has become one of those subjects that so many people now come to with so much emotional scar tissue that it is very hard to have a sober discussion about the actual situation there today. So much is colored by how you feel about George Bush or whether you were for or against the war. As a result, what we do next in Iraq — how and why — is barely getting discussed in the presidential campaign.
While I admire Friedman's attempt to be "the opinion writer who changes the discussion," I really wished that (in this case) he cited some poll or statistic to back his claim that frustrations with the Bush Administration and/or feelings about invading Iraq were directly causing people to not talk (read: care) about the future of the country.
On the contrary: one of the many things that frustrate me about this Administration was its seeming lack of concern for post-war Iraq (maybe Friedman forgot about the stories of Donald Rumsfeld threatening his subordinates for even bringing up the subject).
As for the "should we have gone there" debate, I'd like to remind Friedman that the Bush Administration convinced enough people that the conflict (and following occupation) would be sort, the expenses would be paid for by the Iraqi oil reserves, the cost of life would be small, and Iraqis would but up little-to-no resistance. Well, since all of these things proved to be lies, alot of people became upset and began to believe that going their was a mistake. And I don't even feel like going into the people who saw through the flimsy "evidence" and called bull while the rest of us decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.
In other words: you have to factor the Bush Administration into this because the question "what do we do about Iraq?" involves reviewing the people and the strategies and the logic that brought us to this point. You can't separate "Smoking Gun = Mushroom Cloud," from what's going on right now.
But Friedman's not alone in this thinking, the Washington Post's Op Ed is also sending out journalistic Hallmark Cards (and unlike Friedman, they're also not being shy about who they're supporting on this):
Mr. Obama laid out his current strategy for Iraq in November 2006, shortly before announcing his candidacy for president. At the time, Iraq appeared to be on the verge of a sectarian civilian war, and Mr. Obama was trying to distinguish himself in the Democratic primary race by offering a timetable for withdrawal. Nineteen months later, the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically, with violence down 75 percent from its peak and the Iraqi government and army in control of most of the country. But Mr. Obama has not altered his position: He still proposes withdrawing most U.S. troops according to a fixed timetable, set to the most rapid pace at which commanders have said American forces could be pulled out.
Mr. [Hoshyar] Zebari, who has served as foreign minister in every Iraqi government since 2003, finds Mr. Obama's proposal worrying. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, he said that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, "we are just turning the corner in Iraq." A precipitous withdrawal, he said, "would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements. And the others" -- enemies of the United States -- "would celebrate."
Translation: "talking about leaving Iraq worked with the cool kids in the Democratic Primary, but the general election is a different game and Obama needs to wake up."
The WPOE using the tried-and-true line of "setting a timetable tells the enemy what you're planning on doing and allows them to adjust their tactics accordingly." Well, so does a public announcement of a "surge" of troops for a limited period of time.
Oh, and when you don't announce a withdrawal? That can work in their favor too because they can use the event as a recruiting tool and the location as a training facility.
In other words: the "enemy" will react to anything you do or don't do.
(I swear, watching this insipid "debate" carry on is like watching a shaky NBA coach go up against a Don Nelson team. Don Nelson always goes "Smallball;" it's a given. But people always want to argue over what's the right tactic: going small yourself to keep up or going big to try to overpower his squad. Hmmm...why not just put your best five players on the court and run the offense you've been practicing sense training camp? Why concentrate on "matching up" with the opponent, when the object is to force them to play your tempo? God, this annoys me to no end.)
Sadly, the Bush Administration's strategy has been to react: to terrorism, to Iraq insurgents, and to their sympathizers. The bulk of their planning has revolved around two things: military and holding elections. As long as soldiers are killing the bad guys, and citizens can vote (while dodging bullets) democracy is practically inevitable. Simply put, the Bush Administration and (the people who support them on this issue) haven't given a rat's ass about another crucial component regarding Iraq: creating a stable, trustworthy government. And why should we be surprised? After all, they tell us not to depend on government almost monthly.
So now, all of a sudden, Obama has to start detailing a plan for rebuilding Iraq? After years of conservatives and Republicans saying that it wasn't a concern for America or that al Qaeda needed to be destroyed first? Reminds me of when the GOP Congress went earmark-crazy during the Reagan and Bush I years and then when Bill Clinton came in, demanded that he balance the budget (and guess what happened when Republicans got back into the White House?).
I have a simple solution regarding Iraq: take our troops out, and bring them home. Send in more diplomats to get the "provisional government" off their butts (we should keep some presence in Iraq to protect them). Announce that we will cease using Iraq as a terrorist-magnet. Stop sending mentally and physically wounded troops back in a war zone.
Is that enough to start a "dialogue?"
Comments