The Party of Ideas
First came word of the ominously delayed-until-after-the-election report from James Baker's Iraq Study Group, quickly followed by Bush's gentle dropping of the oft heard phrase, "Stay the Course."
It was enough to make my ears perk up.
Now the Party of Ideas has come up with a new one: Setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Except it's not really all that new. And it's not really their idea. And they're kind of shy about calling it a plan for withdrawal (although it sure sounds like a plan for withdrawal to me).
It is, of course, entirely different from the Defeatocrat position of "cut and run." This has more nuance -- the Republican position includes respectable words like deadlines and milestones.
---------------------------------------------
My take on Iraq is as it always has been: This was a misguided war in different ways for different people for different reasons. The benefits never outweighed the risks. Iraq's history and cultural divisions didn't support the notion that they'd step right into a nationalized, West-loving democracy. Saddam, other than compulsively thumbing his nose at the UN, didn't seem to pose much of a threat anymore. The war wasn't making sense even during the runup.
The fact that we're not winning (if winning has ever been quantified; the bar seems always to be moving) shouldn't be that much of a surprise. It's not the Democrats' fault. It's not the media's fault. It's not because of our troops' performance or Abu Graib or torture or secret CIA prisons or FBI leaks. And it's certainly not that we couldn't turn Iraq into a sheet of glass if we wanted to. It's because it was a bad idea executed with near perfect incompetence.
And now it's time to go. The idea that Iraq will become a haven for terrorists doesn't hold weight with me anymore. First of all, I don't think the Shia, Sunni, or Kurds will have much use for the terrorists after we're gone. Second, I think Iran and Syria will have plenty of influence there whether Iraq is unified or not. Third, I think we're far better off focusing our resources on an effective international counter-terrorism strategy. And fourth, Iraq is going to have to evolve on its own terms.
In the end, I think this war will be remembered as a war of manipulation. The genesis of the war itself was a manipulation, with the attempted tie-in of Saddam and 9/11. The intelligence was manipulated, or at least cherry picked, to support the war. Ahmed Chalabi, the darling of the neocons prior to the invasion, turned out to be the master of manipulation. Likewise the news cycles were manipulated and dominated by the Republican noise machine (Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al) to the extent that citizens were bombarded by one obfuscation after another, from the slander of Scott Ritter to O'Reilly's ridiculous France boycott. And finally -- most tragically -- the manipulation of the raw emotions of the American people after 9/11. Support stoked by fear; accusations of appeasement passing as patriotism.
It was enough to make my ears perk up.
Now the Party of Ideas has come up with a new one: Setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Except it's not really all that new. And it's not really their idea. And they're kind of shy about calling it a plan for withdrawal (although it sure sounds like a plan for withdrawal to me).
It is, of course, entirely different from the Defeatocrat position of "cut and run." This has more nuance -- the Republican position includes respectable words like deadlines and milestones.
---------------------------------------------
My take on Iraq is as it always has been: This was a misguided war in different ways for different people for different reasons. The benefits never outweighed the risks. Iraq's history and cultural divisions didn't support the notion that they'd step right into a nationalized, West-loving democracy. Saddam, other than compulsively thumbing his nose at the UN, didn't seem to pose much of a threat anymore. The war wasn't making sense even during the runup.
The fact that we're not winning (if winning has ever been quantified; the bar seems always to be moving) shouldn't be that much of a surprise. It's not the Democrats' fault. It's not the media's fault. It's not because of our troops' performance or Abu Graib or torture or secret CIA prisons or FBI leaks. And it's certainly not that we couldn't turn Iraq into a sheet of glass if we wanted to. It's because it was a bad idea executed with near perfect incompetence.
And now it's time to go. The idea that Iraq will become a haven for terrorists doesn't hold weight with me anymore. First of all, I don't think the Shia, Sunni, or Kurds will have much use for the terrorists after we're gone. Second, I think Iran and Syria will have plenty of influence there whether Iraq is unified or not. Third, I think we're far better off focusing our resources on an effective international counter-terrorism strategy. And fourth, Iraq is going to have to evolve on its own terms.
In the end, I think this war will be remembered as a war of manipulation. The genesis of the war itself was a manipulation, with the attempted tie-in of Saddam and 9/11. The intelligence was manipulated, or at least cherry picked, to support the war. Ahmed Chalabi, the darling of the neocons prior to the invasion, turned out to be the master of manipulation. Likewise the news cycles were manipulated and dominated by the Republican noise machine (Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al) to the extent that citizens were bombarded by one obfuscation after another, from the slander of Scott Ritter to O'Reilly's ridiculous France boycott. And finally -- most tragically -- the manipulation of the raw emotions of the American people after 9/11. Support stoked by fear; accusations of appeasement passing as patriotism.
posted by Logic101 at 10/24/2006 05:50:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home