Howard Dean told WOAI radio in San Antonio that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." Dean went on to compare Iraq to Vietnam, and to say that US troops should be brought home immediately.
But don't question his support of the troops. Telling the troops that there's no way for them to win (in the face of the widespread belief among the troops that they're doing just that) and that they need to come crawling home in defeat - yeah, that's pretty darn supportive, right there.
The Democrats should keep one thing in mind. It is possible, though despicable, to use a failed war in the past as a springboard for political achievement. I do not believe it possible to openly advocate for the war's failure, to do one's best to ensure that it fails, and then to turn around and use the springboard. The springboard technique depends on convincing the electorate that you would have done it right. You can't convince people who just saw you orchestrate a defeat that you're the guy to bring victory next time. The American people aren't so stupid as to fall for that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Ok...
A couple of points for you:
1. This Iraq War is over. This mopping up process, getting bogged down by IEDs, insurgency, corruption in the new Iraqi government is not the "Iraq War", but a police action. I agree completely that we should support the troops without question. I do not agree with lying to them (bad intelligence) or telling the public everything in under control, when it clearly is not. We will have troops on the ground in Iraq long after the police action is over.
2. One thing that we should be able to discuss, all the while being in support of the troops, is whether or not this war was sold to the public, and the world, under false pretenses. Powell's lowest point was going to the UN, baring his soul, trying desperately to convince the world (and himself) that a mobile home was a biological weapons lab. Rumsy wanted to go after Iraq, not because of terrorism, not because of Saddam's intolerable rule, but because the PNAC wanted to have a definitive strategic presence in the middle east. It has been the goal of the PNAC to install a pro-Western society government in Iraq for some 10 years and when Bush got into office, himself a part of the PNAC, it was not a question of if, but when.
3. The question of "Can we win this war?" is subject to a great deal of debate (see point 1). I am on the fence here. I have yet to see a firm plan. It seems the goals that have been set by BushCo are arbitrary, not firm, and can be used to argue either way, context depending. Yes, ultimately, I feel we can effectively "win" but it will take a lot of time, and require the Iraqi's to give up a life of corruption, something they are quite used to.
Post a Comment