After hours and hours of CNN & Fox coverage of the President's speech at Ft. Bragg, it comes down to this:
No one needs, wants, or is even calling for an "arbitrary date" for withdrawal. What we could use, and should have had from the beginning, is a clear objective or milestone that would mark success. Since that hasn't been clearly defined, the waning support of this billion-per-week debacle should come as no surprise. Just tell us what it is we're here to accomplish rather than repetitious rhetoric about American ideals. Be specific... when these objectives are met, we'll send this group home,... etc. Show us the "to do" list. Then saying something like "we'll stay in Iraq as long as we're needed," will actually mean something... needed to do this. When this is done, we'll come home. We deserve that, right? That's not too much to ask is it?
Funny, the speech was delivered on the anniversary of the arbritrary date on which "control" was turned over to the interim Iraqi leadership. So what's the big deal about picking more arbitrary dates anyway?
This speech is basically an admission by the president that there are no clear objectives. No real ones anyway. Had we been given clear objectives from the beginning as opposed to vague references to democracy, freedom, and the dropping of names of known, but still at large terrorist leaders who are not now, nor probably haven't been in Iraq, we wouldn't have needed a speech now. We wouldn't be calling for definitive information like dates or goals if we'd ever been given any. These clear details could have been part of a convincing argument for the war... an argument which, by the president's own admission through giving this speech, hasn't been made to this day. If it had, the need for another vague speech about defeating terrorism and spreading democracy and protecting freedoms and staying the course wouldn't be necessary.
If before the war started we would have heard, "this is what we are going to do and when it's done, we'll come home," we wouldn't need a speech. The president could just say, "we're still working on those original objectives." But we were never given clear objectives. We were given ideals that have become cliches. As long as the president continues to speak in these vague terms, which are, admittedly, hard to argue with (because they have no meaning in the real world) people all over the world will continue to have questions... crazy questions like, "do you ever see this thing ending?" or "how will we know when we've won?" If the answer to that is "when there is no more terrorism in the world," then we might as well just plan on being in Iraq as long as the world exists.
In any event, this speech didn't answer any questions. Forgive my presumptuousness in asking them. Forgive my being a responsible citizen.
6 comments:
Five questions plus a bonus:
Why do you hate America? Why do you hate freedom? Can't you see that these people just hate us for our freedom?
Just kidding.
How hard would it have been to sit there in that room, in service dress, surrounded by your peers, your supervisors, your commander and under the unforgiving letter of the UCMJ? How hard would that have been? I could only watch about ten minutes of it then I went outside to have a beer with my wife (who couldn't stand to watch even that much and was timing me to see how long I would last)
Nice post.
Bonus: What do you suppose John Kerry would have said?
jag
Amen brother. Everytime I see or hear W's face / voice I get sick to my stomach. I haven't watched him in a long, long time. After about 10 minutes, I had to turn on the Tribe. They had the lead early, lost it, then came from behind to win it. NICE!!! Much better than watching that liar. He really didn't have anything new to say. But, if he says it enough, you know who will believe him. It's nice to have troops fight for our freedom, but Iraq didn't and wouldn't have taken our freedom. After all, Iraq didn't fly into our buildings. Since when are we afraid of a country the size of Texas?? Take care. God bless the USA you liberal bastard.
You guys are too funny... when I read Jag's first line I was already slipping into defensive mode and laughing that someone had started off by asking why I hate America. You got me. Then I laughed even harder when I found out who wrote it. Thanks for the pick me up. So how long did you last? It's also interesting that you asked the Kerry question because I was still reeling with the Fox interrogation of the Arab newspaper man when AFN switched to CNN and someone was interviewing Kerry. I couldn't focus cuz I was experienceing involuntary spasms and foaming at the mouth at that point, but I think he said something along the lines of, just tell us what we're supposed to accomplish. I won't claim that that question was my idea. Later dudes. Good to hear from you. You're allowed to send me an email you know. Now that school's out, I don't have as many to answer anymore.
There is a somewhat more surreptitious rationale for the war resurfacing in W's message too...the one that I am sure tested the highest in K-Ro's focus groups. Namely:
"We're fightin' 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here."
This little gem not only accounts the unfettered proliferation of 9/11 references despite the lack of a connection between those events and the Iraqi Bathists, but it also gets spun by hawks and neo-cons into pure red meat for the American public. Playing on our national pride and our desire to open up huge vats of whoop-ass, we are sublty led to believe that we've created a big "terrorist trap" in Irag that allows us to concentrate the enemy in one place and fight them all there.
I bet if you asked joe beer can (my step-dad), he'd tell you something like that. And K-Ro would be proud.
Never mind that what we really have is an insurgency that the administration will neither committ the huge resources needed to overwhelm. History says we'll be in this for 9-15 years with no guarantee of victory. At present, our best plan is a war of attrition with a vague set of political-change objectives acting as the primary dependices for victory.
On "Talk of the Nation" yesterday, a Marine General who had just written a book on insurgencies said that in a war of attrition scenario, we are basically in a footrace to establish a stable security force in Iraq before U.S. military recruitment levels fall below our ability to sustain the current levels of fighting. 5 years out, we'll know if we are ahead or being lapped in that race.
Meanwhile, Bush & Co. continue what I now think is a self-delusional spin campaign that portrays their war as a turning point in World history. But you can't have it both ways, boys (and Condie). You can't simultaneously claim that Iraq is a trap we've laid for all the worlds' terroists AND claim that we have always had the best interest of the Iraqi people at heart.
...or maybe you can. Because I bet those are #1 and #2 in the focus groups.
Could I have had more typos in that post? jeesh
Well stated nonetheless. I can delete it and give you another shot if you like. Thanks for the additions. I can't believe I left the "over there instead of over here" part out. It didn't work, by the way... bad guys still make it to the states in spite of the freedoms we've given up in the name of stopping them. Yeah, I know "freedoms" is vague and I should be more specific so I could back it up better, but why should I be held to a higher standard than my president. It's my blog, I'll be as vague as I damn well please.
Post a Comment