Jan

11

Is that it? Really? That’s it?

Posted by Little Miss Know it All

January 11, 2007 |

littlemissknowitalld1.jpgWhat a yawner last night’s speech was.  Did he really say anything new?  At one point I came up with a new drinking game–take a drink every time he blinks three times in a row.  Yikes, I’d be tanked after 10 minutes!

The best words I heard came afterwards, on MSNBC.  Joe Scarborough had on a team of analysts, and they said a lot of great things.  First, they replayed testimony to congress that pointed out that Al Qaeda is happy that we’re staying–in fact, as we all know, we are feeding them by staying.  Second, that Saudi Arabia is happier with Iraq oil not on the market, as they are not part of OPEC and it would hurt the Saudis greatly to have a competing source of oil.  Third, one analyst called Bush delusional if he thought any of this was going to make a big change, and NO ONE ARGUED.  Pat Buchanan fussed a bit, and I thought the world was coming to an end when I heard him agree with Bush.  That’s a rare sight.  They were mainly talking about how we can’t handle the fronts we have, how are we going to open new fronts with Syria and Iran if we are only talking about 20,000 troops?

Last, everyone agreed this was a political move, not a military one.  Most of the military experts, generals, would like to see more troops than this.  Critics would like to see us pull out.  He can’t pull off either one–we don’t have enough troops to do a major surge, and he can’t pull out for obvious reasons–so he took the middle ground.  Now, normally in politics this is a good thing, compromise is good.  But when you’re talking about a war, about putting another 20,000 lives at stake (and ours, for that matter, as Al Qaeda is getting stronger by the day), then a political compromise is not a good idea.

I am not a military expert–I leave that to those in my family who are.  I won’t even pretend to have a defining opinion on what we should do.  My only opinion is this, and you’ve heard it from me before–be willing to make a tough decision, then stand up and do it.  Stick by it.  Live with it.  Own it.  If you’re worried about your legacy, don’t be wishy-washy.  That’s populism, and populism never wins you a legacy.  Tough choices for the good or the bad, that wins you a legacy.


Comments

1 Comment so far

  1. James on January 12, 2007 3:02 pm

    Overall the plan is not a bad one.

    If the military have told Bush that they need 21,000 more troops and 4000 more Marines to go into Anbar, and that more “advisors” (how many Vietnam vets are sighing at this), being installed within the Iraqi military structure and that we are giving them a time table of when we are going to start to withdraw, then that part is OK.

    Diplomatically it also appears to be sound. We are setting time tables for the Iraqi government to set up an oil revenue sharing plan, as well as modifications to it’s anti-Baath policy and set hard dates for regional elections, both of which help to ease sectarian tensions. There is also the effort to begin the process of negotiating with “troublesome neighbors” to try and cut off some of that aid. All of this is something that should have been done a year ago it would seem. The sectarian violence is here to say, but it can be negated some what by giving Iraqi’s hope that all are sharing the profits and the power. It stops some of those not as hard core about killing to not cross that line.
    Very much like Northern Ireland in the late 90’s. Your average republican began to see political possibilities and an upswing in the economy and began to realize that bombing his orange neighbor may in fact hinder that process. The killings in the 90’s were done by killers who had long forgotten the true meaning of the cause and did not appreciate that results were being achieved, instead killing was too deep in their blood. The same could happen here. We will still have car bombings for a few years to come, but it could diminish as people start seeing that they are all getting a piece of the pie politically and economically. But after 20-30 years of dictatorship rule, there are still a lot of grudges out there.

    What is bizarre is that such thinking was not displayed just after the initial success of the liberation to this point on. It is almost as if the think tank was switched off for three years and it was hoped that the violence would wear itself out.

    This really is not “solving violence with violence” as some democrats have stated (which is what you get with new services with a five minute attention span). But this appears to be a well thought out plan that not only provides more cover for the troops on the ground, but some clear cut goals on the diplomatic front. If the military asked for this, then I have to defer to their expertise. They are the ones who truly know. Diplomatically I have to hope that we have leaders in place that now recognize the evolved threat and will now address that.

    We are not essentially beginning a war on two new fronts with 20,000 troops. We are beginning to apply diplomatic pressure on Iran and Syria (which have needed it for a while). There is no need to do too much saber rattling. Syria has always played the sneaky game (and the Arabs know this), and the leadership of Iran is internally paranoid about it’s growing youth and liberal movements. Contain and talk with them is the key in my humble opinion.

    Yeah, Bush is not the easiest person to listen to. But there was a lot more in here than just throw 20,000 people at the problem.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

<< Post Navigation >>

« « Protecting the Family | Illegals Immigrants and the Minimum Wage » »