Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
First, the idea that we shouldn't debate it because Bush is going to do what Bush is going to do is simply silly. We are Americans. We debate. And, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill, leaders listen to shifting winds in public opinion that come from debates.
Admit it, you didn't really mean that.
|
The point I was trying to make is that all the complaining by the Senators and Reps is not going to accomplish anything. It is in Bush's hands. They can either try and help him succeed or make it more difficult to succeed.
If your team is on the football field and you don't like the plays the quarterback is calling you can either go along, get out of the way, or screw up the game and make it more difficult for your side to win. But you want your team to win. The prudent thing to do is not screw up the plays the quarterback calls just because you disagree with them. Eventhough you think he is using the wrong strategy, the chances of your team winning are better if you go along with the strategy. Bush is the Quarterback for the next three years and is going to call the plays. There is nothing anyone can do about it. No one else is going to be in charge. So are the rest of the players going to help, or make a defeat more inevitable by intentionally screwing up the plays to make sure the home team has no chance of winning. You can tell the coach you disagree with the plays but you go along with the plays and do your best because that is the best chance you have for success. But it seems to me many Dems are tripping the quarterback because they don't like the strategy and just for sour grapes.
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Secondly, I think you prescribe a "stay the same course", which means continuing to do it all ourselves with only token assistance and continuing to assume that if we do the same things but with increasing aid from Iraqis trained by us, the insurgency will ultimately die. The best historical precedents I can think of here are Latin American countries like Peru and El Salvador, but note that El Salvador's insurrection whithered after we essentially withdrew. So, it is possible, but, I think, unlikely. You also assume the Kurds and Shiites will continue to get along, but I think the only thing that unifies them is beating up on the Sunnies.
|
We never withdrew. We kept up our military aid the whole time. And I don't think we should stay until the insurgency dies, I think we should stay until we train the Iraqis to fight for themselves.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Captain Most importantly, staying the same course means getting entangled in the Iraqi government as it develops, which strikes me as likely tangling us up in a Civil War. If we stay the same course, I fear we will turn around one day and be in still deeper, and Iraq will be a ball and chain around our country's ankle for a protracted period.
|
If there is a strong turnout on the fifteenth (like there was in the last election) we will be training the military for a democratically elected government. Once they are up and running we can leave.
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
So, if Bush has to eat crow with the UN or has to negotiate hard to involve Egypt or the like involved, I think he should do it.
|
Bush isn't going to have to do anything. He has three years to train the Iraqi military and there is no way anyone can stop him from finishing that job. Three years is plenty of time to get it accomplished.
