home

What To Do in Iraq

(Guest Post from Big Tent Democrat)

The Washington Post Editorial Board says:

We continue to agree with Mr. Bush that it would be wrong and dangerous for U.S. troops simply to withdraw. But it is also dangerous when leaders such as Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld continue to resist reality.

But the problem with this formulation is that Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld run this Debacle. It would be wrong to simply withdraw says WaPo. Whether that would be true with a competent Administration in place is highly debatable (full disclosure, I opposed the Iraq Debacle from the moment it was first mooted in 2002). But it seems difficult to argue that as long as the Bush Administration is in charge, that an exit strategy is not imperative.

Ironically, the Post's own editorial lays out why this is the case:

It . . . seems clear that U.S. chances for success would have been far better than they are today were it not for the overwhelming and shocking incompetence with which the administration has managed the war. From the failure to produce a coherent postwar plan to the disastrous performance by the occupation authority that was belatedly installed, the Bush team turned a difficult mission into a near-impossible one. President Bush and his most senior aides meanwhile stubbornly refused to listen to advisers who warned of the consequences of their policies.

. . . Mistakes are inevitable in any war. But the common theme of these accounts is the triumph of ideology and arrogance over the pragmatism that is needed to recover from errors or adjust to changing conditions. Having dispatched too few troops to Iraq at the beginning of the war, Mr. Rumsfeld has perpetuated this signal failing for 3 1/2 years. Having ignored reconstruction in prewar planning, the administration then excluded the professionals who might have made the occupation authority successful.

Mr. Bush himself refused to take one of the essential steps needed to remedy the resulting mess -- replacing Mr. Rumsfeld -- despite repeatedly being advised to do so by his own chief of staff, among others. The result, as Mr. Woodward describes it, is a defense secretary who has lost the confidence of the military he directs. Even more disturbing is the portrait of a president who, with two years left in his term, seems unable to come to terms with the damaging and dangerous situation he has helped to create -- much less imagine a way out of it.

And nothing has or will change in the Bush Administration. Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld listen to no one and learn nothing. Does WaPo really expect better results in the next 2 years? And since no sane person could, how can one support the continued sacrifice of our troops in this Debacle? How can we justify the deaths and damage?

WaPo fails to deal with reality. In their own way, they are as bad as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

< Politics First: Right and Wrong? Don't Care Says GOP | I Got A Bridge in Brooklyn For You . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: What To Do in Iraq (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    The US today is creating in Iraq what it created with Reconstruction in the South after the Civil War in this country. Reconstruction was the radical Republican's revanche movement which did nothing to reconstruct the South's economy, left the White South poor and resentful and in the wake of the withdrawing Union army in the 1870's allowed the remergence of the KKK and death squads and Jim Crow, a legacy that we are still trying to overcome today. In a just and sane world, the US should pay the UN for an army of peacekeepers from somewhere else on the globe and pay a huge reparation to rebuild the fractured country and help the poor Iraqi's figure this out themselves.

    Re: What To Do in Iraq (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    Big Tent - Withdrawal is withdrawal. Call it whatever, put who you want in office, the terrorist will see it as surrender, as will the rest of the Moslem world. Simply put. You are either prepared to fight, or you are prepared to surrender. Which is it?? I think I know.

    Re: What To Do in Iraq (none / 0) (#3)
    by Al on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    So, according to the WP, the war in Iraq could have succeeded if Bushco. had not been incompetent. But what do they mean, "succeeded"? What would have constituted success in Iraq? What was the goal, that was not achieved because of incompetence, according to the WP? The main act of incompetence was invading Iraq in the first place. Once that was done, there was only one possible outcome, which is what we are seeing today.

    Re: What To Do in Iraq (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 10:22:52 PM EST
    Simply put. You are either prepared to fight, or you are prepared to surrender. That's pure BS.

    Re: What To Do in Iraq (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 11:04:00 PM EST
    Anonymous. Incompetence is incompetence. Disaster is disaster. Failure is failure. A debacle is a debacle. Bush and Co. will be in charge and nothing will change. Stay the Course? Sorry, we've had enough. You have no salient point to address that fact.

    Re: What To Do in Iraq (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 06:17:53 AM EST
    Withdrawal... the terrorist will see it as surrender, as will the rest of the Moslem world Staying the course - the terrorist will see it as kicking our asses, as will the rest of the Moslem world. Anon, if you care about winning, then you should be writing comments about how Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld need to resign for having put us in this disastrous lose-lose situation.

    Re: What To Do in Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 06:17:53 AM EST
    What to do? Keep dying and killing. Buy more weapons, repeat. That's the only plan I see.

    Re: What To Do in Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:31:45 AM EST
    You are either prepared to fight, or you are prepared to surrender. I was "prepared to fight" as a member of the United States Army. Either you are a member of the military, or you are blowing smoke out of your ass by suggesting that other people should be "prepared to fight" while you exhort them from the cheap seats. I'm sure you cannot imagine my disgust with such cowardice.

    Re: What To Do in Iraq (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:55:51 AM EST
    It is WaPo that is resisting reality by not acknowledging the real reasons Bush invaded Iraq. There was never any intent of building democracy etc. How can you be incompetent of a task you never had any intention of performing. US troops are on the ground in the ME and the oil and gas is still in the ground. Mission accomplished!! All the rest is BS

    Re: What To Do in Iraq (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:10:22 AM EST
    Attacks on US forces in Iraq escalate Iraq Probes Police-Death Squad Ties
    Thirteen U.S. soldiers have been killed in Baghdad since Monday, the American military reported, registering the highest three-day death toll for U.S. forces in the capital since the start of the war
    NIE says our presence in iraq is making us less safe. Here's what we do about iraq: We take responsibility and admit we screwed up royally. We beg the rest of the world for help thru the UN. We get our a$$es out of iraq and pay for every bit of cleanup of the mess we caused, just like at pottery barn.

    Re: What To Do in Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:25:47 AM EST
    I suggest we cut our losses and get out. You don't bet the farm on a losing hand, and the deck was stacked against us from get-go. This inept MBA businessman from Texas who occupies the Oval Orifice is throwing good money after bad, a violation of Business for Dummies 101. There is not a corporation (outside of defense contractors) who would support a stay-the-course approach in this grotesque endeavor.