Let’s try to guess what he is going to say tonight, shall we…
Let’s stay the course (only the ignorant and retarded know what this means)
We need to help the Iraqis defend themselves against terrorists (I thought we were there to defend the US, find WMD, remove Saddam, secure oil… oh, forget it)
We’ve got the insurgents on the run now (unless of course you consider what the US military brass is saying)
Iraq is a democratic nation with free elections (even though the’ve only had one and it wasn’t even to elect anyone, and the thought of more has been postponed until we find candidates that want to live longer than a few hours after announcing their candidacy)
God wants us to do these things, he spoke to me (actually God spoke to Karl)
We’ll pull out once the Iraqi army can handle their own security (in other words, we’re going to be dying on that desert hell hole for absolutely-no-reason until we can elect a democratic president who’ll have the balls to pull us out)
It’s Clinton’s fault, he could have caught Osama (except for the mere fact that Bush has 200,000 troops in the region, paying off every Pakistani and Afghan, and Bush still couldn’t hit Osama if he was the size of a barn)
The coalition is strong (I think he means Honduras, Poland (woops, they pulled out), and a few other two-bit corrupt nations)
As much as I want it to be about Osama it’s probably just the same “we can’t win, but FREEDOM!” garbage Rumsfeld has been trotting out on the Sunday political shows to road-test.
They’ve already started setting up the fledgling Iraqi army for the fall. In the last State of the Union address Bush vastly inflated the amount of native security available and he’ll undoubtedly repeat that lie. Eventually we’ll pull out, claiming they can handle it and when it goes to hell we’ll say God bless 'em, they are just going to have to work through it themselves.
The simple fact of the matter is that the conflict is not going well. When Rumsfeld himself admits that the insurgency could go on another decade, that is not what I would call progress. Admittedly, he suggested that the better part of this decade would be handled by the Iraqis exclusively, but I think that is rather optimistic. I mean, imagine a scenario where the insurgency becomes more advanced and more successful - it’s not as if we would idly sit and watch. Or would we? Counter-insurgencies are not exactly our bag, and we may not have the stomach for it.
Given that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, originally sold this plan publicly by saying that we would be greeted with flowers and that the conflict would not likely even last 6 months, this is a rather stark contrast. Given the Administration’s well-documented failure, intentional or otherwise, to adequately prepare for a post-war Iraq, we once again have basic questions of competence at the fore.
But the problem is this. Of the universe of possible scenarios, one must admit that it includes the possibility that the insurgency could go on for quite some time and possibily even gain strength. While it is attractive in a vacuum to suggest that we should stay the course until it is done (however we choose to modify the definition of “mission accomplished”), we also have to admit that it is also wholly possible that at some point the costs of the conflict are simply too much to bear. This is not simply a matter of politics. At what point does the expense and loss of lives and prestige simply overrun any possible benefits of success. We’ve obviously been through this calculus before in Vietnam, and fighting to a draw in Korea, while the Soviets finally did the same in Afghanistan.
I’m not suggesting we are yet at this point, but to suggest that that point doesn’t exist is simply naive, and remarkably casual about American lives.
This hit the mark. The soldiers dying there are mostly American. They are not simply casualties of war. They are men and women that will never see their families again. They bleed and they suffer. Let’s never be casual about of soldiers lives. Bring 'em home now because if we don’t bring 'em home now we will bring less of them home later.
Nobody wants to be casual about American soldiers’ lives. But at the same time, nobody wants to suggest that the 1700+ dead soldiers died for nothing, or a mistake. But that’s how a potential withdrawal is often portrayed - as making their sacrifice meaningless.
If we can get past the rhetoric, we can look at the cold calculus. As in business, sunk costs cannot be considered in a go/no go decision - only whether the marginal benefits exceed the marginal costs. While their sacrifice has been tragic, it would be even more tragic to sacrifice another 1700 just to try and prove their sacrifice meaningful, if the odds of success are deteriorating.
I think he is going to try and make us forget that the war is going to cost a lot more (and I mean a lot more) than the $200B estimate that he and the administration were claiming was exaggerated. He is also going to try and make us forget that the Iraqi people have no history or ability to become a democratic nation, and that we are basically wasting lives there.
What is truly sad about this is that it didn’t have to be this way.
If you accept the dubious premise that we were compelled to go into Iraq, you could at least reasonably expect that all of our bases would be covered, and that we would go in with a reconstruction plan and enough troops to secure the peace. It is now clear that neither of these were the case, primarily due to incompetence, unwillingness to take political risk, and simple ideologically-driven blindness.
But tonight, he’s going to try and convince the American people that Iraq is just this close to turning a corner before it becomes an Eden for democracy in the Middle East, and that he has a plan for it to do just that. And given how well he has planned in the past, I don’t know why anybody should believe him now. He got the benefit of the doubt in the past, and he pissed it away. And he wonders why his approval level is so low. Of course, it’s the fault of the press, or the Democrats - it couldn’t possibly be because of the massive failure of his policies.
you could at least reasonably expect that all of our bases would be covered, and that we would go in with a reconstruction plan
But they had a plan. They were going to take a victory lap through Baghdad while the Iraqis showered them with flowers and love, and then sit back while a democracy sprung into existence. The plan is just a little behind schedule, that’s all. Sheesh, the American public is all impatient, and stuff.
You forgot the part about how reconstruction wouldn’t cost the American taxpayer anything, because Iraq’s oil revenues would pay for everything. And 40 acres and a mule, too.
I agree that at least a few people on this forum are impatient. Even The Economist magazine (no friend of the Bushies, for sure) says we’ve gotta stay, and stay to win.
And I’ve concluded that the term “quagmire” is only used by those on the Left to describe any military situation of which they’re not supportive (read: ALL military situations). It was fairly obvious back in the Clinton days, that Teddy and company held their noses over the whole Serbia/Kosovo/“cruise missiles over Afghanistan”/Bosnia/Khartoum “let’s bomb an aspirin factory” adventure solely because a Dem was in office.
As Dubya says: “It’s *hard” *(And truthfully, the Bushies make it even harder than it has to be…but, hey: you wanna make a new country, you gotta break a few old ones, huh?)
Even The Economist magazine (no friend of the Bushies, for sure) says we’ve gotta stay, and stay to win.
If we’re reading the same Economist, they weren’t quite so gung ho about it as all that. More along the lines of, “well, we’re pretty screwed either way. Odds of complete disaster are probably slightly less if we stay.” And I don’t think they though much of the way the war is being carried out currently, either.
but, hey: you wanna make a new country, you gotta break a few old ones, huh?)
I suppose. Course, I really didn’t want to be making any new countries in the first place. But hey, we got the breaking part down cold, so that’s progress, right?
My problem is with the objective in Iraq. There is none.
Really, what are we now trying to achieve? Someone has to remind me because it has changed so many times. What is now? To train the Iraqis to defend themselves? Weren’t they doing a pretty stand up job of that before we go there? Make it a democratic nation? Geez, you think anyone gave a crap about Iraqi freedom and democracy before we got there? I certainly didn’t care whether or not there were elections in Iraq.
Let’s face it. What could GWB say tonight that could possibly be of any value? Maybe he’s got some hidden plan, or trick up his sleeve, or secret weapon to try and get us to be more patient.
Well you know what, we are not a patient nation. People and politicians just have to live with that fact. We want it yesterday. That is the way it is. No matter how much the right, the religious freaks, and GWB with all his BS want us to be patient, we are not going to change.
You usually make more sense than that, Casey. That sentence implies no such link. It is a simple, accurate sentence.
Bush has said it over and over again. Iraq is about changing the world. Sorry if these things don’t meet the 60 minute time frame our television generation demands.
This thread is very amusing in that so many hate the speech that has not even been given yet. You at least take a section from the actual speech, but then you ruin it by purposely distorting it. Do you really think such reasoning is persuasive?
It is going very well thank you. Check out developments in Libya, Georgia, Ukraine, Pakistan, India, Lebanon and, to a lesser extent, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudia Arabia.
The time frame is measured in years. The chances of meeting it depend on you. Do you think Bin Laden is right when he says our culture is decedent and corrupt, needing only a few hard blows to cause us to collapse? If the answer for you is yes, then the chances are not so good.
As usual, everything is really up to you. Not you personally so much, you collectively.
Forget it, Art. It’s the Vietnam crowd (or their heirs) getting themselves all worked up again. I’m no fan of how this war has been prosecuted (I’ve been there once, and my wife twice) but I also recognize that if we cut and run now, which is what the pointy-heads at MoveOnpac and their ilk would love to see us do, we’re gonna bring a world of hurt down on our heads.
It’s gonna be a long, necessary haul to see this through. Anybody who thinks this is something we can just give up on at this juncture is sadly and profoundly naive.
I don’t know if the war has been handled particularly well or particularly badly. I won’t argue with your insight given your better point of view. I suppose WWII was handled very poorly as well. After all, no one anticipated the Battle of the Bulge which almost wound up as a total disaster. For some reason, the NY Times didn’t try to find the people responsible. Of course, we spilled way more blood in that battle than we ever will in Iraq.
But Iraq is just too difficult for poor little us. It is just too expensive too. We are a bunch of losers, so we should probably just give up. Mommy will still love us anyway, and we might not be able to afford our SUVs if this goes on much longer.
How is it possible that a board full of Ironmen don’t even know what difficult means?
Maybe bin Laden is right. Judging by this thread, it certainly looks that way.
Check out developments in Libya, Georgia, Ukraine, Pakistan, India, Lebanon and, to a lesser extent, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudia Arabia.
When you say things that get demolished as completely untrue, just move on to the next thread and repeat them as if the contention wasn’t thoroughly discredited!
"We are going to Iraq because Saddam’s WMD threat is too eminent…er wait, no WMD’s?..I mean it’s because of 9/11…oh wait, they weren’t part of 9/11?..I mean its to spread freedom…you’re sick of that one? Did you forget that 9/11 had nothing to do Iraq yet? Good, What I mean to say is that we need to be there because of 9/11 and spread freedom.
The insurgency is in the last throes…I guess I should clarify…there are last throes and there are last throes…actually what I meant to say is that “last throes” could mean 6-10 years longer. Did I mention that pessimist liberals don’t understand that war is hard…(especially when you go to war knowing you have weak intelligence, no plan, and sell it to the public that we will probably be out of Iraq in 6 months)…opps I hope I didn’t say that aloud…what I meant to say was we need to stay the course. Don’t listen to those commie leftists who would love Osama to rule the world, if you don’t agree with me, it is probably because you hate the troops and probably America. To summarize: hang a flag, 9/11, agree with me, if you are against the war you probably hate the troops, remember 9/11, stay the course, BTW 9/11"