The Washington Post reports that “the United States this week will formally launch the handover of power to Iraq with the final game plan still not fully in place.”
No problemo. I mean, “[b]esides figuring out who will rule in Saddam Hussein’s wake,” all the Iraqis will have to do during the next few months is answer a few simple questions: “What kind of government will Iraq have?” “What will be the role of Islam?” And “How much local rule will ethnic, tribal or religious groups have?” You know, the easy stuff.
(In other news, Israel will hand over control of the Occupied Territories to the Palestinians tomorrow, even though the “final game plan” is not fully “in place.” After all, it’s gonna work in Iraq . . . . right?)
So we watch the final battle for Shrub’s Brain* between the political pragmatists (The Rove Division) and the neo-con surrealists (The Cheney Division). I’m betting on Rove.
*For those insulted by the term, we can always go with ‘…the final battle for the President’s good favor…’
I may be naive, but I really didn’t expect that Bush would play “cut-and-run” with Iraq. For Iraq’s (and our) sake, let’s hope that the actual course of events deviates from the “plan” reported today by the Washington Post.
So a gradual hand-over (whatever that entails; the term is purposely vague) equalls “cut and run”? How odd.
That should read: equals. Apologies.
Bloodengine, I’m not accusing the Bush Administration of cutting and running. I’m saying that a plan to hand over power to an undefined “something” in Iraq is not much of a plan, and I hope that reality does not end up according with the procedure outlined in the WaPo story. This is why I said “let’s hope that the actual course of events deviates from the ‘plan’ reported today by the Washington Post.”
So, in answer to this:
So a gradual hand-over (whatever that entails; the term is purposely vague) equalls “cut and run”? How odd.
Handing over power without even knowing to whom one is handing power is cutting and running, yes. (“Throwing up hands and admitting defeat” would be another way to phrase it.)
Von, don’t be surprised that the same useful, er, adherents who believed the admin. had a coherent post-war plan ready will now believe that the constantly evolving exit strategy — if ‘evolving’ is to mean Oh Shit There’s An Election Coming Up — is the wisest possible action. Because, you know, every time someone says they don’t believe in George W., a neo-con dies*.
*See Peter Pan, threat to Tinkerbell
“What kind of government will Iraq have?” “What will be the role of Islam?” And “How much local rule will ethnic, tribal or religious groups have?” You know, the easy stuff.
Nice rock and a hard place you’ve set up there, von. We go too slow and the tired whines about Bush’s War for Oiiillllllll will rev up once more, predictable as the sunrise and half as novel; go too fast and the cut-and-run arguments start cropping up again.
Nice rock and a hard place you’ve set up there, von.
Sure, Bush is going to get criticized no matter what he does. That’s unfortunate, but it goes with the job. More importantly, it doesn’t excuse the current “no plan” plan we’re implementing.*
von
*I’ve never said it was all about the oooiiiill — indeed, I recall getting blasted on this very blog by my putative leftist allies for my defense of the war and Bush’s policies. And I’m the one who has been arguing for more — not fewer — troops in Iraq.
“I’ve never said it was all about the oooiiiill”
Quite right: no intent to imply that you did, and I’m sorry that you took it that way. However, the Bush Administration is going to be criticized along those lines if they slow their pace, from people who should really know better. IOW, it remains a fact of life even if you’d personally neither stoop to such a thing nor not challenge someone making that argument.
Well, as an original war opponent, if Bush goes slow I will say “Bush is doing the right thing now, but it’s too bad all those soldiers are dying ’cause he screwed up in the first place”*; and if he pulls out quick I will with von accuse him of “cutting and running.” So Bush is between a rock and a hard place, but I think he set it up, not me (or Von).
Of course, no matter what Bush does, he will get some degree of stupid criticism from someone, but that goes with the job. No matter what he does, he’ll get criticism from me, but it won’t be stupid but brilliant and insightful :-).
*In this, I think my views are like those of Dean and Clark–they’ve been saying we need more troops, not fewer.
Well, as an original war opponent, if Bush goes slow I will say “Bush is doing the right thing now, but it’s too bad all those soldiers are dying ’cause he screwed up in the first place”*; and if he pulls out quick I will with von accuse him of “cutting and running.” So Bush is between a rock and a hard place, but I think he set it up, not me (or Von).
Sure, blame bad thinking on others. At least it’s consistent.
Eh, what? Shorter me: I think Bush is faced with two unacceptable alternatives, and I think that’s because he made a bad decision in the first place.
I think Bush is faced with two unacceptable alternatives, and I think that’s because he made a bad decision in the first place.
That’s a fair position, Matt — though I’d add that the third “unacceptable” alternative was leaving Saddam in place.
Ah, missed it by about 35 kft vertically. Sorry.
Let’s try again. Taking completely opposite positions contingent on the actions of someone you dislike (not that that’s relevant, here) isn’t, for me at least, a condemnation of that person. Sorry it worked out that way for you; I hope the Logical Reasoning Fairy visits you sometime in the near future.
Hehe. It appears multiple visits have already occurred, which makes your position all that much more puzzling. Unless, of course, I’ve grossly misunderstood. Wouldn’t be the first time, I admit.