Posted by
Blandly Urbane on Friday, September 14, 2007 12:35:36 PM
Cross posted from
DeMediacratic Nation:
President Bush spoke for the eighth time on the subject of Iraq this evening; the consensus to most talking heads was it is not much in the neighborhood of new material. A
reason for this lack in new material can be attributed to the
opposition’s repetition of the past four years; the president is still
speaking to the same arguments. This is not to
say it is the fault of the Democrats that the president is repetitive,
but more in line with yelling in a canyon and hearing an echo in
response. Would it be nice if he were to take a new tack? Yes, it would, but it would also be nice if the Democrats tried a new refrain as well.
Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed responded to the president with the same tried and still not true material. A piece of which is “ending this war.” This
has basically been the crux to the debate; Democrats and their
supporters see this as a “war” and the president and his supporters in
this vein see this more as a battle in a “war.” These
are two very diametrically opposed views and part of that, which has
made the debate all the more difficult to move forward in a way that
might reach consensus.
Jack Reed referred to the issue in Iraq as a civil war, which is nothing new; so far so good. Setting
aside the implausibility inherent in succeeding at what is being
attempted with the numbers employed now, but with fewer troops and/or
with new geographical post, we can end “this war.” Senator Reed is not wrong if this is a singular and unique war with no relatives in sight. Where
Senator Reed and the Democrats fail is if this is as the president has
continuously stated; a front in a greater war, this to the Democrats is
the great gamble and one with which they have bet our future on.
In
a perfect world with pieces that fit like a jigsaw puzzle, the
Democrats might have a chance at completing the image of the cute puppy
on the box cover. In another perfect world, as
horrifying and pitiful as it would be, were the president wrong, amends
could be made; not perfectly mind you with all forgiven, but made
nonetheless; take it or leave it. Pride or
martyrdom in death, like that sought by our enemy is mistaken but to
the greater thinking world, admitting error is possible and more likely
by no other nation than the United States; we’re great at proselytizing (think Democrats).
The catch is the more likely scenario. The United States
and its allies disengage from the battle in the greater war; redeploy,
draw down, withdraw and bring an end to the “war” only to find that we
have given massive and unimaginable ground reminiscent of a Hamburger
Hill magnified, but the planet is the hill. We then spend decades
making up for the loss of momentum that we had within our grasp, yet
threw away in our haste to end the “war.”
The
preceding regarding battle versus greater war has been said and/or
written before by many people, as this is the case, please forgive the
repetition; at I have a lot of company.