Thursday, May 10, 2007

Slogans instead of strategy

In today's Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman offers a nifty little review of the Republican record of cutting and running.

9 comments:

Cool Your Jets said...

What is the imperative for leaving Iraq? The troops are volunteers and are reenlisting in healthy numbers. The cost of the war is low as a percentage of our economy. An Iraqi parliament has been elected and seated. Why not give the effort one more year?

And please don't be insincere and bring up "American lives." If I hear one more life-long civilian claim to have great concern for our boys in uniform, I'm going to puke.

The Rascal said...

Go ahead and puke. And why, pray tell, can't civilians express concern for "our boys" (not to mention the girls)? What kind of logic is your lament in that regard? Does one have to be a military veteran to feel such concern? Come on. And as for the "healthy numbers" of reenlistments, why have tours of duty been extended? Why is the army said to be stretched thin? What will another year of this nonsense achieve?

The Rascal said...

Oh, and one more point: The "imperative for leaving Iraq" is that the American public, by every reliable measure, wants it that way. So do scads of retired generals, and so does the vast majority of the Iraqi people. A better question is: What is the imperative for staying in Iraq?

CYJ said...

Going into Iraq was a terrible decision. I don't dispute that. And most Americans are sophisticated enough to understand that we don't have many options now, and none of them are good.

All I'm saying is that if we leave, the situation is certainly not going to get any better, and may get much, much worse. That's why even Pelosi and Reid aren't calling for immediate withdrawal.

As for public opinion polls. Yes, government requires the consent of the governed, but I don't sense a revolution fomenting. As far as I know, most people are continuing to pay their taxes. And, as I've said, plenty of young people are willing to serve.

Yes, the military is stretched too thin. But that argues for a larger military, not a smaller mission.

Nobody knows if the situation can be salvaged. But why should we voluntarily speed up our own defeat if we can avoid it?

The Rascal said...

Because we can't win somebody else's civil war. A continuation of our futile efforts to do so needlessly wastes American lives. (Or doesn't a lifelong civilian have the right to express dismay at such a consequence?)

CYJ said...

A pithy line, fighting somebody else's civil war, but it makes no sense.

Are you saying we're taking sides in a civil war? If so, whose side are we allegedly on (and who's the other side)?

Or are you saying that we're keeping two sides in a civil war apart? That's called peacekeeping, and it's not a bad thing in a region as volatile as the Middle East.

The Rascal said...

CYJ: I'm enjoying this exchange, but I'm packing it in for now. Gotta check on the Bulls in the playoffs, and then it's off to the sack. Later.

golfbear said...

I don't understand the 'civilian' comment. If military service is a litmus test for a 'sincere' (and by inference legitimate) opinion, what about Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, etc... They didn't serve. I guess dubya needs to replace some of those yes men he has around him (I know Paulie has gone on to his own scandal). My uncle was a POW in the Korean War. Does his opinion gets double points?

The Rascal said...

golfbear: For a minute there, I thought you were addresssing me. But you were replying to coolyourjets.