Democrats: A Solution to Iraqmire
This article seems like a no-brainer — something from the cover of DUUUHHH!!! Magazine. It’s supposed to be a way for Democrats to take a firm stand on Iraq without looking like wimps or isolationists. The author — Jonathan Alter — thinks they need a new slogan: “Pull and Strike.”
ZING!! Doesn’t that get the adrenaline pumping. OK, so it’s a lame slogan. But the idea behind it makes perfect sense. It’s so basic a 5-year-old could’ve thought of it. “Pull” means pulling our troops out of Iraq. “Strike” means striking at Islamic terrorist groups wherever we find them.
Isn't this what we should've done right after 9/11?? Anybody??? Nobody ever thought our new president was the brightest porchlight on the block. But we never imagined that his solution to the 9/11 terrorist attacks would be to invade a country which had nothing to do with 9/11 and get us embroiled in a 4-½ year quagmire there, and end up squandering tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.
According to Alter, a lot of Islamic terrorist groups are hiding in countries that don’t want them there, and these governments would welcome American airstrikes that zero in on the terrorists’ hiding places. The U.S. will have to strengthen its intelligence agencies for this method to work, and the intelligence will have to be accurate. No more cherry-picking, “fixed” intelligence or useless gossip (“the British government has learned…”).
Again, isn't this what we all thought Bush would be doing right after 9/11/01? What happened?
Labels: Iraq, Iraqmire, Pull and Strike
posted by Tom Harper @ 12:52 PM
16 Comments:
Well it sure sounds like a much better strategy than America's current, 'attack the wrong country' policy. Maybe we could even go after Bin Laden and the terrorists hiding in Pakistan!
If they were going to strike at the real terrorists of the world, it'd be suicide since the first target would be the White House.
They need to pull out and pay reparations to the Iraqi people, but the idea of striking 'Islamic terrorism' is complete bullshit.
They created these organisations when it suited their interests to do so. And they destroyed the secular organisations that threatened the puppet governments serving their interests by arming these organisations that they're now opposing.
They're the real terrorists, they funded the ones they consider terrorists and more bombs and guns from US/UN or any force will do nothing to solve any problem.
This is what rational people assumed our President would do, yes. You know, Tom, I'm a 57-year-old woman, but when 9/11 happened, I wanted to personally go fight the Taliban. I was wishing I was young enough to go because I love this country and wanted to find and destroy the people who had caused her so much harm. It makes me sick that those people are still at large and what is worse, they have more recruits than ever thanks to the actions of our own unbelievably incompetent and misguided administration. Not only that, but the goodwill we enjoyed after 9/11 from the rest of the world has been completely squandered, and with good reason.
Yet even today, according to a Newsweek poll I just saw on Snave's site, one in four people in this country still support the administration's completely irrational actions.
They talk about Bush's "leadership" in a time of crisis. WTF? A rational person would have - DUH - gone after the perpetrators of the crimes against us. There were seemingly very few of us crying out here in the wilderness in protest, and we were called traitors.
I used to think the administration got away with this because of the Republican-controlled Congress and our appalling news media. But even after the recent Congressional elections, we STILL haven't done the rational thing.
What's it going to take? Are we on collective self-destruct?
It's stunning to think how much has changed in the past six years.
Leo: Yup, I’ve gotta agree — going after bin Laden makes a lot more sense than attacking the wrong country.
Benjamin: I don’t think it’s quite that cut and dry. Granted the Bush Administration (and previous administrations to a lesser extent) has been shit-disturbing all over the world and has enabled some of the worst dictators and terrorist groups. But that doesn’t change the fact that there actually are some terrorists out there who want to destroy the West. In any case, we’d know the real story if we had functioning intelligence agencies that provided real intelligence and weren’t forced to say exactly what Bush and Cheney want to hear.
Candace: Yeah, it’s amazing how our government squandered the unity and good will that we all had right after 9/11, and went off on that twisted tangent of invading Iraq. And you're right that our Iraqi adventure not only hasn’t accomplished anything; it’s provided lots of new recruits for al Qaeda.
I saw that same poll about Bush. I’m glad his ratings keep plummeting but at the same time, how can 1 in 4 Americans still think he's doing a good job? And it’s true that our new Democratic “leadership” hasn’t done jackshit. Their top priority is saving their own careers by going along to get along.
Political Realm: Yup, things have sure gone topsy-turvy in the last 6 years.
I think Candace said a lot and I must agree with almost all that she said, but remind all that in order to get more from the House and Senate, we will really need more Democrats to defeat any Republican negative vote.
Let's Talk: True, we need more Democrats. But the ones we already have (most of them anyway) need to grow spines and take a stand.
Bush has completely changed the face of the world by attacking a country, for financial reasons.
Now the rogue nations as well as the larger ones are silently planning on attacks of their own.
We all know where those will no doubtly be.
This idea has a lot of merit. The only problem I see is connected to public relations...you know how the Arab press is always claiming we've blown up a completely innocent wedding or aspirin factory? Even if we're secretly invited in by the government of the country they would probably condemn us later on...
Larry: Yup, it's unfortunate, but we've set the example. Other countries are sure to follow.
J. Marquis: Good point. They could turn it into a PR problem. A terrorist cell might retroactively turn into an aspirin factory or a school after we've bombed it (like what happened with Clinton in Sudan). I guess there'll be pitfalls no matter what approach we take.
>>True, we need more Democrats. But the ones we already have (most of them anyway) need to grow spines and take a stand. <<
Yup.
Lizzy: Yup, sad but true.
There were people who predicted Iraq as the Towers were falling, the Kitchen Window Woman being one of them.
I didn't want to believe it when I heard it. I was wrong. Chimpy really and truly has no use for this country or its people except as means to an end.
Jolly Roger: I also had no premonition about us invading Iraq right after 9/11. I had mixed feelings about invading Afghanistan, but I trusted Bush to be doing the right thing, doing what he thought was right for America and the world. Fool me once...
It seems to me like AMERICA is now the world's primary "rogue nation", if that means a nation that has all kinds of WMDs and engages in fairly unpredictable behavior, tries to intimidate other countries, etc.
This has gone on for decades, but it has become a kind of transparent thing during the Dumbya years. Speak very loudly and carry a huge, deadly stick. What kind of a foreign policy is that?
Snave: Yup, we've become everything we accused Saddam Hussein of being. WMDs, bullying behavior towards other countries -- Freud would say that Bush was projecting himself onto Saddam.
Post a Comment
<< Home