Democrats making sense, sort of
It's rare, but it's exciting when it happens.
Both Joseph Biden and Hillary Rodham Clinton started making a little sense today, opining that John Murtha's demand for an immediate removal of our troops from Iraq.
All senators involved can certainly agree that President Bush got us in a royal mess. Complete lack of preparation has left our troops in a mercilessly volatile situation with little sign of any improvement. But now we find ourselves in a new debate, the question of how to clean up the mess.
I honestly don't think it's politics behind Murtha's cry for a quick exit. It's honest-to-goodness frustration. How can you not be frustrated with what is happening? The problem is that leaving this mess behind virtually guarantees that we'll have to return there in the near future.
The United States has a pretty poor record of nation-building. The book Colossus by historian Niall Ferguson does a pretty good job of detailing our frequently hopeless attempts at building democracy. We're great with the bombs - it's what happens after the warfare that seems to trip us up. Ferguson highlights the key differences between our relative successes, most importantly Japan and Germany after WWII, and our failures - Vietnam, the Philippines. One of the key factors in post-WWII success was the sheer matter of determination. We didn't leave. In the case of Germany, we're still there in large force.
I know - I'm starting to sound dangerously like Dubya. I am by no means suggesting that we stay with the strategy we've employed thusfar. But it might be time to face the grim reality that the only way we can make sure that this conflict is not an absolute waste of money and lives is by seeing this thing through.
The change of strategy should definitely involve a major reduction in troop levels. We probably need to swallow some pride and let the UN or at least members of Europe get involved, entities much more adept at the intricacies of postwar nation-building. This would allow our military to concentrate on, oh, I don't know, maybe that "war" on terror we were supposed to be fighting.
The repercussions of Bush's decision to involve us in Iraq will be felt no matter what we choose to do on or after December 15. It is absolutely maddening to think that a war that many of us were directly or indirectly duped into supporting should force us to continue to make sacrifices we do not want to make. Yet this might be the very choice we must make in order to ensure Iraq doesn't become another Afghanistan.
I have no doubt that the candidates vying to succeed Bush in the White House will use their magic plan for Iraq as a major platform point. As long as Bush's approval rating remains subterranean as it is now, the most contrary plan to Bush's own "plan" will be the most lauded. And who can blame them? Apart from it making good political sense, who would possibly want to put themselves in the wholly unenviable position making sense of this quagmire? Let's just get the troops out; Iraq won't likely completely erupt and turn into Afghanistan II until the end of what's sure to be a one-term presidency. Let the next guy take the fall.
The alternative will be to absorb the terrible legacy that Bush has left behind. Continue an albeit smaller presence in Iraq and join forces with the nations that wanted no part of this to begin with, virtually guaranteeing fierce criticism from all sides of the political fence.
Do I have even the slightest hope that this candidate exists today? Not really. Not at all. This is just catharsis, people, not informed political commentary.
Posted by Joel at 11/21/2005 10:05:00 PM
« Home