Bush On Iraq
In a speech (NY Times, login required: see page 6) last night, Bush said that "setting an artificial timetable [for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq] would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out."
What? Let me rephrase this: If we say that we will leave on a given date, the terrorists will know that they can wait us out, but if we simply say we will, as Bush put it, that "we will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer," they can't wait us out. The only way that this can be true is if do not leave until all of the terrorists are wiped out. Yeah, that will happen soon.
So that my reading this week of 1984 may be seen as having more value than mere academic prep—a worthy reason in its own right—let me bring in this justification from early in Bush's speech:
"The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001."
OK, so if the "global war on terror" finally reached this country, that means it was raging beforehand, right? But the term "war on terror" is a post-9/11 creation. That's OK, maybe we can just collect all of the offending copies of newspapers and such, rewrite them, and toss the old ones down a "memory hole" (all the more amusing a term in this digital age) to be consigned to fire.
This is our chief executive? our commander in chief? He should not have ended the speech "May God bless you all," but "May God save you all."
posted by Andrew Purvis @ 4:59 AM
10 Comments:
Hey Andrew Boy, methinks you’re looking for attention.
We are stabilizing Iraq and the entire region in the context of a war on terror.
You're responding to a statement that Bush didn't make. Notice how you added "they can't wait us out" and then wrongly concluded that we need to stay until all terrorists are wiped out. You just paint Bush's position as more extreme so you can have an easier target.
"As long as we are needed" means as long as our presence is necessary, which doesn't automatically mean until "all of the terrorists are wiped out." It’s actually pretty straight forward: for as long as our presence is necessary in controlling the insurgency, stabilizing the country, and so on. Once the Iraqi government is strong enough, we’re on to better things.
And you play with words as to the war on terror. The thing existed beforehand, just not in most people’s awareness, and not in those exact words. But it existed whether we called it that or just some kind of police activity. May God save us all, but not from Bush. That sounds much nicer without your snide hint.
Your Fox News post is even more infuriating than this one.
But on a side note, lets discuss this more at my place next Sunday.
While I will admit to having my fun with Bush, there is not now, nor has there ever been, the need to make him an "easier target" than he makes himself. The words I added comprise the only logical conclusion to the thought he was expressing. What I am lampooning here is the idea that one reason (Bush gives others that have merit, but I want to know why THIS one was included, beyond its scare tactics value) should even be in the speech.
How does a timetable help the terrorists? They can't see a couple hundred thousand people leaving the country? They don't need years, months, or even weeks to plan car bombs. The world will know that we are leaving long before we leave, and no amount of secrecy will harm terrorist planning.
I am curious what "bigger and better things" might be, though. I haven't checked the area figures or a map lately, but I believe that both Syria and North Korea are smaller. I guess that leaves Iran. Afghanistan has long been forgotten, though it is where we still believe Bin-Laden to be. Funny, that.
The Fox post I won't address here.
Mr. Purvis,
Maybe you don’t need to make Bush and easier target, yet you do it anyway. Your conclusion is not the only possible logical deduction, arguably it’s not even logical. You jump from a vague statement like as long “as we are needed” to an absolute one: “until ALL terrorists are wiped out.”(emphasis added) How exactly does that follow? Bush’s statement includes lots of possibilities. Your conclusion narrows them down on the most extreme, and practically impossible, case.
I can think of two things that Bush would get from this, (1) he does not bind himself to a course of action, and (2) he keeps our enemies on their toes. Part (2) reminds me of shock and awe. I’m not sure what the logic behind that was either, but it turned out well.
Check my post, I said better, not bigger. And even if I said bigger, I would have meant it in a figurative sense. I don’t see what the geographic area of a country has to do with anything. Mmm, diversionary action for lack of something better to say?
Fox News rocks, especially when they interview Ann Coulter.
Note that I did not say this was the only reason Bush gave, just one that had no value.
Let's reason this out. If we do not give a date because the enemy would "know all they have to do is wait us out," the ONLY ways they would not know they didn't have to wait us out is if they didn't exist or we didn't leave.
Put another way, they ALREADY know that we will leave at some point, so they ALREADY know that they can wait us out. There are only two ways they cannot be there when we leave: 1) they are all dead, or 2) we never leave. I challlenge you to find a third option that meets the conditions of Bush's words.
In my opinion NOT setting an exit strategy timeline is proof positive that security in Iraq has not improved since the invasion not to mention the fact that the number of insurgent attacks as of today are on par with the previous year. (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_attacks_042705,00.html) Not articulating a withdrawal policy is admitting that the Iraqi security forces still can't handle the security of their country a full year after the U.S. "returned sovereignty to Iraq."
Bring U.S. soldiers home now!
Andrew
“As long as we are needed and not a day longer” says 2 things, (1) that we will stay as long as we are needed, and that (2) we won’t stay longer than we are needed.
But the emphasis is on part (2), “not a day longer” is strong and absolute. The beginning of the phrase is weaker. Bush stated what we won’t do rather than what we will do. In effect he said that when we’re not needed anymore we will leave.
Second, you are twisting Bush’s words from subjective to objective, i.e., he says “know that all they [the insurgents] have to do is to wait us out” and you hear "they [the insurgents] can't wait us out.” It’s not about whether they can wait us out, it’s about whether they can be sure of when we’re leaving.
So. Bush’s actual statements create the following possibilities:
1. we don’t leave (apparently you think we’ll always be needed there)
2. they are all wiped out (impossible, but if a substantial number is wiped out it will bring about a situation where we won’t be needed and hence we’d have to leave)
OR
3. we don’t tell them, don’t publicize plans etc. (then they won’t know or be sure of our plans, which is what we’re doing and it will be fine for some limited time)
4. the new Iraqi government can handle the insurgency as well as the US can (in which case it won’t matter whether we stay or leave, but since won’t be needed we’d have to leave)
5. the people that need us are all wiped out by the insurgents (in which case there won’t be anyone to need us, and since we’re not needed we’d have to leave)
6. the insurgents surrender (in effect this is the same as wiping them out, bringing about a situation were we won’t be needed anymore, so we’d have to leave)
7. we get wiped out (then we can’t help with anything and we won’t be needed, so whatever is left would have to leave)
8. some other entity successfully controls the situation (then we won’t be needed so we’d have to leave)
9. we surrender (we accept that we are powerless, since we’re powerless we won’t be needed so we’d have to leave)
10. we all decide to get along (we won’t be needed so we’d leave)
11. a mix of the above (could create a situation where we’re no longer needed)
Hey Anonymous, which don’t you say who you are? Afraid?
So, the situation in Iraq is bad, Iraqi security is not strong, and we should bring our troops home.
But, no exit strategy is indication, evidence, not quite proof positive, and bringing US soldiers home regardless of anything else is a bad idea.
Civil war would follow, loads of people would die, the Iraqi government would topple, leaving a power vacuum. The countries around it would take advantage of Iraq’s weakness to influence its course or even take it over. It would be a horrible mistake on our part and further injustice to the people there.
How about you think and try to make a cogent argument instead of jumping to mindless slogans.
OK, this is getting out of hand. The initial post was not primarily political, though it seems to me it was read that way. The post was about rhetoric, in a classical sense. In that light, I will return to what I have been saying all along: as a justification for our refusal to specify a timetable for withdrawal, "[sending] the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out" fails. There may well be valid reasons, but this is not one of them.
My point is simply this: not knowing a date does not alter the fact that we will leave (I have never said, nor indirectly suggested that I believed we would be there forever, only that it was one of two ways in which Bush's statement made any sense). A withdrawal of that many troops takes months, which provides more than enough time to plan any attacks. There is no value in not setting a timetable, or at least clearly defined conditions, for withdrawal.
Bush employed political rhetoric at its worst. He says that we will stay "as long as we are needed and not a day longer," but he staunchly refused to define the conditions that determine that ending point. You have done more, Anton, in specifying conditions for withdrawal than the entire Bush administration. As I said, this is rhetoric.
I suppose you might not believe me when I say this, but were Kerry president today and making these wonderfully vacuous claims, I would be calling him on it. Bush just likes to walk out the dead boughs of the rhetoric tree and beg for a chainsaw. If you don't like my picking on Republican presidents, help elect a non-Republican.
you guys crack me up.
Hi X.
How Dare you tell me to make a more intelligent statement--I have family over there, asshole.
Post a Comment
<< Home