Deadline for Victory
I hear the soundbite of some Senator arguing against putting any sort of date for withdrawal from the Iraq quagmire. The claim: any sort of deadline would tell the "terrorists" just how long they have to wait us out.
To my ear, the implications of that argument are two-fold:
- If we don't want them to know how long they have to wait us out, doesn't that presume that we will not defeat them in that time, i.e., be "victorious"?
- Does it leave open the possibility of ever planning to withdraw? How about, say, 2045? 2034? 2019? 2015? Am I getting closer? Recognize the specious argument of the same "Mr. Churchill, what do you think I am?" category?*
Besides, when date of a pull-out is talked about, why should Republicans absolutely rush to assume that Democrats are not suggesting that the administration will be totally victorious in its pretty little war by then? Shouldn't they be thinking of it as a "Deadline for Victory"? Shouldn't talk of, say, an eighteen-month plan for victory have the terrorists quaking in their combat boots?
Republican can be so defeatist sometimes. Tsk.
———-
*Just in case you don't recognize the allusion, here is a version of the exchange:
… a Winston Churchill story [about] Lady Astor who[m] Churchill asked to sleep with him for a million pounds.
"She said `Yeah, I think I would, Mr. Churchill.' And he said `Well, how about I just pay you a dollar, will you sleep with me?' She said `What do you think I am?' And he said `Well, we just determined what you are, now we are debating price.'"
[source]
Although the above adequately summarizes the anecdote, I don't think it can be terribly accurate. Do we really believe that Lady Astor would respond with "yeah"?
3 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Thursday, 29 March 2007 at 02.41
Permalink
What makes the standard Bush/Cheney/McCain/Graham/Lieberman argument sound so inane is the long-established fact that most of the time, in most of Iraq, it is the bad guys who set the tempo of hostilities. And not being complete fools, they set the tempo to their advantage.
Waging war on the cheap, as they're doing, leaves them in the enviable position of being able to keep this up nigh on to forever. But they won't have to because they will benefit from the complete loss of patience by Americans and/or their fellow Iraqis.
on Thursday, 29 March 2007 at 20.14
Permalink
SW, I'm fascinated by the utter ambiguity of your second paragraph and whether it refers to the "good guys", the "bad guys", or both. Very sweet!
That does suggest some question begging too. As in so many cases before with this administration, one wants to throw up one's hands and ask: "Why are they prosecuting this 'war' this way if they want to win it?" Often as not, it's the part after the "if" that should be questioned; misconstruing their actual motives and goals means misconstruing their tactics and strategies.
on Friday, 30 March 2007 at 20.04
Permalink
Jeff, I admit it would've been better writing, albeit more wordy, to make it, "Waging war on the cheap, as the insurgents, jihadists, factional fighters, criminals, etc., are doing . . ." But then, at the end I did mention "fellow Iraqis." Also, at $2 billion a week, what other country could afford to persist with this costly loser of a war?
Yes, it's been botched so badly one wonders how Bush & Co. can talk of some kind of military victory with a straight face.