I don't intend to devote a lot more of this weblog to the Iraq mess. There are plenty of places online that deal in such trivia, whereas I need to focus on the important topics of the day like dead cartoonists and Doodles Weaver. But I posted a message yesterday from someone named Greg and responded to it. And now here's Greg again, and I'm going to insert my responses as we go along. He's the one with the narrower margins…
Thanks for your reply. Regarding your comments about inherent references and assumptions on my part. I'm not sure I see how you came to that — I actually made no comments that came close to discussing what percentage of people currently support our ongoing efforts towards a safer, self-governing Iraq. Speaking of my quasi-question to you along those lines: "…we should help Iraq become a country stable and safe enough to govern itself, as much as possible, as soon as possible" — I'm still curious to know whether or not we agree on that.
It's a commendable goal, of course. I don't know that it's attainable, or that it's attainable at a price we'll want to pay. There are a lot of noble things we might be able to do around the world if we don't care how many of our soldiers die or how many of our tax dollars we spend. I always remember the saying that "politics is the art of the possible." So my question would be to wonder if a safer, self-governing Iraq is even achievable or if that's the best use of our human and financial resources. And at what point in the Body Count, do we decide maybe that it is not? Mr. Bush scares some of us because we worry there's no point at which he'll think too many soldiers have died.
In any case, my reference to the percentage of people who support the war was a response to your saying that "the left" has no solutions. I don't think anyone has any great, workable solutions but it isn't just "the left." There are plenty of people on the opposite end of the political spectrum who are saying the exact same things about this war.
And, I found this fairly contradictory — you say it's not your job to know how we should proceed in Iraq — that it should be decided by folks experienced in these things (sounds good, I think I'll go with the Commander in Chief and his administration). Anyway, even though you say "not my job," you then provided two plans of action — and you even give predictions as to what will happen! Even more, both outcomes are guaranteed "disasters." It seems you've taken the option of things moving in a positive direction completely off the table! I can understand that some people have that point of view, I suppose, of giving up on things getting better in any way? But I can also see it as being negative, bizarre, and counter-productive. (Not to mention that for some people, I believe, it involves a large amount of petty wish
fulfillment. Personally I wouldn't guess that would apply to yourself, but to some.)
Yeah, I'm pessimistic about things getting better in any way. The claims by some that we're gaining ground strike me as so empty (and quickly discredited, like Cheney saying the insurgency was in its final throes) that they don't instill optimism. You say you'll trust the Commander in Chief and his adminstration. I'd love to but I haven't seen them do anything right yet. Bush couldn't even tout great progress in his speech the other night.
But I think the thing that worries me — and this is the point I was trying to make — is that I don't trust these guys to change courses or cut our losses if that's truly the best option. They're convinced we need to go North and even with so many experienced voices saying we should go South, the Bush crew is going to go North, even if it means driving us off a cliff. We don't expect our leaders to be infallible but we also don't want leaders who think they are, and will press on in the wrong direction rather than admit they were wrong. At some point, the possible good we can achieve in Iraq may be totally out of balance with what it will cost us to make happen. (This is assuming we aren't already past that point.) Bush seems to have taken that consideration completely off the table, and that scares me and a lot of people.
You wrote that you're not sure that anyone has a plan, "…unless it's to cut our losses and get out." What? Lots of people have plans that don't have disaster in them! Don't you have any recommendations in a positive direction regarding Iraq?
Nope. And I somehow have a feeling that if one does emerge, it's not going to originate with the guy who writes Groo the Wanderer. I believe in expertise. I expect my doctor to know more than I do about medicine. I expect my lawyer to know more than I do about law. And I expect the guy who runs our military to know more than I do about how to deploy troops and wage war. I wouldn't excuse incompetence by any of them on the grounds that I don't know their jobs better than they do. They're supposed to know more than me. In fact, if our military leaders don't have a much better idea of what to do in Iraq than I do, we're in more trouble than anyone imagines.