So, if in 3 years, someone like Russell Feingold is prez, he can stupidly withdraw all he wants, but it won't change a damn thing.
That said let's turn to the war.
A good strategy even poorly pursued will beat a bad one perfectly carried out (Sun Tzu, I believe).
The winning strategy IS:
Democracy, and individual rights everywhere in the long run is the best protection for the people of the USA.
It has been poorly carried out. PERIOD. It may have been so poorly carried out that the political will to sustain it is evaporating. Whether or not the facts of a 'civil war' are right or not, and how the MSM represent them is a separate issue.
George Bush in not firing people left and right for the disasters which have stalked his tenure may have institutionalized error. The Moussaoui fiasco of yesterday is prima facie evidence. DPW, is prima facie evidence, Katrina response (not excusing state and local) is prima facie evidence. Why was the 4th ID left sitting in ships before the war when Turkish cooperation was not already secured? Why did the war start before they were positioned? We know now that more men would have been a good thing.
Abe Lincoln went through a raft of people before a bankrupt alchoholic failure, and a crazy press hating redhead saved the Union. Ernest King, the 'personification of of the son of a bitch as Admiral' insisted on visiting responsibility after Pearl Harbor when HE was made responsibile for Navy operations. Genl Vandegrfit on Guadalcanal replaced people right and left until the right combination was there.
Yet we have suffered through appointments like Michael Brown. We have seen Rumsfeld make stupendous errors which would have, in the business world seen him with a pewter mug filled with pencils. We have seen the Harriet Miers debacle. We have seen Tenet, not only NOT ignominiously reduced to a quivering blob of rejected failure, but upheld until it was less 'controversial' for him to quit and write his book. Are we the BRITISH to deal softly with gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? How did that work out? I read in Jawbreaker (an outstanding read..up there with Ghost Wars) that Tommy Franks refused the CIA 800 rangers to land in the mountains and block Tora Bora because they weren't ready yet and casualties might be incurred because of that. WTF? Stupendous error, yet he lead the effort in Iraq. Would that have meant Hookeror Burnside at Gettysburg? Or Husband Kimmel at Midway? Those of you who know history, think about that.
I have been a life long democrat. I not only started off working for George Mcgovern, but then in 2004 wrote published columns explaining why it was impossible to vote for John Kerry. I am looking to help elect the man or woman who has what it takes and I don't care WHAT THE HELL THEY CALL THEMSELVES.
It's time to admit that while Geroge Bush PICKED the right strategy, at THIS point because of the method in his stewardship of the executive, he is NOT the man to carry it out. He can annul this verdict by firing the losers and finding winners. If he hires more losers he ought fire them too. Fearlessy, and mercilessy ..or else it's Johnny Burgoyne. There is no time to waste, George.
6 comments:
I haven't seen Bush make too many decent decisions in his second term. I am very disappointed. But knowing what I know today, I still would have voted for him over Kerry.
That was not a real choice.
Epa, I am asking out of ignorance; what has Rumsfeld done wrong?
Pastorius, I agree. And I really don't think that I see the promotion of democracy as the real winning strategy. I'm not sure that I know what the best strategy is, but I just am at a loss as to Bush's decisions at this point.
Rummy's war faults .. top of my head
1) Assuming Turkey would go along with allowing the 4th ID to disembark, cross Turkey, and invade Iraq from Turkey
2) Allowing them to sit on the ships for weeks when the issue was clearly in doubt
3) Allowing the invasion to go forward when 40% of the strike force would clearly NOT be ready
That's just in spring 2003. I don't have a catalog like some critics do, because I am just now at the 'fed up' point.
W rgd to democracy... The arabs are not brutes who cannot govern themselves. In the long run self goverment is the only answer. Otherwise is back to 50's and deposing Mossadegh for the Shah
I agree with Epa with regard to the issue of promoting Democracy.
As a nation we believe that all people are created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, etc.
These are the principles we must hold to.
The only way I would abandon the idea of promoting Democracy is if we get hit with nukes and it is proven that the Islamic world overwhelmingly approves.
At that point, we would be foolish to keep trying.
Then, I would say, destroy their governments, and let them fight it out between themselves how to get back into the 21st century.
"Democracy, and individual rights everywhere in the long run is the best protection for the people of the USA."
Whilst I happen to agree with this sentiment, this is not a strategy it is only a desired outcome. Bush can be congratulated for giving this rhetoric some air time.
Bush's strategy is to buddy up to the friendly dictators of Morrocco, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi, UAE and Yemen. Whilst demanding that Iran, Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan and Iraq become friendly. The subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have installed friendly regimes in these countries, likewise Lybian flip flop and Lebanon people power. This IS the 50s revisited. Bush's main problem is that he does not keep a tight enough rein on some of the "friendly" Arab states allowing them to practice fundamentalist Islam.
Forgive my isolationist tendencies. I just do not see this as our job. But then I didn't see taking out Milosevic as out job, either.
Post a Comment