georgeob1 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
In fact, I would judge that the correct course of action in Iraq would be the opposite of whatever is proposed by the NeoCon crowd...
That does seem to be the Democrat's strategy. Their problem is that apart from criticism, they have nothing to offer: no strategy for Iraq, Iran or any of the attendant problems of the growing confrontation between the Islamic world and the West.
They even criticize things that are working well. North Korea is a good example. The U.S. has made it clear to South Korea, Japan , and China that this is primarily a problem of their neighborhood. They have a direct interest in taming the macabre and juvenile government of North Korea and ample reason to fear their collective reactions to more aggression on its part. Fuinally, they have real leverage over each other and North Korea. By wisely stepping back and refusing direct negotiations, we have made them face their own responsibilities and self interest. Democrats appear to advocate undoing all that and sending Madeline Albright back, with useless bribes in hand, for some more ass-kissing. Some strategy!
Being one of the only Conservatives on A2K who have ever admitted how bad the war has gotten, I respect your voice, George.
I think that from time to time the Dems have offered strategies and advice on how to handle the Iraq situation, which goes through a quick process by those on the right - Reading - ridiculing - dismissing - pretending that no strategy has ever been offered at all. I can find you many instances showing where Dems have offered alternative opinions about the correct course of action...
When Bush decided to change course in the war - also known as, when his party got smacked in the Nov. elections - he took a few months of planning with generals and the intelligence agencies to come up with his new course of action. Democrats don't have the access to the generals and intelligence agencies that the Executive does, yet they are expected to offer competent and workable plans without any of the assistance that the president enjoys. I find this to be rather unrealistic.
Though I have been criticized for 'never having anything good to say about Bush,' I thought his speech last night was not bad. I disagree with the conclusions that he has come to but his speech laid out the thought processes much clearer than past ones and he delivered it competently if a little flat. Even as someone who opposes his policies, I found the arguments presented to be somewhat compelling in that they represent a far greater acceptance of reality than past speeches by the Prez have. This is a hopeful sign that decisions made from here on out may be more reality-based than ones in the past, which seemed to be more ideologically-based and full of words like 'freedom' and 'hope.'
I am willing to give Petraeus (I know that you righties love his Roman-sounding name) a shot at this counter-strategy before I start ramping up my withdrawl rhetoric. But I don't expect any sort of success, as the counter-insurgency doctorine he calls for specifically asks for more troops than they are going to get, and I have zero trust in the Iraqi army when it comes to going after Shiite militias.
Cycloptichorn
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace