Cycloptichorn wrote: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
Reasonable criticisms. (Though Petrtaeus' name sounds a bit more Greek than Italian - and I am not an admirer of Greece or its politics,.)
In fact the Democrats have ample access to the military leaders in the Defense Department - certainly enough to outline a coherent, self-consistent strategy for the effort. I think that if you applied the same or even similar standards to the "strategic" statements of Joe Beiden, John Kerry, Nancy pelosi or her compatriot in the Senate - Reed, that you applied to Bush's announcements and speeches, you will find many defects, omissions and errors in theirs as well. Moreover the responsible official knows that he/she will be held to account for words spoken and actions taken, if in no other way, by the unfolding events and results. The critics face no such test - few even remember what they say, and in the rare event someone digs it up they can always pull a Kerry and say thingsd like "... well I actually voted for it before I voted against it...".
While I think there were many errors in the Bush strategy, I think that very few of the criticisms were specific enough to be useful, or even touched on what actually was wrong. Moreover none of the recommendations I have yet heard from Democrats seems at all trealistic, even forgetting their often vague nature. "Negotiate with Iran & Syria" from Joe Biden; or " establish a timetable for withdrawl to make the Iraqis take over" from the others; doesn't sound like a strategy to me.
