Choices regarding the War in Iraq
Here we go again. The rhetoric has started as presented by the Administration and espoused by President Bush. Are the choices as explained by the President our only choices? Let's examine them in detail.
Choice: The President said today that, "The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror and that depends on victory in Iraq. So the United States of America will not leave until victory is achieved."
If this is true, then why aren't we using overwhelming force, the Powell doctrine, against those fighting us and the Iraqi government forces? The fact is that Iraqi government officials can't even leave the Green Zone without fearing for their lives. Today, the comparison made by the President, was that the war on terror and the war in Iraq compared to WWII and the fighting of Nazi fascism. Then why aren't we mobilized as a country to win? Seems like the choices are as follows:
1. Stay the course with no real end in sight and continue to say it's hard work
2. Cut and run with a timetable to leave and stick to it
3. Have a strategy and execute on it that all Americans know we are going to win by overwhelming force until we have won and the Iraqis can stand on their own.
So far no one has had the courage to stand up and choose #3.
But the question is why, if the President believes that this is the struggle of the 21st Century, why is he playing the game with fewer players and no clear strategy for gaining control of the situation. That is what frustrates all Americans. All Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, wish this war could be won. Most experts have said time and time again, that we don't have enough troops to do that. If the Administration had the guts to admit we don't have enough troops to win, they would solve the problem. How would they solve the problem? It would take reinstituting an unpopular decision and using an old tool: the DRAFT! With the Draft reconstituted, they know full well the American people would be out in the streets marching against it. Why would Americans object if this is what it took? Because there is a competence issue surrounding Donald Rumsfeld. Why doesn't Rumsfeld just bite the bullet, so to speak, and ask for enough troops? Because he was the one who convinced the President and Vice President that this war effort didn't need that many troops, as it is a "different" war. In fact, he convinced everyone that this war was not like conventional wars but was an "asymmetrical" war. Hmmm, remember that phrase? What does that mean? Well according to Wikipedia, "Asymmetric warfare is a term that describes a military situation in which two belligerents of unequal strength interact and take advantage of their respective strengths and weaknesses. This interaction often involves strategies and tactics outside the bounds of conventional warfare."
Does this now explain why the President was wrong today, when he compared this to WWII. Because it is very clear the person responsible for taking on the war, Mr. Rumsfeld says so. He's supposed to be the expert. Can you see the dilemma for the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld? They would have to admit they were WRONG and they are too busy, trying to get us all to believe, they were right back then and are RIGHT now. Ego is a terrible thing because it can get in the way of real progress on issues. Too bad there is more than enough to go around in this Administration for a lifetime.
What do you think? Please comment on what choice you would make and I will try to keep a running total as an Update at the bottom of this Blog post. Choose one of these below, or add another:
1. Stay the course with no real end in sight and continue to say it's hard work
2. Cut and run with a timetable to leave and stick to it
3. Have a strategy and execute on it that strategy so that all Americans know we are going to win by overwhelming force until we have won and the Iraqi's can stand on their own.
Choice: The President said today that, "The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror and that depends on victory in Iraq. So the United States of America will not leave until victory is achieved."
If this is true, then why aren't we using overwhelming force, the Powell doctrine, against those fighting us and the Iraqi government forces? The fact is that Iraqi government officials can't even leave the Green Zone without fearing for their lives. Today, the comparison made by the President, was that the war on terror and the war in Iraq compared to WWII and the fighting of Nazi fascism. Then why aren't we mobilized as a country to win? Seems like the choices are as follows:
1. Stay the course with no real end in sight and continue to say it's hard work
2. Cut and run with a timetable to leave and stick to it
3. Have a strategy and execute on it that all Americans know we are going to win by overwhelming force until we have won and the Iraqis can stand on their own.
So far no one has had the courage to stand up and choose #3.
But the question is why, if the President believes that this is the struggle of the 21st Century, why is he playing the game with fewer players and no clear strategy for gaining control of the situation. That is what frustrates all Americans. All Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, wish this war could be won. Most experts have said time and time again, that we don't have enough troops to do that. If the Administration had the guts to admit we don't have enough troops to win, they would solve the problem. How would they solve the problem? It would take reinstituting an unpopular decision and using an old tool: the DRAFT! With the Draft reconstituted, they know full well the American people would be out in the streets marching against it. Why would Americans object if this is what it took? Because there is a competence issue surrounding Donald Rumsfeld. Why doesn't Rumsfeld just bite the bullet, so to speak, and ask for enough troops? Because he was the one who convinced the President and Vice President that this war effort didn't need that many troops, as it is a "different" war. In fact, he convinced everyone that this war was not like conventional wars but was an "asymmetrical" war. Hmmm, remember that phrase? What does that mean? Well according to Wikipedia, "Asymmetric warfare is a term that describes a military situation in which two belligerents of unequal strength interact and take advantage of their respective strengths and weaknesses. This interaction often involves strategies and tactics outside the bounds of conventional warfare."
Does this now explain why the President was wrong today, when he compared this to WWII. Because it is very clear the person responsible for taking on the war, Mr. Rumsfeld says so. He's supposed to be the expert. Can you see the dilemma for the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld? They would have to admit they were WRONG and they are too busy, trying to get us all to believe, they were right back then and are RIGHT now. Ego is a terrible thing because it can get in the way of real progress on issues. Too bad there is more than enough to go around in this Administration for a lifetime.
What do you think? Please comment on what choice you would make and I will try to keep a running total as an Update at the bottom of this Blog post. Choose one of these below, or add another:
1. Stay the course with no real end in sight and continue to say it's hard work
2. Cut and run with a timetable to leave and stick to it
3. Have a strategy and execute on it that strategy so that all Americans know we are going to win by overwhelming force until we have won and the Iraqi's can stand on their own.
posted by Charles Amico at 6:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home