Biden Almost Right
In his call for a Timetable for Iraq, Joe Biden from Delaware stated that "Recently, 79 Democratic and Republican senators told President Bush we need a detailed, public plan for Iraq, with specific goals and a timetable for achieving each one." (click "read full post" for the rest of the story)
I believe he's right on two of three points, specific goals, and a plan. It doesn't need to be a totally public plan, in fact, it shouldn't be a totally public plan. The plan should be put together, and briefed to congress, and portions of it (the goals, general ideas) given to the public. But making everything public fodder makes it tougher for anyone, from a congressman to a commander on the ground, to make a change, or do anything, without 300 million second guessers. Monday morning QBing is great for football, but it sucks in war.
The third point, the timetable, is a nice generality, but again, as the president has said, and a number of Generals serving in Iraq have said, a given timetable becomes unflexible, and turns into a waiting game for the insurgents. All they have to do is wait until "day X" and they now "City Y" won't have Americans around to defend it.
So a plan would be nice, with general concepts, such as Condi Rice's assertion that for every 3 Iraqi battalions that are rated combat ready, we remove a US Battalion.
I understand why Biden, and other congress people want this though, it's called political advantage. The Democrats can say they forced the president to come up with a plan, Republicans can say they are listening to everyone.
What both sides forget is we only seem to have problems with wars when we leave them to politicians, not soldiers. Iraq is becoming more of a problem as more politicians look to curry favor from one group or another.
Quick update, Newsweek's newest issue has an article entitled "The New Way Out" that addressed a lot of the above.
trackback(s) at Common Folk Using Common Sense
I believe he's right on two of three points, specific goals, and a plan. It doesn't need to be a totally public plan, in fact, it shouldn't be a totally public plan. The plan should be put together, and briefed to congress, and portions of it (the goals, general ideas) given to the public. But making everything public fodder makes it tougher for anyone, from a congressman to a commander on the ground, to make a change, or do anything, without 300 million second guessers. Monday morning QBing is great for football, but it sucks in war.
The third point, the timetable, is a nice generality, but again, as the president has said, and a number of Generals serving in Iraq have said, a given timetable becomes unflexible, and turns into a waiting game for the insurgents. All they have to do is wait until "day X" and they now "City Y" won't have Americans around to defend it.
So a plan would be nice, with general concepts, such as Condi Rice's assertion that for every 3 Iraqi battalions that are rated combat ready, we remove a US Battalion.
I understand why Biden, and other congress people want this though, it's called political advantage. The Democrats can say they forced the president to come up with a plan, Republicans can say they are listening to everyone.
What both sides forget is we only seem to have problems with wars when we leave them to politicians, not soldiers. Iraq is becoming more of a problem as more politicians look to curry favor from one group or another.
Quick update, Newsweek's newest issue has an article entitled "The New Way Out" that addressed a lot of the above.
trackback(s) at Common Folk Using Common Sense
posted by Crazy Politico at 7:31 AM
5Comments:
"So a plan would be nice, with general concepts, such as Condi Rice's assertion that for every 3 Iraqi battalions that are rated combat ready, we remove a US Battalion."
According to a newspaper clip a friend sent me, a Democrat, Congressman Ike Skelton came up with that plan.
But he said brigades.
I know it's polite to do trackbacks, but I don't know how yet. I'll try.
Not sure who came up with it, I just know it's the one Condi was talking about a few days ago. Even if it is Skelton's idea, that's fine, those are the type of general ideas folks need to hear about.
Specific dates don't work in War. Our current press corp would have had us lose WWII because we didn't give out timetables.
Let me plug in some Miss Pelled words of wisdom:
A time line is nice from the political side because, like the wmd (note lower case) issue, you can screw over the [insert anyone you don't like with many adjuctives here] and use it for gain. Or, to the point, another's loss.
I actually have a greater respect for second term presidents. They have a "bark at the moon attitude" -- I'm doing what I think is right and to hell with the supposed 200 wise men who still use (unconfirmed) 6+ gallon toilets and daily smother us in their foulness.
We hear the moronic rant of the vocal few and as people of grace we allow such disention. In the end there are only two types of Americans: Patirots and sheep.
I agree with your ending sentiment, Mark. While I don't necessarily think it's "unpatriotic" to question the administrations conduct of the War in Iraq, I do believe it is when it is only done for partisan political gain. Following those do do question for that reason does make one a sheep.
Post a Comment
<< Home