|
Bush's recent speech
introducing a grand new plan for Victory in Iraq, while rehashing old PR-driven
talking points, actually met several objectives:
We are “staying the
course” while walking backwards out of Iraq. The withdrawal has begun, except
for actual troop movements, which will begin shortly, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON
than we cannot sustain that level on the ground for much longer, given the
sharp decline in recruitment and reenlistments, and GIVEN that our allies are
beginning to pull their own troops out. THEREFORE, the Bush
administration, already in possession of draft plans submitted by Gen. Casey, will
construct a premise as early as the late January 2006 State of the Union speech
that the Iraqis have achieved a level of self-sustainability and we can withdraw
without any question of whether we did what we came to do, made things better,
or created one hell of a mess. IF ONLY this
president and his inner circle could see outside their own bunker mentality
they would recognize their Teflon warranty has expired. It is sad to watch them
repeat the same old tired terminology, to safe audiences, convinced only their
enemies disbelieve them. It is not the
job of the president to paint a rosy picture, especially in war time. It is his/her
job to be honest, as to the reasons and the real cost. That is the only means to sustain public
support for a lengthy endeavor, the only way a real leader can inspire
voluntary compliance. When the public finds that its leadership has lied to it
about the original reasons, underestimated the cost and effort, required an
undue sacrifice on the part of a small segment of the population – because it
can’t present a compelling, overriding reason for the whole country to be
joined together in common sacrifice and purpose – then it will fail. When the
generals begin to talk against you, the end is near, especially if you continue
to praise them on the one hand and deny them what they need and care afterward.
That’s lip service and they hate it more than any other group, having been the
foil of many a political campaign and abandoned afterward, just as national
security issues were relegated to corporate profits as much as real homeland
security. Bush’s war was
always a war of choice wrapped in a package of necessity, but it didn’t stand
up to scrutiny once the emotional fervor subsided, as it always will. The anti
war activists and military family supporters have more in common than the
political chickenhawks who schemed to misuse the public trust. If these “men of
vision” had actually served in the military or really took the advice of those
doing the heavy-lifting for them, they would value a strategic retreat and the
wisdom of having a good plan in the first place. Instead, they undertook this
war as if it were a corporate hostile takeover. At last count, the bottom line
was near-disastrous on all levels. The end does
not justify the means. It matters how we get there. |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
