Reply #109: To the great minds that I find here, first let me say [View All]

[FrenchieCat]

That I have been grappling with the Iraq War, (I know for sure how we got there and it wasn't pretty--and my ass was certainly in the streets protesting in SF), the current state of things now (things are fucked and will probably get more so), and the possible future of this Iraq War and all of its overwhelming ramifications as they will affect us, the Middle East, Europe, and in fact the whole world(which is really what this conversation is about, IMO).

What I find is that we, Democrats, are advocating 2 more or less different positions on the Iraq war's future and the solutions for it, and the Republicans are advocating one:

The Bush folks want to stay in until "it's done", whatever that means. Of course, as Clark said, this is not a strategy, it's a slogan. It's the same ol' same ol' that the GOP have been pushing; without a strategy that makes sense, of course, things are only going to get worse, since this administration will continue to make mistakes...cause that's what they do.

Now, we have those Democrats who say "get out now", the shit is fucked and is only going to get worse. Why wait until it does, to do what we could be doing now; pulling out.

These are the folks that either don't want to be bothered in looking at the possibilities of what would happen if we did get out suddently, and would prefer to see Bush pay for what he's done, and a miserable tragic failure in Iraq would do just that. Sure these same folks "care" about our soldiers and the Iraqi people and most likely don't want to see another one or the other die. They are of the mind that we shouldn't have done it to begin with and admitting that and getting out should kind of solve it. Of course, this is the easiest solution to advocate, especially when one realize that it ain't gonna happen....not with Bush & Co. at the helm. So this solution makes it easy to poo-poo everyone else, cause hey....when something's not gonna happen for at least 2.5 years, looking at the possible various aftermaths is not something that one has to do right now.. The Vietnamese were'nt fighting over oil (cause that's all this is anyways), so their aftermath is not the one to look at and study.

The 2nd Democratic option is to work the failing issues differently and to use tools that have not yet been used. These Democrats look at the mess that Iraq is in, but also look at the short and long term Geopolitical implications of what would happen if the US got out tomorrow. They understand that things never happens as we wish them to, so they know that projecting the realities of what this war has brought on (opened a Pandora's box literally) cannot be solved thinking that Pandora's Box can now just be closed and the hell with it.

It is all very problematic to me. The simplistic "get out now" really doesn't take into consideration that "shit" will continue to happen once we are out and they won't necessarily be for the better... for the ones that are really the victims of US arrogance at this point. Even Feingold is not advocating getting out now.....as I read what he said, he's talking December 2006, which is in 1.5 years....that doesn't sound like NOW to me.

What I think currently is that this is not as simple of an excercise as some would want to think it is. I believe that Democrats like General Wes Clark really do have the answers, but don't have the power to execute their plans; plans that could work...but because they are not running the show; plans that will never see the light of day.

I do believe that the plan that Wes Clark spelled out, but that many won't bother to read (they are too busy being smarter than everyone else, I guess) would work and could work in the kind of decent timeframe that Feingold and a few others are advocating. Problem is these plans will never see the light of day...and Foolish Corporate media talking heads and their brethen fellows, those who don't want to know about workable solutions, will continue to naysay Democrats has not having a plan at all (which is a goddam lie)....when the direct problem that Pundit heads should be discussing that whatever plans Democrats have, will not be used....and that this administration will continue to make all of the mistakes that could be made.

This is why the Iraq War was the biggest blunder the US has ever made; because there are no longer any easy solutions. We lose no matter what. The question is to what degree do we lose? and who loses the most? do we lose to a degree that will affect the entire world and allow a bloody civil war that could last years and involve much of the middle east? Or do we lose to the degree where we, Americans, get deeper and deeper into the Iraqi doo-doo and in 2.5 years, maybe Americans will be sick and tired of this and finally elect someone that can then activate a real strategy that would get us out leaving things relatively stable? Of course, in the meantime, we continue to lose soldiers everyday.

So you see, there is not winners in this. There are only losers, no matter which way one decides. That is George Bush's legacy. That is what he created.

Those who refuse to look at Clark's plan, and criticize his message, grow the fuck up! Those asking that the plan be served to them on a platter right here at DU, I can do that....no problem. But you see, in the end, the question becomes not which plan one wants, but rather what would be the actual result of any plan that you advocate. We cannot just focus on what the "good" our chosen plan will yield (Get out now, and soldiers will stop dying), because if we are wise, we must also be willing to look at the negative elements our chosen plan (whichever one you choose) is sure to have.

And this is why George Bush will go down in history as the worse president there ever was. Cause he fucking started this shit, and that is something that I will never forgive or forget. And I also realize that any option chosen is nearly has bad as the next. I just don't think there are any right answers.....only various degrees of the same failure.