Who links to me?
There is a lot being made lately of the Bush Administration’s decision to stop using “Stay the Course” to describe their resolve in the American commitment to Iraq.
President Bush and his aides are annoyed that people keep misinterpreting his Iraq policy as “stay the course.” A complete distortion, they say. “That is not a stay-the-course policy,” White House press secretary Tony Snow declared yesterday.
Where would anyone have gotten that idea? Well, maybe from Bush.
“We will stay the course. We will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed,” he said in Salt Lake City in August.
“We will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course,” he said in Milwaukee in July.
“I saw people wondering whether the United States would have the nerve to stay the course and help them succeed,” he said after returning from Baghdad in June.
But the White House is cutting and running from “stay the course.” A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week,
Very interesting how unwittingly Peter Baker admits that he and his fellow objective journalists have twisted George Bush’s meaning of Stay the Course to represent “steely resolve” into “a symbol of being out of touch”. Baker and his colleagues knew full well what George Bush meant when he repeated the phrase over and over again. No matter what Baker or anyone else said or wrote as long as George Bush remains President we are not leaving Iraq until they have a stable democracy capable of governing and defending themselves.
But let’s not get hung up on another bias journalist tack. We can come back to that angle tomorrow or the next day or the next. What I would like to talk about is what exactly are the alternatives to stay the course?
We could send more troops. Any Democrats or journalists for that?
nope.
We could change our rules of engagement where far more bullets are flying, resulting in far more Iraqi civilian casualties and far fewer American ones. Any Democrats for that? how about Peter Baker?
By the way at this point I would support either change in policy. The sad fact is the Iraqis; at least a significant minority of them, the ones who count, the ones who are willing to fight and die for something have decided that they would rather fight and die for sectarian reasons or pure greed, oil revenues (sound familiar) and power rather than for democracy and safety for their families and fellow Iraqis.
The Iraqis who want those things to put it bluntly are not willing to fight for it. They are cowering in their homes or leaving Iraq to the militias, and Al Qaeda.
I recently told one of my Iraqi friends as much. It angers me that Iraqis are throwing away what Fouad Ajame calls The Foreigners Gift. My Iraqi friend replied that I was mean for saying he was dishonoring the deaths of Americans who died for his freedom.
He said so while living safely here in the United States attending an American University after leaving Iraq. My friend is no coward. He put his life on the line numerous times as a journalist, and his family is still in danger back in Iraq. It is breaking his heart to be away from his family but still he had the chance to leave and could have went anywhere in the world, yet he chose to come here; to the USA. To George Bush’s country the man he hates so much.
I have been meaning to reply to my friend and think the time and place to do so is here and now. I asked him what were Iraqis responsible for?
I wonder what would happen to my friend if he got his wish and Saddam returned to power in Iraq. I wonder what would happen to him in Iraq if he were to say the type of things he says about George Bush while living safely here in the United States about Saddam while living in Iraq. I think he and I both know the answer, he would be killed and most likely tortured before hand.
Yet here he is welcome to speak his mind and disparage the man who gave him an opportunity at freedom. Who gave his country a precious gift and he is throwing it away.
It was Iraqis who looted the government buildings immediately after the fall of Saddams government. The fact is Iraqis voted for their current government, since the US invasion they have voted 3 times for their government more than they did in his entire lifetime. They picked these leaders. If they are bad leaders it is Iraqis fault.
It is Iraqis who continue to bomb the infrastructure. It is Iraqis who are setting off car bombs. It is Iraqis calling for attacks on American soldiers. Iraqis are the ones who are joining the militias and killing each other for being Sunni, or Shia, or not wearing the proper cloths. These deaths are on Iraqi heads.
My friend blames Americans for the food and medical shortages during the sanctions after the first gulf war when Americans and their allies liberated Kuwait from Saddam but he is wrong. It is Saddam who invaded a neighboring country, tortured their population plundered their country, then lost the war, violated treaties that he signed that resulted in the sanctions. It was Saddam who corrupted with the help of the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese the oil for food program and stole billions of dollars from the Iraqi people resulting in their starvation and lack of medical care. Yet my friend wants Saddam back.
My friend often says he longs for the days of Saddam. How although he was a dictator, it was safe to walk down the streets. That is unless you were suspected of talking against Saddam and got imprisoned, tortured and killed, or if you happened to be drafted into one of Saddams wars, or unless you happened to be a Kurd living in Halabja, or a Marsh Arab in the way of french run oil fields.
The difference is today the deaths are reported in newspapers, radio and television around the world where under Saddam they were kept secret.
There is of course one more alternative to staying the course. We could leave the Iraqis to their own devices. Maybe the French or the Chinese will come to their rescue. Maybe my friend will get his wish and Saddam or someone like him will rise to power again. Maybe Iraq will become a safe haven for Al Qaeda and other terrorists.
Of course if that happens America will be forced to take action again. Only next time in accordance with my friends wishes and so many other Iraqis we should avoid meddling in their affairs. If they want to live under the yoke of dictators so be it. When we feel threatend by our enemies we should simply kill them and leave. We could have removed Saddam and walked out of Iraq. Next time we should do just that and not sacrifice American lives for Iraqi futures.
Does that sound like a viable alternative to anyone?
Nope.
Given what we know of the insurgency, (Syria and Iran, for openers) I am doubtful.
Comment by Bithead � October 24, 2006 @ 7:52 am
Bithead no doubt there is Syrian and Iranian influence in Iraq but it is happening with Iraqi knowledge and complicity.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Comment by The Ugly American � October 24, 2006 @ 8:06 am
“Staying the Course”…
Everyone knows what President Bush meant when he said “stay the course” — that we would stay in Iraq until the mission was complete. Everyone knows that is still the course the President is following. What was wrong with the……
Trackback by Wizbang � October 24, 2006 @ 8:52 am
Sorry, No Gotcha! Once Again…
Don’t you just love it when lefties think they have a “gotcha” moment, but when you read their “gotcha” it turns out to be wishful thinking on their part? Rathergate, KoranToiletGate, Foleygate….and so on. Well, ad…
Trackback by Flopping Aces � October 24, 2006 @ 10:02 am
I’m with you — change the rules of engagement AND send more troops.
Either that, or partition the country and get the hell out.
Comment by Tiberius Gracchus � October 24, 2006 @ 11:30 am
Everyone Agree’s That Today’s Headline Is Iraq……
…but what is the headline? Is it the news that troop levels may increase? Is it the agreement between the Americans and Iraqis on milestones and the dreaded ‘timetable’? Or is it Bush’s abandonment of ’stay the courseR…
Trackback by Decision '08 � October 24, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Alternatives…
Rick over at The Real Ugly American asks the question: so what exactly are the alternatives in Iraq? I have repeatedly pointed out that a precipitous withdrawal would ignite a bloodbath. Are those calling for a pullout willing to bear respons…
Trackback by Blue Crab Boulevard � October 24, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
Not a dem, but a left libertarian and I am all for pulling the gloves off. You fight to win. Period. If you are going to fight, fight to win. This is a flaw in the administration’s plan that has zero to do with journalists, or democrats. For more information see “Live from Iraq.”
Comment by Jared � October 24, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
After repeating ‘Stay the Course’ constantly for years he can claim that he’s never ‘been’ ‘Stay the Course’ and get away with it. He can’t claim he never ’said’ it, but he can claim he never ‘was’ it.
Whoa…He’s like an enigma, wrapped in a Zen koan and stuffed into a cowboy hat.
Let me try:
You’re an idiot. You’re an idiot. You’re an idiot. You’re an idiot. You’re an idiot. You’re an idiot. You’re an idiot. You’re an idiot. You’re an idiot.
I’ve never ‘been‘ ‘You’re an idiot’.
On another note, I have a bridge here which a man of your acumen might find interesting. It’s half price, but only between now and when my bus arrives.
Comment by Railroad Stone � October 24, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
A friend and I recently had a conversation similar to this and our conclusion was that we are beginning to think that the Iraqis are unworthy of our great effort on their behalf. I am growing more and more disappointed with the Iraqi population as they appease the criminals in their own country. I do agree that most of the attacks in Iraq are performed by Iraqis although I do not pretend that it is on their head alone. Iran and Syria also play a large part in the terrorism here in Iraq.
I do think we need some policy change here but I am not sure if it means we should just start eliminating our enemy at whatever cost. Killing at will solves the problem at hand but creates a bigger problem for the future. We need to find a happy medium where are hands can be untied while at the same time having the full blessing of the majority of Iraqis to do what we know is needed.
As far as “staying the course” I find nothing wrong with it. It doesn’t mean that we put our heads in the sand and dont make changes, it just means that we finish what we have started. Plain and simple to me.
Comment by T F Boggs � October 24, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
It is obvious now that ‘we won’t say stay the course anymore’ was just a prelude to a withdrawal strategy. That strategy is now in the works, with more officials admitting things are fubar in a big way. The administration is finally getting the notion that things will never work out the way they had hoped, and they are ready with a new set of mantras to change reality in the minds of the American people.
I don’t care how they packaged it; this administration had no intention of leaving. The plan was to get rid of Saddam, not because he treated his people badly, but because he treated the United States Government with indifference. If you believe for one instant that the goals of this administration were altruistic you have YOUR head in the sand. You just have to look around the world at similar situations, where people are mistreated by those in power, have been mistreated, even before we went to Iraq the second time. If the motive were truly altruistic, and we arrived to ‘bring democracy’, we would not have had the resources, because we would already have been engaged elsewhere in the world.
This administration went into Iraq because there are markets and people to exploit, and they thought it would be easy pickings, as easy as it was the first time. Our Congress agreed to it wholeheartedly, Republicans AND Democrats, because they all saw the same thing. They were foaming at the mouth with greed at all the opportunities, and the only thing that stood in the way of those opportunities, so they thought, was a dictator and his spineless followers. Once WE controlled the economy things would go well for us in the region. It isn’t the lack of democracy that we hold against these leaders, it’s the economy. Our government doesn’t care whether their people have democracy, the goal is a leader, dictator or otherwise, that will play by rules our government lays out. Our government doesn’t care how they control the people, so long as we control the economy. Plunder has been the objective since the beginning of time, and this situation is no different. To think otherwise means you are blinded by the rhetoric, or you aren’t paying attention to what has happened throughout history, or both.
So, no we could not have removed Saddam and walked out, because that was not the intention. And Iraqi futures are a consideration only as a means to an end, an end our administration dictates.
Comment by Steve � October 25, 2006 @ 7:28 am
Saddam was far from indifferent to the United States steve. He was firing at our airplanes regularly, and openly hostile. Remember the attempted assasination of GB41.
I never said nor thought our motives in Iraq were completely altruistic but Americans and our government does do things we don’t need to do to help other people and countries.
If you can tell me exactly what we could gain monetarily from going to war that we could not have done without going to war.
Comment by The Ugly American � October 25, 2006 @ 8:43 am
“If you can tell me exactly what we could gain monetarily from going to war that we could not have done without going to war.”
It’s true that not all of us have benefited monetarily, but where do you think your $300 billion worth of tax money has been spent?
You might be getting screwed, but this war has made some of us exceedingly wealthy, and will continue to do so, unless the US Army starts buying service rifles from Mexico.
Comment by Railroad Stone � October 25, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
Ok, indifference maybe is the wrong word. Disdain maybe? But, he was indifferent to what the US government expected after our support in their struggles with Iran. I do not know much about that conflict, but I do know that our support is not handed over without expectations, and you cannot say that Rumsfeld made the trip to Iraq just to offer his moral support. Saddam did the diplomatic thing when it was convenient, but when it was over he was obviously through with us.
As far as altruism goes, you imply altruistic motives when you express frustration with way the Iraqi people treat the ‘foreigner’s gift’. Such motives rarely have anything to do with how our armed forces are deployed. They may be handed over to the masses to assuage our conscience, but that is usually why it is brought up at all. We are supposed to be civilized, and the motives for using force must come from a higher moral plane. That is the façade anyway, but it would be discarded in a heartbeat if those in power thought for an instant they could get away with it. There was the first Gulf War, when we heroically saved Kuwait from the clutches of the then evil Saddam, but it was just a ‘target of opportunity’ if you will, and our government maximized that opportunity by establishing a far greater presence in the region than we ever had before.
What would we gain monetarily? It was there in their explanation concerning the cost. More than once the issue was justified by offering the Iraqi economy as a means for support of ‘rebuilding’. They have lots of oil, and it could be sold to generate funds that would help with the infrastructure maintenance. Just another way to funnel the economic potential that exists in the resources there to the companies that would do the rebuilding, US companies. This was the least of the benefits. As I said before, plunder is the objective. The primary goal has always been to control the economy and resources, by at least establishing a leadership with which we could deal favorably, and at best installing someone to do our will in the region.
Comment by Steve � October 26, 2006 @ 7:53 am