Sunday, November 13, 2005
My plan for Iraq + Edward's plan
Two days ago I linked to the United Methodist Bishops' statement admitting fault for "complicity in what we believe to be the unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq.". I also suggested members of Congress ought to issue a similar statement. Today, John Edwards writes in the Washington Post,
I was wrong.
Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake.
Thanks for admitting fault, John. As a nation, we have a lot of work to do in the international arena and identifying the problem (posed by the invasion in the first place) is the first step in rectifying the results of an ill-conceived and ill-prosecuted regime change.
Edwards also issues in the same letter a plan for Iraq, which is curiously similar to a few points I posted to Sean Hannity's discussion board three weeks ago,
- Commission friendly Muslim countries to train and command Iraqi forces.
- Cancel as many foreign contracts as possible. Recruit Iraqis into a CCC-like program so they can rebuild their nation themselves.
- Western military forces role is curtailed to maintaining Iraq's borders and offering air support to Iraq forces until Iraqis can provide security without help.
- Communicate to Iraqis that this is precisely what we're doing.
- Significant amount of foreign coalition forces will be able to come home.
- Iraqis will feel more in control.
- Our military presence will be less visible to potential jihadist recruits in Iraq.
Hannity's discussion board is a gathering point for bushbots, yet surprisingly, there wasn't a single person who claimed that the points I enumerated were inferior to "staying the course". Replies were unanimously along the lines of "You would have beaten Kerry" and "good plan although it would take a decade to enact." People understand that Bush is prosecuting an ineffective war even if they support the idea of the war in general.
I anticipate that without a major shift in strategy, more and more Americans will be disapproving of Bush's war even though those that approve have already dwindled to a paltry 30%.
Mandate my ass. I supported Kerry/Edwards in the election despite the fact they went against my wishes posted the day of Kerry's acceptance speech last Fall: To unequivocally admit,
I was wrong.
// posted by Erik @ 11/13/2005 01:01:00 AM
permalink
| email post: 
Comments:
Shockingelk for president! Wow, I never thought I'd see people at Hannity chanting that! Good work, although if you just post it at a forum, what good will that do?
I think this is my first time here.
The President is in no position to sit, listen and consider alternatives for Iraq.
It's like suggesting Mr. Bush had anything to do with manipulating the intelligence.
It is a widespread rumor, at least, if not in print in various places, that what they do is avoid making the President a "witness of fact."
To be sadly brutal, Mr. Bush is the front man. Unfortunately, he can not act nearly as well as Reagan. Any devious plan that involved Mr. Bush knowing about said plan was doomed to failure, since the man can't keep a cat in a bag.
Post a Comment
