People who support the conflict in Iraq (I shy away from calling it a war, because that carries certain implications and connotations that don't quite fit) seem to have a problem. When they try to convince people that we're winning, which seems to be an important thing, they do nothing but rave about how Iraq is a better place. Listen to this radio clip from Fox News host Brian Kilmeade on the Brian and Judge radio show today:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/22/foxs-brian-kilmeade-theres-just-as-many-convoy-attacks-in-america-as-there-are-in-iraq/
Apparently this guy thinks that cadres of vehicles are getting blown up and their living cargo killed or kidnapped here and there (only 1% of the time!) in America. If this ever happened it would make national news. The country would freak the fuck out. This doesn't happen. People get murdered, sure. There's gang violence, and rape, and kidnapping... we've got the highest violent crime rate of any country in the world, far and away. But this doesn't happen. You don't see trains of vehicles turned into smoldering, blackened, flaming metal on the side of a road, with bodies littering the shrapnel. This is something that happens in a war zone.
But the more distressing point is, people who are into the conflict in Iraq use stuff like this to try and convince people that the situation in Iraq is good. It's safe. It's improving, thanks to the military we've put on the ground there, and anyone who is opposed to that military presence is, in the minds of these people, opposed to the goodness and progress in Iraq that they're demonstrating.
But it's a safe bet that those same people who throw around words like "victory" and "safe" and "progress" without really defining what those words mean will to the death argue that we can't withdraw, that we have to stay there, and that bringing our troops home would be dangerous.
You can't have it both ways, and you certainly can't use the first argument to get you to the second argument. They're counter-intuitive. If you wanted to argue that we're needed in Iraq, you would need to show why we're needed. It would have to be unsafe, unstable, and demanding of our assistance. You can't tell me that the green zone is going to come down in six months, but that a timetable for withdraw is impossible. It's nonsense, and you're a douche.
One of the commenters on that radio clip story has it right: "Victory means exit strategy."
For some other light reading, check out this excellent HuffPost article about the conflict in Iraq, and how words like "victory" are completely hollow and inappropriate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/why-john-mccains-surge-su_b_114416.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/22/foxs-brian-kilmeade-theres-just-as-many-convoy-attacks-in-america-as-there-are-in-iraq/
Apparently this guy thinks that cadres of vehicles are getting blown up and their living cargo killed or kidnapped here and there (only 1% of the time!) in America. If this ever happened it would make national news. The country would freak the fuck out. This doesn't happen. People get murdered, sure. There's gang violence, and rape, and kidnapping... we've got the highest violent crime rate of any country in the world, far and away. But this doesn't happen. You don't see trains of vehicles turned into smoldering, blackened, flaming metal on the side of a road, with bodies littering the shrapnel. This is something that happens in a war zone.
But the more distressing point is, people who are into the conflict in Iraq use stuff like this to try and convince people that the situation in Iraq is good. It's safe. It's improving, thanks to the military we've put on the ground there, and anyone who is opposed to that military presence is, in the minds of these people, opposed to the goodness and progress in Iraq that they're demonstrating.
But it's a safe bet that those same people who throw around words like "victory" and "safe" and "progress" without really defining what those words mean will to the death argue that we can't withdraw, that we have to stay there, and that bringing our troops home would be dangerous.
You can't have it both ways, and you certainly can't use the first argument to get you to the second argument. They're counter-intuitive. If you wanted to argue that we're needed in Iraq, you would need to show why we're needed. It would have to be unsafe, unstable, and demanding of our assistance. You can't tell me that the green zone is going to come down in six months, but that a timetable for withdraw is impossible. It's nonsense, and you're a douche.
One of the commenters on that radio clip story has it right: "Victory means exit strategy."
For some other light reading, check out this excellent HuffPost article about the conflict in Iraq, and how words like "victory" are completely hollow and inappropriate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/why-john-mccains-surge-su_b_114416.html