Bush — Murtha
It would be possible, in a calmer political climate, to believe that George W. Bush and John Murtha are both partly right about Iraq. It’s a notion worth considering this week, as Iraqis go to the polls for their most meaningful election since Saddam Hussein was chased from his palace.
So sayseth the famous unsigned editorial writer of the Oregonian, in a formula opinion creation I like to call the “Ingratiating Sensible Center”, a formula that works as “a little from column ‘A’; a little from column ‘B'” or “In between the two extremes, lies the truth”.
I may say something different. It may not be a “Skull and Bones trick” (and if you’ve read this blog long enough, you know that my definition of that phrase is “lead to a single opinion through political elites framing the boundaries of the debate), but it may be the case that It would be possible, in a certain mindset, to believe that George W. Bush and John Murtha are both saying the same thing about Iraq. It’s not exactly the manner that Kerry and Bush were saying the same thing about Iraq during the 2004 election, but this seems to be an accidental concurrence with Bush and Murtha.
Consider that Bush Administration keeps hinting of “significant troop withdrawals”, something easily thought of as an mid-term election-year stunt, perhaps trunacated by the supposed “last ditch effort to save the neo-con plan” by Cheney–Wolfowitz–et al. Nevermind that, though. Now Consider that Murtha’s plan is more aptly termed “Cut and Stay” — we’re not leaving the area. So, what? Fortify the bases we’re building in Iraq, stay out of the Iraqi Government (largely chosen by the USA, mind ye)’s way, and … “Onward to Victory!!!”
The Cairo meeting had every Iraqi politician say that US troops should leave, and that Iraqi Insurgents have a right to kill (or some euphemism thereof) Occupation troops. That was enough to get Raed to vote. And if Raed voted, we’ve achieved some sort of milestone with the Iraqi psuedo-Democracy. We’ve appeased the necessary Insurgent-sympathizers.
We can “leave” and “stay”, right? Right?
I tend to skip the Vietnam War with my war analogies, perferring the Korean War. It falls into line of where wars take us a bit more easily: not the best result; not the worst result — and you adjust your future plans accordingly.