E.J. Dionne says a lot of the same things, today, that I've been saying (writing) since I started this blog:
The president needs to convince Americans that a decent result in Iraq is still possible. Above all, he needs to answer the essential question: If we shouldn't have timetables now, how long does he think we'll need to keep combat forces in Iraq? Two years? Five years? More? And to what end?...
The burden should no longer be on those who say we are reaching the limits of what military force can achieve in Iraq.
Indeed. However, I fear E.J. doesn't go far enough earlier in the same article when he says, "Cheney assumes that opposition to the administration's policies must be "blind" rather than a considered, rational response to four years of failure." But it's more than that.
If George Bush had been a competent president this whole time and yet we found ourselves in the same position, or if George Bush woke up tomorrow having been magically transformed into a fantastic president, or if a competent president takes office in 2009, there would still be no better option than to withdraw. It's not just that an incompetent president got us here, and not just that an incompetent president remains in office. It's that, no matter what the political realities in America now, withdrawing is the smartest way forward. When Cheney and Bush attack Democrats and other liberals for advocating withdrawal, they are trying to make withdrawal seem as if it's a decision that has been arrived at by approaching the problem politically. The political element is of course there, but the withdrawal position remains the best option and when we defend that position by framing it as a reactive stance to Bush's failures, we appear to be validating their critique.
Comments