Mr President, to surge or not to surge ?

About: We're Going to Win

Fast forward to the day when the distinction between writing a novel and programming a propaganda script vanishes. After all, it's all about the code ... the surviving meme ... the surviving DNA ... is it not? That people and their institutions are not automatons is true, only if you do not pan out far enough to where the important statical correlations obtain. Take for example, Mr President, to surge or not to surge. As an automaton, you will surge ... you will secure and hold Baghdad ... it is the only way forward consistent with your prior rhetoric of victory and the industrial imperative to finish constructing your enemy ... you must do it! That is the command of the script. Sorry, the script does not sanction the occasional courageous break from the weighty baggage of a long career. Sorry, such a rare and unexpected event, however dramatic, however life saving, however just ... does not appear anywhere in the script.

Update 1-6-7 NPR is suggesting that Bush's new script has been written by Frederick W. Kagan of American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and is titled Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq and is available there today.
Read it and weep.

You will clearly see how it is a call for sacrifice:

"Victory is still an option in Iraq. America, a country of 300 million people with a GDP of $12 trillion and more than 1 million soldiers and Marines, has the resources to stabilize Iraq, a state the size of California with a population of 25 million and a GDP under $100 billion. America must use its resources skillfully and decisively to help build a successful democratically elected, sovereign government in Iraq."

Three days ago Keith Olbermann expressed my opinion of this sacrifice more eloquently than i ever could ... please listen to him.

Comments

Seth says

M 2006-12-29 09:15:56 5507

Scripts are not real except to actors & screen writers. They are more real in your head than anywhere else.

If you take "real" to mean events which actually happen, then there is no reality in the future whatsoever ... as none of it has actually happened. Yet that is not the way we live our lives. That is not the way life presents. We do live into the future with anticipation and even a measure of planning. If you believe a vision, then you are certainly more prone to act upon it, than if you did not.

Unlike the past where events have been forever solidified, the scripts of the future are ever changing. I like to anticipate how this script will change. I think some of the new rhetoric is already starting to be voiced by Joseph Lieberman in the Washington Post today. What is peculiar about this new way forward is that is will not be a substantive break from the prior script. It will be just more of the same. Bush needs to sell this to the American people who have already called for a substantive change. Other voices will help him ... like Lieberman and perhaps Hillary Clinton ... watch how the Democrats running in 2008 will be moderating their voices and opposing or not opposing this slightly revised script. But then think of actually solving the Iraq problem ... write a script to do that. If you are a practical thinker who is not caught up in "wishfully thinking of victory", you will grok that the inevitable solution (the inevitable end state) of the Iraq problem is for the US to stop meddling by dint of military might in the natural political process of that land. That of course would be a "courageous break" from the script which Bush is following and in which he believes ... perhaps you believe it as well. The question is: whether Bush can get a majority in the new Congress to believe that script and also can he get necessary Iraqi leaders to believe it? If not, then reality will shatter this new way forward script sooner than later. Inevitably reality (the past) will overtake the script. A wise and courageous man can anticipate how that will happen and will write a script to optimize history for all involved. We will see if Bush is such a man.

Seth says

M 2007-01-30 11:54:52 5507

Bush has said repeatededly & clearly stated that his strategy is to have ".. an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself." - he also adds "& become a reliable ally in the war on terror." That is his definition of Victory! Your article is coming from the point-of-view of wishy-washy. Only the devil of the left would have you be unclear about it.

Apparently you didn't read the article or note that it was authored by the ranking Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ... hardly a "wishy-washy" liberal. And Bush's stated definition of victory is just rhetoric. If the Shia completely take over the government, eliminate Al-Qaeda, but become a close ally of Iran that will qualify for Bush's victory. I doubt that will happen while Bush is still in power ... but if it does, you will hear a different tune. Who is he kidding ... apparently only you. There was a lot of wisdom in the ISG, too bad neither you nor bush understood it. It was not cut-and-run but it did leave the ultimate fate of the government of Iraq to the Iraqi.

But just fyi ... since we are now totally committed to the Kegan plan, i say go for it. I tend to agree that proactive dissent at this time is not going to be productive. My focus now is 2008 and beyond ... and how to fortell and adapt to the changing situation in the ME. Beyond Baghdad is one of the first articles that i have seen that addresses that issue ... as such it is well worth a detailed reading.

Seth says

In choosing a stratagy you need to take the long view ... not just the next election ... not just so that you don't need to admit you were wrong.

source: Beyond Baghdad Washington Post
Military action in Iraq, however, defies orthodox notions of victory and defeat. We are not in Iraq to defend territory or even to destroy an enemy. Rather, we are pursuing the amorphous task of coaxing out of the Iraqi people and government political decisions that will result in a democratic, pluralistic society that is conducive to regional stability.

While the emergence of such a government and society is still worth pursuing, we must recognize that it is an optimal goal. It should not be the focal point of our Middle East policy or the sole measure of success in Iraq.

...

The administration must avoid becoming so quixotic in its attempt to achieve the optimal outcome in Iraq that it fails to adjust to shifts in the region or political realities within Iraq. Although any administration would be reluctant to talk about a Plan B when its primary plan is still in motion, the president and Congress must reach a consensus on how to protect our broader strategic interests regardless of what happens in those Baghdad neighborhoods or on the floor of the Senate. Otherwise, the fatigue and frustration with our Iraq policy that is manifest in the resolutions of disapproval before the Senate could lead not just to the rejection of the Bush plan but also to the abandonment of the tools and relationships we need to defend our vital interests in the Middle East.

... Read the whole article ... it contains much sound thinking ... it's by a Republican.

Sneak Attack says
It would be interesting some time if Seth could become aware, forthcoming & truthful about his own script & tell us what it is.

louie vuitton says
nice post!

Mr President, to surge or not to surge ?

About: We're Going to Win

Tags

Comments

See Also