No one is going to save us

At least it doesn't snow in Iraq

This is from Daily Kos

Quicksand
by georgia10
Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 04:27:41 PM PDT

At his speech to the American Legion yesterday, President Bush reflected on his "forward strategy for freedom." His speech, carbon-copied from every other War on Terror speech in his collection, presents the stubborn and ill-conceived core of his National Plan For Victory In Iraq: stay the course. "Stay the course" has been the President's mantra for years now, with the slight revision that now he's admitting the course is more like a rocky road than a coasting freeway. The entire notion of "staying the course" presumes that there is some forward movement, some progress being made, a "forward strategy," as Bush puts it. But as we've been pointing out for months now, and as the American public is finally starting to realize, progress in Iraq is merely an illusion concocted by this administration. Rather than being on the course to victory (however one defines it), we've found ourselves standing still, sinking deeper and deeper into a cavity of defeat.

-----------------

Democrats, on the other hand, realize that we have a moral responsibility not just to the Iraqis, but to future generations of Americans to ensure that Iraq is stabilized. We refuse to remain paralyzed as the walls close in around us. We choose change. We choose victory. We chose to lift ourselves up from this quagmire. And just how do we propose to do so? As was reported earlier this week, Democrats are rallying behind a plan for phased redeployment. The plan, which you can read here (pdf), is exactly the type of branch we can cling to as we pull ourselves out of this situation we have been bogged under for three years now. Phased redeployment and an invigorated international effort to stabilize Iraq may be just the action needed now at our own "moment of choosing."

It is time we unclench our fists and reach out our hands. Nations of the world must unite to save Iraq. And we must lead the call, for it is only in saving it that we ensure our soldiers, our reputation, and our own safety won't sink away in the deserts of Iraq.

You know, when you don't know what you're discussing, maybe you should shut up and listen.

And this is a prime example.

Paternalism in a liberal guise is no better than it's neocon alternative.

I would ask the author the following questions:

Are you willing to serve in Iraq to help stablize it? No? Well, the US Army has been there three years and as what you're proposing will take up to a decade, are you going to join the effort?

If not, it is unfair to ask anyone else to.

What countries would volunteer to help us? Nigeria is having a nasty bout of secterian violence over cartoons. India has millions of Muslims and the war is unpopular, France and Germany can barely meet their commitments in Afghanistan.

We cannot send a force to Darfur which is effective.

So who helps us in Iraq?

You don't seem to understand. The world is invested in a US defeat in Iraq. Because that will curb our idea that we can forcibly change governments to our liking. There is no drive to save us form our own folly.

Phased redeployment?

Sure, if you mean like the retreat from Korea in 1951. But the time to walk away is long over. We will run. The quicker, the better.

The problem with this well meaning article is that it assumes we can avoid defeat in Iraq.

We cannot. No one is going to save us either. The Iraqis will kill soldiers in blue helmets just as they do in tan helmets. Too many people want to avoid the inevitable by calling for someone else to make a sacrifice they won't and see no reason to.

posted by Steve @ 1:25:00 AM