Three Buckets of Air

Three Buckets of Air

George W. Bush’s mid-term post-election strategy for winning the War in Iraq can be summed up as more of the same. That is what “surge” means. The President acknowledges it is a chancy approach that will cost more lives and money. But for lack of a better idea, our “Decider” proposes that renewed effort and good fortune should do the trick.

How does one sell this non-change of course? When asked why you spent the grocery money on a lottery ticket, what you do is offer “talking points.” (See my blog, “How to think about Iraq.”) Talking-points are substitutes for reasoning. They serve to divert. An open-eyed, clear thinking listener will notice a particular three talking-points repeatedly offered by the surge supporters. I call them “buckets of air.” Someone less polite would call them crocks of baloney. But there is no need to be crude here. A quick peek into these buckets will clearly reveal the emptiness of the transport.

Bucket l
“We must support our troops.”

This statement assumes there is only one way to support troops, which is a premise that stands naked on the street. But those who speak it show no embarrassment. There are multiple ways to show support. Provide adequate armor and equipment; pursue diplomacy energetically; re-deploy the troops; do something about the poor care given to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed military hospital; honor the troops with medals, ceremony, and other supportive acts. Disagreeing with the ”surge” is not a statement of non-support!

Bucket 2
“If we leave now, short of victory, Iraq will fall into chaos and disaster.”

Chaos and disaster exist now. Why can’t we be satisfied with ousting Saddam Hussein? It took our troops to do this; and the chaos settled in. Since the vainglorious moment of “Mission Accomplished,“ our troops have succeeded in providing the opportunity and training ground, if not the excuse, for increased terrorist activity. If we can’t solve this problem, why contribute to it, with no end game and no reward.

Bucket 3

“If we don’t fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will end up fighting them here.”

Shades of the infamous Vietnam “domino theory.” If war is the game, maybe here is where we should fight them. Using a fighting analogy from the world of sports, why play on the opponent’s court? The home court advantage is always a plus factor, especially in guerilla warfare. Could a ball team win the World Series if all its games were “away”? At home we could handle the terrorists with our “B squad.“ At home other resources and methods could be effectively employed. The army would be only one of the players, and its role could happily be reduced. Putting the terrorist threat back into the arena of law enforcement rather than military combat would be an important first step in defeating this enemy.

In summary

Replying to critics, even Tony Snow was left grabbing for air, when he cried out, “Where’s their plan?” as if the names Baker and Hamilton were unknown to him.

Before your next trip to Las Vegas, check your wallet for “air.”

Doug Good