I've been reading a lot of the comments Kossacks have been posting that address, one way or the other, the framing around the Mess in Iraq. I myself have been posting comments recently aimed at reducing or preferably eliminating references to "the war in Iraq" in favor of "the occupation of Iraq." Others have focused more on the "surge," which they (and I) would prefer to call the "escalation" of the conflict.
I've collected some other examples below, and added a few of my own thoughts about them.
The Escalation
The Repulicons often refer to Plan A as the "surge." Kossack commenters generally seem to prefer the term "escalation."
A "surge" suggests a sudden increase, with dramatic and more or less immediate effect. In fact, the increase has been rather gradual, and the effect difficult to discern. A "surge" takes place over a fairly short space of time, and then it's over. One might even think that some of the troops might start coming home, after a "surge."
"Escalation", on the other hand, expresses the stolid, plodding, almost boringly steady increase in troops that is actually taking place. Also the endless, hopeless extension of time in which those troops will be employed.
The Plan Plan
The Repulicons like to talk about Plan A, as in what they're doing now, versus "Plan B," which is what they'll turn to if Plan A doesn't work out. The trouble with Plan B is, there isn't really a Plan A to begin with. A large part of the trouble with the occupation all along, in fact, has been that there never really was a Plan A for the occupation, and the Repulicons have never bothered to put one together. Everything is just improvised as they go along. The escalation is just a plan to do more unplanned improvisation than before. Not really a plan at all.
If you don't have a Plan A, of course, it's kind of hard to come up with a Plan B. That won't prevent the Repulicons from saying they have one, natch, but just like Plan A, it won't actually exist.
While they don't have a Plan A, or a Plan B, however, the Repulicons do have something else: I like to call it the Plan Plan. Their plan, basically, is to pretend that they have a plan, but not to actually have one. It's sort of an intentional accident, much like the rest of their program, in both domestic and foreign policy. It would be funny if it weren't costing thousands of lives and unmeasurable trauma.
The September Stall
The Repulicons are now saying that they want to conduct a review of the escalation in September, and decide then whether to continue it. Of course there will be no improvement by September. How would we measure improvement, anyway, even if things did improve? By how many US soldiers get killed? (I can give you a plan to reduce that number to zero very quickly.) By how many car bombs go off, or how many innocent Iraqis are killed? (Is anyone counting?) How would we even know whether things are any better?
Maybe we'll know it's better because Bush and Cheney will tell us that it's better. We absolutely know going in that they WILL tell us so, because how could they not? Which means, we don't really expect them to conduct any meaningful review -- regardless of the facts on the ground, they will still say that things are better. Which means, why count anyway? We already know the answer.
Now it's being reported that the military actually wants to wait until April to see whether the escalation is working. So they're basically telling us that the decision to continue in September has already been made.
In other words, the "review" that they're now promoting is just a sham, a short term rhetorical tactic meant to get them past the immediate obstacle to their desire (continuing the occupation). It is, in a word, a stalling tactic, nothing more: the "September Stall."
The Occupation
If the Democrats buy into the Repulicon "review" trope, the end result will be to continue the occupation of Iraq. Note: I don't say "war." There is no war, in any conventional sense. There is no opposing army, no enemy, no goal, no citedel to be taken, no flag to capture.
Since there's no war, of course, there's no way to "win." Also no way to "lose." And no nneed to argue over why we "lost" or who's responsible for "losing." It's an occupation. There's only staying in a miserable hellhole for no discernable reason, or going home. And there's no question who to blame for staying. And who to credit for bringing the troops home.
So instead of asking, "should we end the war by withdrawing our troops?" or whether "the war is lost," we would do better to ask "should we continue the occupation of Iraq, against the will of the Iraqi people?" and "is the occupation still serving some useful purpose?"
I would contend it is not, and we should not.
The Repulicons believe (or so they say) that we are fighting "Al Qaeda" in Iraq. I tend to doubt that, since every indication seems to be that Al Qaeda is actually camped out in Pakistan, in the safe haven that Musharraf has created for them.
I'd like to see us go after the real Al Qaeda in Pakistan, if there's anything left of our Army after the Repulicons get done tearing it to bits in Iraq. But there could be some room for discussion as to the best way to confront them -- maybe we should focus on Saudi Arabia instead, for example. But I very much doubt whether our activities in Iraq are doing anything at all to debilitate Al Qaeda.
This is the discussion we need to have, though. Until we get past worrying about Iraq, though, we can't even begin to do so.