We all know what happened in 2003. We would not allow a two-bit dictator such as Saddam Hussein to defy the UN order to allow the weapon inspectors unfettered inspection of any places at any time in Iraq for WMDs, including in his palatial hiding. The vast majority of Americans were firmly behind the president (the title he was called then and not Bush, or just Stubborn Stupid Liar). Even some of my intelligent friends said that the UN had no teeth and so it was all up to the US to do something against this threat ...
It was an internationally-broadcasted confrontation between the righteous and mighty US vs the murderous Saddam (with mushroom cloud potential as The Presidente warned us). We just could not back down and lose our faces and so the war proceeded and we emerged victorious just as planned. Or did we ?
It turned out there was a non-trivial glitch when dealing with the question: "What's next after the military victory ?"
There were many different responses to that question, which seemed at that time, just semi-relevant and even distracting guesswork from the immediate need to stop Saddam. Among the guesses:
- The decorative prediction: The Iraqis will be so grateful they would erect a statue of George W Bush in Baghdad a year from now. Richard Perle
- The egoistic and monetary-minded prediction: US troops will be greeted as liberators with flowers and candies... After a few months, the oil revenue will allow the Iraqi government to pay for itself - Paul Wolfowitz
- The worrywart prediction: The US would need at least 250,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. - Gen Eric Shinseki
- The nuanced differentiator prediction: The war on terrorism is fundamentally different from the war on Iraq and requires international cooperation. Conducting a unilateral invasion on Iraq, even when predictably successful, will harm the war on terrorism. Al Gore 10/2002.
And there were many more less colorful predictions: from denouncements based on plain old sovereignty and humanitarian principles; to cheers for corporate profits and cheaper gas prices; to carefully-planned WH maps for oil exploration in Iraq.
But, guesses were just guesses and so we proceeded to deal with Saddam's confrontation in the only appropriate manner: smash him. But it turned out in cases where there are a lot of disagreements and uncertainty, the Murphy's law ruled.
Fast forward to the present. In this dailykos microcosm of the world of progressive Dems, there seems to be a near unanimous agreement in confronting the very unpopular and stupid dictator of the US without capitulating to his Saddam-like stubborn attitude.
But, just like the Iraq invasion, there's a lack of serious discussion on the "What's next after our victory ?". So, I just want to see how kossacks predict the outcome of their strongly-felt and undoubtably correct action with a poll.
These are roughly the framework of the events to answer the poll as I remember off the top of my head:
- The emergency funding is for 4 months only, until the budget of the next fiscal year.
- It is an emergency funding since we failed to get a funding bill back in March/April. Even though the Pentagon have other funds that can be diverted to support the troops until around June/July, there will be no money after that.
- The Dem-controlled Congress promised to get the funding bill done by Memorial day, back in March/April when they were accused of cutting off the fundings.
- Bush may declare a national emergency and takes over all three branches of the government.
O.K. now on to the poll as to what will happen until next year's budget time. Note that I deliberately left out "Getting roses after voting No" as a choice since "getting roses" is not an immediate eventuality of today's decision. Similarly for "having perpetual war" as they will be way beyond the scope of this year's emergency funding.