Sometimes I read the news and think "surely
I don't have to explain this. Surely someone in the media will bring this up." I have yet to be pleasantly surprised by media coverage, so I guess I do need to bring this up.
The Republicans are saying we don't need an exit strategy.
The Republicans.
It's like they think we're retarded.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
What `flaming, anti-American, communist-fuck lib' would dare question the President's motives while the troops are in harms way? None other than George W. Bush. The subject was Kosovo. April 9, 1999 in the Houston Chronicle.
Now the very people who said "What's the exit strategy for Kosovo!? How do we define victory!? We'll be there forever, and people will die because Clinton doesn't have a plan!" will say now that even asking for an exit strategy, or a definition of victory, or anything resembling a plan is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
What really boggles my mind is how, again with a straight face, Republicans view the concept of an `exit strategy' as admitting failure. If Bush doesn't meet his own deadline then people will think Iraq was a mistake. If I didn't know any better I'd think they were more concerned with Bush's legacy than they were about the lives of our troops.
An exit strategy doesn't mean `we've failed.' It means we've won! It means you have a plan, its progress is measurable, and when it's completed we will have achieved victory.
This is the part where I thought "surely I don't have to explain this to Republicans. Surely the media will recognize that Republicans are confusing a `withdrawal date' with an `exit strategy,' and since they know the difference they'll explain. Then we'll all have a big laugh and wonder why we were ever so confused in the first place."
I've given it a couple of days now, and since it hasn't happened allow me to once again do the media's job for them. Bush was right back in 1999. Victory does mean `exit strategy.' You have to be able to say "these are the things we need to do to accomplish the mission. We think it will take `x' months, and if we're not done by then we'll reevaluate what we're doing and come up with a new plan." An `exit strategy' is the process of setting goals and achieving them by monitoring progress, and taking corrective action where necessary. Most importantly an exit strategy is non-binding. If you fail to meet your goals, you explain why and talk about what you're going to do differently to meet them in the future.
Among many other things, an `exit strategy' includes a `withdrawal date.' That's the part where you say "hey, if everything goes according to plan we're gonna pack up our stuff and go. Obviously we could be done sooner, or it could take longer. It all depends on how long it takes for us to do `x.'" Like the strategy itself, a withdrawal date is non-binding.
Republicans love corporations, so let me give you an example of a corporation being run like we're currently running the Iraq war.
"Bob, how's the new product coming?"
"It'll be done when it's done."
"Yeah, but when will that be? I mean, will we be done in time for Christmas?"
"The last thing our competition needs to know is when our product will be done! They'll know that all they need to do is make it until Christmas and they will have won!"
"Um...no. They'll know that by Christmas we'll have a new product in the market that will seriously threaten their ability to compete with us. They'll also know we're a strong competitor that is able to design, implement, and introduce a new product on time and on budget."
"Yeah, speaking of that...I'll need about twice as much money as you've given me so far."
"What!? Why!?"
"I'm over budget"
"You never submitted a budget! Every dollar you've gotten for this project has been an emergency appropriation!"
"God, I'm so sick of you second-guessing every decision I make! Don't you know what you're doing for morale in the department!? If you criticize me, you criticize everyone who works for me!"
"Bob, don't hide behind your employees. Try to take some personal responsibility here. At this point I have to say, Bob...You're Fired (TM)."
And...scene. Special thanks once again to the "advisorjim Players" for their fantastic rendition of "Bush's Bad Business Bungle." Be sure to catch them live every Tuesday night at the Flying Saucer Restaurant Theater, now featuring the finest torts you've ever seen strawberried.
I know I don't speak for every Democrat, but what I mean when I say I want an exit strategy is something like this...
"My fellow Americans. First, thank you for electing me President in 2008 instead of that ass-hat Bill Frist. Even though I'm not even old enough to be President, I'm pretty sure I'll do a better job than the previous occupant. How could I not? Am I right!?
But now, down to business. After 6 years of crippling incompetence, the `rudderless ship' that is the Iraq war is about to put its first tentative oar in the water in an attempt to right itself.
Victory in Iraq is defined quite simply as the ability of the Iraqi government to protect itself from all enemies, foreign and domestic. A safe Iraq is a prosperous Iraq. There's little point in spending billions of dollars rebuilding an infrastructure that we can't be sure will still be standing in six months.
A safe Iraq is clearly contingent upon Iraqi forces being able to keep the peace. Our experts have determined that, under current assessments, that means a police and army of Iraqi men and women 300,000 strong. Unfortunately we are well short of that number today. Despite being told by the previous administration that the Iraqi military had over 240,000 soldiers, reality is we have a little over 10% of that number.
But that 10% will form the core of Iraq's new defense force, and we will start again from scratch. Our analysts tell us that for every 100,000 fully-trained Iraqi soldiers we are able to put in the field, we can bring 30,000 U.S. troops home. Experience has taught us that it should take us 12 months to properly train 100,000 troops, so I expect all current active-duty personnel to be home in the next 3 years.
At the request of the Iraqi government we will maintain a presence in Iraq of about 20,000 troops. Our troops will continue to provide training and support to the Iraqi army, and will serve as a deterrent for those who might want to take advantage of any perceived instability. If three years down the road the duly elected Iraqi government decides our presence is no longer needed, then we will leave with the satisfaction of knowing at long last--"Mission Accomplished."
Bear in mind that things might happen to change this plan. If after 12 months we've only managed to train 10,000 more troops, obviously we'll have to reevaluate what we're doing. The goal is to leave when the job is done, not to leave when we're tired of fighting. But starting today we're going to learn from our mistakes. If there's one thing I've learned from the previous administration it's that obstinacy isn't a strategy.
It is in all of our best interests that this endeavor succeed. For the Iraqi people it means peace, freedom, and prosperity. For the world at large it means a strong, stable democracy in a historically turbulent region of the world. And for us...well, for us it means our men and women will not have died in vain."
So I ask you, the gentle dailykos reader, what gives more aid and comfort to the enemy? The Democratic idea that we know we'll win and have a plan to make it happen, or the idea that fear and ignorance are the only things the Arab world responds to? I for one reject the `soft racism' of Republican low expectation.
God bless Iraq and the Iraqi people in their hour of need, and God bless the United States of America.
