Today's editorial page of the Sunday Seattle Post-Intelligencer carries an op-ed by Ilan Goldenberg, policy director of a group called the National Security Network. It offers a new "Responsible Plan" for Iraq. Clearly this is a campaign document for aspiring Democratic candidates for the U. S. House of Representatives and I suppose it is being offered to a number of papers around the country where such aspirants are found.
Nothing wrong with that.
It is just that this "plan" is almost banal, a bottle of bromides. Read it for yourself if you're having trouble getting to sleep tonight.
The "Plan" thus illustrates the increasing hollowness of real debate over Iraq. Most informed people have come to understand that we cannot and should not leave Iraq at this point, and I suspect that many realize that a free Iraqi government may actually prevail. Some expect the U.S. and our Coalition allies to win, some just expect to muddle through.
An aide to Sen. Obama is suggesting that U.S. troops will need to stay in Iraq until 2010. Obama himself seems to envisage a drawdown that is so slow--a division a month--that our troops will be there for several years, at least. So how is this at substantial variance--other than in the rhetoric--with the Bush Administration's aims or those of Sen. McCain, let alone of Sen. Clinton?
We seem reduced to feelings pure and simple now. The Republicans want to stabilize Iraq and then get out as soon as possible after that, starting next year, they hope. The Democrats REALLY want to get out as soon as possible, starting next year, they hope. Get it? They "really, really" want to. Cross their heart!
One guesses that the far left--the folks who want to remove the troops in the minimum time required to vacate the premises (about four months)-- is now so invested in the presidential race that they don't realize that they have been seduced and abandoned.
Leave a comment