I have a question about "staying the course" in Iraq.

[johnaries]

WHAT course?
:shrug:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. Damn good question

[deadparrot]

2. I don't know...I think it was destroyed in an explosion.

:shrug:

[Launch Pad]

3. I guess until our military is exausted

Then we would have what's called an "automatic" pullout. No more people to put in.

[cliss]

4. Well, here are some thoughts.

The reasons for this war have shifted. First, it was WMD's. Next, it was to get rid of Saddam. Then, it was to export democracy. A while later, it was to "Fight the War on Terror".

Now, it's to train the Iraqis to police themselves.

HOW does Bush expect people to "stay the course" in Iraq, when it's changed so many times?

----------------
A great example. I was at an elegant cocktail party a while back. I was talking to a man in his early 30's. He told me he was a Bush supporter. I got my arsenal of weapons out, ready to start fighting.

Suddenly, I changed course. I asked him, "What do you think of the war in Iraq?" How are we doing there?

He said, "I have no idea why we're there". "Just no idea".

I rested my case.
-----------------------

Think of a mirage in the Arizona desert. That's how "real" the course is in Iraq.

[Skink]

5. Unbridled capitalism brought on at the point of a gun....

to be administered by a perpetual puppet regime.

[mwb970]

6. This has been asked before.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1336

Wrong Time to 'Stay the Course'
By Michael McFaul

(Originally published in The Washington Post on August 24, 2003)

Last week was a tragic setback for those committed to promoting regime change in the greater Middle East. Terrorists slaughtered dozens of innocents in Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan. In the wake of the carnage, expressing hope for democracy in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan sounds naïve. Even the prospect of stable, effective government in these places seems remote.

Reflexively, Bush administration officials and their supporters reacted to these horrors by reaffirming the need to "stay the course." If offered only two choices -- stay the course or turn back -- then Bush and his team are most certainly right. Quitting Iraq, Afghanistan or the road map would produce greater chaos in these places and eventually new security threats to the United States.

But why must this debate be confined to two choices? Now more than ever the search for third ways demands more attention and resources. The current polarized, simplistic debate is getting in the way of creative thinking and effective policymaking. The Bush administration, especially as the presidential election draws nearer, is playing defense precisely when innovation is needed.

The call for "staying the course" is even more indefensible when one tries to find it. What course are we staying on in Iraq or Afghanistan? The president has boldly outlined the objective or endpoint of our policy: democratic regime change in the greater Middle East. But the president has never articulated or written down the strategy for getting there. Without a plan in hand, the Bush administration instead is compelled to move reactively from crisis to crisis, making up "the course" as it goes along.

[Inland]

7. Could we at least avoid the "failure" and "death" parts of course to date?

eom

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. Question for Repubs: What IS the 'mission' in Iraq?

If they can come up with an answer ('stable democracy' etc.), then ask how will we know when it's been accomplished?

When car bombings go down to x number per week?

These are real, important questions that shrubbie, Rummy and company don't seem to get asked by media types.

[Selatius]

9. Do you think there will be a course after 3 more years of Bush?

I don't think so. With Bush at the wheel, the road's going to be ripped up, and the only way out is to slit your wrists and continue to bleed, or turn around and go home. Wesley Clark is right. Either we change gears radically soon in Iraq, or there will be nothing left to do but withdraw.