OT (politics) re Plans
Bush actually had a magnificent plan in mind, but demonstrably not a clue as to how to actually achieve it.
I spoke with an officer who was involved in the war-gaming prior to the invasion. The victory condition was the fall of Baghdad. They didn't play past that. So when Saddam failed to use his forces as effectively as the retired generals who were playing the red team and it all rolled up very quickly, they had near-immediate (as wars go) possession of their stated objective.
The problem was that they didn't plan beyond that stage of victory, even though the ostensible purpose of the invasion was to restore Iraq to Iraqis so there's be no failed state in which terrorists could operate or from which to derive support. A few years on, we haven't eliminated the unpatrolled lands in Iraq, we've just moved them toward Baghdad and away from Kurdistan. So we've gotten rid of Saddam, and we're waiting to see if the government that takes his place is less corrupt. It's interesting how different things were in Afghanistan. Of course, Afghanistan has different neighbors and has been less of a political concern for the Middle East, so it's less of a flame magnet than Iraq, where things have been near a head for decades and often in a shooting war. But I suspect significant cultural impact: after decades of people willing to stand up and do the right thing for their communities being systematically butchered by Saddam in Iraq, the only remaining leaders are not the kind of people you want, are they?
And the Dems have a better strategery?
Well, this is where Kerry fell down in '04, isn't it? His campaigners were trained to tell everyone that Kerry had a plan but, when asked, I was unable to get anyone to articulate to me what it was. (I asked a very intelligent attorney from California for details, since she indicated she'd been to his campaign's phone training program, and she was wide-eyed in shock to get a question about the actual content of the loudly-vaunted policies, and unable to indicate despite being an articulate attorney what the policies actually involved, domestically or abroad. The closest I got was claims about results, not information about methods. Essentially we had two Yalies saying "trust me" and offering to accelerate, presumably at different vectors, through iceberg territory. How on Earth did we get there? Actual policies, anyone?) This time folks are both more irritated and facing elections less likely to cause upheaval: they can change the folks at issue on their ballot without risking a huge unknown policy shift toward what might be a worse demon (the fear I believe the GOP exploited in 2004 to significant effect).
Right now, judging by the political mailers I've gotten this election season, the politicians are uninterested in serious policy debate and prefer to wage ad campaigns than entertain meaningful debate -- and based on the outcome of local propositions (giving Houston's council the right to raise a whole ton of cash without regard to limitations in the city's charter, hello?) -- the electorate is asleep at the wheel.
I wish I thought people would be more clueful for 2008, but my optimism extends only so far. Whether it looks on paper like a Dem or GOP victory, I'm afraid 2008 will be another defeat for democracy in the US.
Take care,
--Tex.
