New at Reason

Steve Chapman asks whether optimism is ever the right attitude to take about Iraq.

Comments

UCrawford | July 16, 2007, 9:52am | #

Reagan used to tell that pony story to illustrate the fact that life is about looking for the good in the crap life throws at you. Sadly, Bush would probably take it to mean that you can create your own reality with baseless optimism.

I honestly have no idea why the entire GOP hasn't caught on to how hollow Bush's Iraq policy is by now. Guess they're all looking for that pony.

de stijl | July 16, 2007, 10:17am | #

Unnamed aide to GWB 10/17/2004:

"That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

joe | July 16, 2007, 10:50am | #

Curtailing slaughter is not just a goal in itself but a means to a greater end—namely, political reconciliation that would provide Iraq with a stable government commanding the allegiance of all groups and regions. In that respect, any alleged successes on the military front have not led to progress in the political sphere.

Of course not, that's exactly backwards. It's like saying "We have to shut down all the bootlegging, then we can talk about changing the prohibition laws," or "We have to stop illegal immigration across the border, then we can talk about changing immigration policy," or "Once we put all the IRA terrorists out of commission, then we can work on a political solution for northern Ireland."

It doesn't work that way. The political solution has to start first - none of those goals you're talking about stand a chance of being achieved except as part of or through a change in the political/legal situation.

The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are supposed to be working out their differences, but the main Sunni party has been boycotting the cabinet and parliament.

In January '05, you either got why the Sunni boycott of the elections was a problem and saw what was coming, or you didn't.

UCrawford | July 16, 2007, 11:51am | #

Well put, Joe.

"Ass-backwards" is pretty much the perfect descriptor of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

freeranger | July 16, 2007, 12:13pm | #

There's a fine line between being opmistic and delusional and Bush has crossed it. Yet Bush's delusion is matched by the cowardice of most war opponents in Congress. They could end the war but they're worried about a bloodbath. But if there's a bloodbath it will be due to civil war, not al-Qeada, and we have no business refereeing a civil war.

Tim | July 16, 2007, 12:42pm | #

Actually freeranger, the Dems don't have the votes to stop the war. Hell, they didn't have the votes to stop Republicans from filibustering a measure to extend soldiers' time between deployments.

Brandybuck | July 16, 2007, 12:47pm | #

Overheard on the House floor:

"What we need is an objective assessment of the occupation with which to evaluate our continuing... Oh look! Ponies!"

joe | July 16, 2007, 1:10pm | #

Republicans: This bill isn't about supporting the war. It's about supporting the troops. Regardless of how you feel about the war, you have to support the troops in the field. Support the troops support the troops support the...

What, what's that? It passed? Boo-yah! Look at all the Democrats who support the war! Everyone who voted for the supplemental supports the war. See, it's a bipartisan war - both parties support it! Don't blame us, the Democrats support the war, too...

Wait, we burned through the supplemental funds already, and need to pass another bill? Look, this isn't about whether you supported invading Iraq, it's about the troops...

freeranger | July 16, 2007, 2:53pm | #

Tim, you make my point. War opponents of either party bitch and moan and do nothing.

UCrawford | July 16, 2007, 3:16pm | #

Tim,

The Democrats didn't have the votes to override a veto. But they did have enough votes to prevent the passage of a supplemental funding bill, which would have effectively ended the war in Iraq by closing the purse. They chose not to exercise that authority. The Democrats simply care more about some perceived political advantage to opposing the president than they do about ending the war. It's pretty much a textbook example of why they're such a dysfunctional party...they don't actually stand for anything. Unfortunately for us, neither do the Republicans.

jojo | July 17, 2007, 7:55am | #

Only reason that Bush/Cenny/Pelosi/ Reid Frat club can get away with murder is that the Media and government is Zionist controlled. Country wreckers Yes. Look deeper into history---Russia, Nazi (Ashkenazi) Germany--had the same problem. So don't blame Bush--he is the big Stooge !

Duped over and over .... | July 17, 2007, 3:20pm | #

Bush has been digging for those bogus WMD hasnt he? Afterall thats the reason he took America from his 911 pre-meditated radar controlled demolition as he safely went to Bubba Jebs state in Florida to make it look good and then didnt act the least bit surprised when he was told reading about the donkey and goat to 1ts graders. He zigzaged and wnet underground to look good as Cheney vanished from site to inspect their damage in NYC and stake out the Afghan bait and switch to Iraq plan.
We know Osama was killed in 1986 fighting the Russians and its all a hollywood stunt act to make it appear he caused it all so everyone can get rich in the inner circle.
Poor Saddam. Heck he was the good guy although Bush has made him look like the bad murderer and not the good murderer like he is killing and maiming millions with his neohebs.
Duped again, and again, and again, and again .....
We never learn do we?

Steve | July 18, 2007, 3:20am | #

Despite the surge, the number of attacks by the enemy has been running at a near-record level.

It's their country. You're the enemy.