Wrong Question
As usual, the media are asking the wrong questions about Iraq. Shocking, I know.
What's being asked is: "do you support a surge of troops to Iraq?" What that really means is "do you support an escalation of the violent involvement in Iraqi affairs by the US military? Which is fine, but that's not why it's the wrong question.
It's the wrong question because it demands that the answer include or imply information not on the record. That is, what the 'surge' or 'escalation' of troops will actually do.
If you were to approve or disapprove of something, you'd want to know more about it, right? I mean, what would you say if I came to you and asked "do you approve of adding more cleaning staff to the Air Canada Centre?"
You'd probably ask if there were enough cleaners there already. Or if there was a particular mess to clean up. Or if you expected some extra dirt, or something.
You wouldn't say yes or no. But here we are being asked by Georgie's people: "how about a surge?" And you're supposed to have an opinion?
What are those 15,000 to 30,000 troops going to do? Dunno. Maybe security in Baghdad or something like that.
The whole thing is ab exercise in seeming to do something and actually doing nothing. There is no way that a push of 10-20% more troops will have any effect whatsoever. Even 100-200% more troops wouldn't be enough. It's too late to send more fire trucks after the house has burned down.
Georgie wants to cling to his illusions of policy until he leaves office, so that the next president can be the one who faces reality by bugging out. There is nothing more or less to this move than to create some breathing room with the public and the new Congress.
But it's well past the time when his old tricks still worked. Best thing he can do now is lawyer up and wait for the subpoenas.
What's being asked is: "do you support a surge of troops to Iraq?" What that really means is "do you support an escalation of the violent involvement in Iraqi affairs by the US military? Which is fine, but that's not why it's the wrong question.
It's the wrong question because it demands that the answer include or imply information not on the record. That is, what the 'surge' or 'escalation' of troops will actually do.
If you were to approve or disapprove of something, you'd want to know more about it, right? I mean, what would you say if I came to you and asked "do you approve of adding more cleaning staff to the Air Canada Centre?"
You'd probably ask if there were enough cleaners there already. Or if there was a particular mess to clean up. Or if you expected some extra dirt, or something.
You wouldn't say yes or no. But here we are being asked by Georgie's people: "how about a surge?" And you're supposed to have an opinion?
What are those 15,000 to 30,000 troops going to do? Dunno. Maybe security in Baghdad or something like that.
The whole thing is ab exercise in seeming to do something and actually doing nothing. There is no way that a push of 10-20% more troops will have any effect whatsoever. Even 100-200% more troops wouldn't be enough. It's too late to send more fire trucks after the house has burned down.
Georgie wants to cling to his illusions of policy until he leaves office, so that the next president can be the one who faces reality by bugging out. There is nothing more or less to this move than to create some breathing room with the public and the new Congress.
But it's well past the time when his old tricks still worked. Best thing he can do now is lawyer up and wait for the subpoenas.
posted by fiduciary at 12:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home