Can? Or Won't?
The results of recent CNN poll reveals an interesting twist in the Iraq numbers:
If these numbers are accurate, and I believe they are, there is a generally feeling among a solid majority of Americans that we can win the war but that we won't.
This is critically important, because the first question (the "can") speaks to attitudes about the realm of possibility, while the second question (the "won't") speaks to restraints placed on the realm of possibility.
In other words, more and more people are coming around to the Jacksonian view of this war: we could win it, if we were serious, but we're not serious, so we won't. This is why the President's "leadership" and the current mess in DC is so disheartening.
Surely, if we lived under a parliamentary system, the government could act by sacking the man in charge and giving another man a shot. One of the great shortcomings of our presidential system, though, is that such a process is almost impossible under it.
That is not to say, however, that is should not be considered. If the President's speech in January on the war contains more of the same--or, God help him, the sheer idiocy on display at his press conference yesterday--it may well be time for a Republican delegation to trek up to the White House and tell the President that he has run out of time and credibility.
Unlikey, yes, but sadly such an unlikely scenario may be our last-ditch hope that the badly-led USG can move us from the "can" column to the "will" column.
UPDATE:
Secretary of State Rice is quoted this morning as saying Iraq is "worth the investment" in American lives and dollars.
That statement is just outrageously ridiculous and makes me glad I won't have to present it professionally with a straight face.
According to Tony Judt's masterful history of Europe since 1945, Post-War, the famous Marshall Plan for Western Europe had the following characteristics:
-- Amount Spent by US: 14 billion dollars
-- Adjusted to 2004 Dollars: 100 billion dollars
-- Adjusted to an equivalent share of America's GDP in 2004: 201 billion
That is, even taking the most generous measure of the equivalent amounts spent by the US under the Marshall Plan and for reconstruction in Iraq, the *entire* Marshall Plan expenditure is less than half of that spent on the "Islamic Republic of Iraq" since 2003.
And that doesn't even factor in the additional $100 billion now requested.
And what do we have to show for such expenditure? The Marshall Plan set Western Europe up for the amazing boom in prosperity and stability that the now-lucky continent has enjoyed since the late 1940s. Does anyone imagine anything remotely similar to take place in Iraq?
This is beyond politics; this is bloody delusional.
"Do you think the United States CAN win or CANNOT win the war in Iraq?"
Can win -- 54 percent
Cannot win -- 43 percent
"Do you think the United States WILL win or WILL NOT win the war in Iraq?"
Will win -- 40 percent
Will not -- 56 percent
If these numbers are accurate, and I believe they are, there is a generally feeling among a solid majority of Americans that we can win the war but that we won't.
This is critically important, because the first question (the "can") speaks to attitudes about the realm of possibility, while the second question (the "won't") speaks to restraints placed on the realm of possibility.
In other words, more and more people are coming around to the Jacksonian view of this war: we could win it, if we were serious, but we're not serious, so we won't. This is why the President's "leadership" and the current mess in DC is so disheartening.
Surely, if we lived under a parliamentary system, the government could act by sacking the man in charge and giving another man a shot. One of the great shortcomings of our presidential system, though, is that such a process is almost impossible under it.
That is not to say, however, that is should not be considered. If the President's speech in January on the war contains more of the same--or, God help him, the sheer idiocy on display at his press conference yesterday--it may well be time for a Republican delegation to trek up to the White House and tell the President that he has run out of time and credibility.
Unlikey, yes, but sadly such an unlikely scenario may be our last-ditch hope that the badly-led USG can move us from the "can" column to the "will" column.
UPDATE:
Secretary of State Rice is quoted this morning as saying Iraq is "worth the investment" in American lives and dollars.
That statement is just outrageously ridiculous and makes me glad I won't have to present it professionally with a straight face.
According to Tony Judt's masterful history of Europe since 1945, Post-War, the famous Marshall Plan for Western Europe had the following characteristics:
-- Amount Spent by US: 14 billion dollars
-- Adjusted to 2004 Dollars: 100 billion dollars
-- Adjusted to an equivalent share of America's GDP in 2004: 201 billion
That is, even taking the most generous measure of the equivalent amounts spent by the US under the Marshall Plan and for reconstruction in Iraq, the *entire* Marshall Plan expenditure is less than half of that spent on the "Islamic Republic of Iraq" since 2003.
And that doesn't even factor in the additional $100 billion now requested.
And what do we have to show for such expenditure? The Marshall Plan set Western Europe up for the amazing boom in prosperity and stability that the now-lucky continent has enjoyed since the late 1940s. Does anyone imagine anything remotely similar to take place in Iraq?
This is beyond politics; this is bloody delusional.
