This post, written by Daniel DiRito, originally appeared on All Spin Zone
As I read yesterday's New York Times article on the most recent Bush administration plan for a do-over in Iraq, I found myself wondering if I could think of other events in history that had an equivalent "You've got to be kidding me" factor. According to the report, high level officials are working on a plan that envisions a strong U.S. presence in Iraq until at least 2009.
This new strategy focuses upon securing Baghdad in order to provide Iraq's shaky government the "breathing space they need to try political reconciliation"...an idea that I'm still attempting to comprehend. Does this mean that Iraq's politicians are afraid to meet with each other because the streets of Baghdad are too threatening? The Times explains the plan as follows:
Perhaps the Bush administration has concluded that numbers and catchy names for the latest assault or the next surge have done little more than lead to overwhelming skepticism. I guess if you can devise a plan that defies description or understanding, you cannot be held accountable since it would be impossible to measure its effectiveness.
With that in mind, I decided absurdity was the order of the day. The following is my own list of the top ten reasons George Bush is determined to stay in Iraq.
As I read yesterday's New York Times article on the most recent Bush administration plan for a do-over in Iraq, I found myself wondering if I could think of other events in history that had an equivalent "You've got to be kidding me" factor. According to the report, high level officials are working on a plan that envisions a strong U.S. presence in Iraq until at least 2009.
This new strategy focuses upon securing Baghdad in order to provide Iraq's shaky government the "breathing space they need to try political reconciliation"...an idea that I'm still attempting to comprehend. Does this mean that Iraq's politicians are afraid to meet with each other because the streets of Baghdad are too threatening? The Times explains the plan as follows:
The plan envisions two phases. The "near-term" goal is to achieve "localized security" in Baghdad and other areas no later than June 2008. It envisions encouraging political accommodations at the local level, including with former insurgents, while pressing Iraq's leaders to make headway on their program of national reconciliation.
The "intermediate" goal is to stitch together such local arrangements to establish a broader sense of security on a nationwide basis no later than June 2009.
"The coalition, in partnership with the government of Iraq, employs integrated political, security, economic and diplomatic means, to help the people of Iraq achieve sustainable security by the summer of 2009," a summary of the campaign plan states.I have to hand it to those crafting this new plan...they have mastered the art of doublespeak, nuance, and innuendo...such that it is virtually impossible to understand the actual actions to be executed.
Perhaps the Bush administration has concluded that numbers and catchy names for the latest assault or the next surge have done little more than lead to overwhelming skepticism. I guess if you can devise a plan that defies description or understanding, you cannot be held accountable since it would be impossible to measure its effectiveness.
With that in mind, I decided absurdity was the order of the day. The following is my own list of the top ten reasons George Bush is determined to stay in Iraq.