One thing that bothered me about the speech last night,
is when Bush
resorts to the suggestion that the blood of those killed
will all be in vain if the mission is not completed.
(I forget the exact wording) But the logic seems to
progress something like this, the blood of those that
have died justify that we keep fighting.
That is not a justification for what needs to be done
it is an appeal to sentiment. I was opposed to the
war, but at the same time think a hasty pull-out
could be a tragedy.
I didn't hear what I wanted to, which was what are the
conditions which define success to him the Com. in Chief.
If it is not a timeline, which I am not demanding, at least
what are the conditions in terms of resistance, a constitutional
threshold, or something a little more substancial than
"when they stand up, we'll stand down."
I am cynical, yes, and at the same time I hear the ghost
of LBJ's vietnamization program, which may not be a fair
comparision, but it is what I hear.
I want to know the end-game. Wasn't that the part of the
Powell doctrine - to have clearly defined parameters for
success. To me, as a person listening to that speech, and
deeply concerned about what is happening there, and
who gets sent there, I was hoping he was going to
cut through the mission creep and hone it down to at
least conditions that I could say, okay, "if that happens, there
is the potential that some good will come of it all."
It is perhaps the logical positivist in me that also does not
buy the transformation of the middle-east argument. Mostly
because it is not easily verifiable: I would like to believe that
a free Iraq will transform the mid-east, but I don't think
even if we are very successful that corruption won't quickly
settle into Free Iraq.
His speech I thought was unsatisfying. I wasn't angry.
I just felt sad.