I disagree!
I think most people believe it is "more of the same", thus the beginnings of a revolt in Congress!
My way or no way... Bush is such a manipulator.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I disagree!
I think most people believe it is "more of the same", thus the beginnings of a revolt in Congress!
I think that is short-term... This is going to be a long-haul issue, and it will not remain static, people are not as stupid as such a tactic presumes.I disagree!
Their perception will change regardless. This will be a boon short-term for Ds as more of the kids will lose lives, but in the end, if they actually do what they say they will (I don't think there is enough of a surge to do it quickly) the change will be abrupt.
If the "more of the same" crowd continues on that tack they will find themselves floundering at sea.
I believe in preemption in politics, to view a longer picture and to change tactics when necessary. If your goal is to end the war, pretending that the surge wasn't in the report when it can be clearly pointed to, or that it is not a change when it will change the reality in Iraq, will not work long-term. But heck, I'm not a Democrat, why give you guys advice? Because I don't think it is worth the loss of life in a run-around the constitution War Powers Act "war"...
uscitizen
Villified User
A long haul issue like Vietnam ?
With no positive results soon, more and more people are equating this war the the War in Nam.
The long haul will not sell. That is why bush lied to get us into this mess.
We are the I want it now country.
No, a long-haul issue like as in more than two or three months where people can be convinced of "more of the same" before different results hit.
That he hasn't made a specific date won't change that he has insisted the Iraqis step up and they are a huge part of this new push to actually hold strategic areas after clearing them...
We'll see if I am right, because it is clear that people would rather not change what they see as currently "working". However, it worked so well that the President who would not change tactics, has changed... this will make it different and if others do not change to match their tactics will be found wanting.
That he hasn't made a specific date won't change that he has insisted the Iraqis step up and they are a huge part of this new push to actually hold strategic areas after clearing them...
We'll see if I am right, because it is clear that people would rather not change what they see as currently "working". However, it worked so well that the President who would not change tactics, has changed... this will make it different and if others do not change to match their tactics will be found wanting.
uscitizen
Villified User
But again Damo, this is the same tactics, just enforcing or attempting to enforce it on the Iraqi portions of the plan. What is different, we are training Iraqi forces to replace US forces ? This is old news.
We are just pushing the Iraqi to live up to their end of the deal like they were supposed to all along.
We are just pushing the Iraqi to live up to their end of the deal like they were supposed to all along.
No it isn't. When have they gone after al Sadr and other untouchables? When have they actually worked to hold what they have taken rather than turning it over to Iraqi troops?
It is not the same. That has been my point from the beginning and it is clear that they are not the same. The tactics have changed, the strategy has changed but the D message has not. If they do not change to match reality will catch up to the perception.
However, the "relief" only needs to last for a short period to change an election result. Do you see how the tactic of 'more of the same' can backfire? Powell says it is different, it will yield a different result, but he actually uses an argument that works with the reality of the change, it isn't the same old "more of the same" argument that I keep hearing from the Ds.
Once again, it isn't that I agree with it or think it is great or something, I disagree with undeclared war all the time. I just think the tactic of trying to dress it up as something it is not won't work in the long run. You lose credibility yourself if you don't speak to reality rather than perception and it yields even a temporary result that is different than the "more of the same" will get you.
In this Powell gains even more credibility for me. Man, I wish he had run. He'd have kicked Bush's butt in any Primary.
Okay with that I see your point. I have not heard the D's saying its "more of the same" but I have not been listening much lately. I see that it is different, adding troops is in some ways different. Its still not a fundamental shift in tacticts, like I was hoping we would get. But it is a bit different. Instead of digging a hole at 3 feet a min. its digging at 6 feet a min.
Id rather start digging sideways or up or filling the hole in, but digging faster, in many ways, is a new stragety!
uscitizen
Villified User
when have they gone after them ? they have not but said they were going to. that is my point this is the same old plan, just trying to run it like they said in the first place.
but damo, just HOW will it ''change the reality in iraq"? what makes you so certain this change in tactic will change ''anything'' in this civil war?
there have been MANY, changes in tactics previous to this that were SUPPOSE to be the hail mary pass ''made'' too, BUT THEY WEREN'T, were they? were all these OTHER tactical changes just hot air or just failures too?
please tell me what you see as the ''end game'' with this tactical move, so i can understand you.
thanks!
care
Rubbish. Adding troops is not all that has changed. Ignoring the change in tactics is your mistake. I have outlined them clearly, re-read my posts and stop ignoring them.
I yield to Powell on that who also thinks that the tactics will change the reality, he also argues against the reality of the change of tactic rather than pretending that it is solely a surge. It is more than that, it has been clearly described to you, and Powell can see it. Much like myself Powell believes it should be done still differently... but he actually argues the reality of the tactic shift rather than promoting solely a "surge" as if the rest of Bush's sentences didn't exist.
As for uscit,
They haven't, that is one of the changes in the tactics to be used. Also, no off-limits political targets that are given free reign to send people to kill troops but are begged to enter the government. Holding positions rather than simply turning them over to police action is another change of the tactics. If you read the report all of these were outlined in the troop surge that they said they could support....
So, taking in the reality of the shift of tactic, one can argue how the new tactics will not work as planned, or one can pretend no change has taken place. If one argues that no change has taken place perception will catch up to reality and you will lose credibility.
And once again, they have spoken to the reality and given a good argument why they are against it, they have not attempted to say it was the same as the previous tactics and strategy.
And you once again miss the clear shift in tactic and strategy. They have not ever, not once gone into Baghdad to clear and then hold it. They have allowed these political figures who send people to kill troops to continue becaue of their status as political figures, this ends with the new strategy. Simply, it is more than adding troops, it is an actual shift in how they are used.
Instead of digging down they are attempting to dig a ramp back to the surface...
And I agree with them. I think Bush is leading us deeper into a hole. I am for just about any stragety that will help stop him!
Do you really think so? I think that part is just propaganda.