"If we debate the surge, we lose"
Jonathon Chait writes:
"As I noted in this space last week, conservative foreign policy consists increasingly of abstract notions divorced from reality. In preparing for last week's House debate over the Iraq troop surge, the Republican leadership instructed its members in a memo: The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."
Very true. Because the fact is that we are in a no-win situation in Iraq, and trying to play politics with the troops is simply a distraction from the very important issue of how we begin to extricate ourselves from a situation which was a disasterous course of action from the beginning.
At the risk of being cliche, "When you find yourself in a hold, the first rule is, stop digging" applies here just as much as ever.
Yet Republicans, even some commenting here, continue to trot out the old horse, "If Democrats want to end the war, then they must end all funding for it and bring all the troops home immediately."
Or the even more fanciful, "If we don't keep sacrificing all our money and lives over there, why, the Mooslums will surely invade us!" (as if they wouldn't and couldn't have already.) This particularly ridiculous argument is also disgusting, in that it demands that already over-stretched troops continue to be fed into a no-win death trap in Iraq. A very strange way to "support the troops" indeed.
And is Rudy Giuliani the big, tough, macho guy Republicans can invest their Rambo dreams in? Jonathon Chait suggests that Giuliani doesn't live up to his hype as some sort of foreign policy expert.
Chait explains here.