home

The Aiken Solution

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:09:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Senator George Aiken famously said about Vietnam "declare victory and get out." Is President Bush about to employ the Aiken Solution in Iraq?

President Bush raised the possibility Monday of U.S. troop cuts in Iraq if security continues to improve, traveling here secretly to assess the war before a showdown with Congress. . . . Bush said, "when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure." . . . "I am more optimistic than I have been at any time since I took this job," said Gates. . . .

I'll believe it when I see it, but whatever ends the Iraq Debacle is fine by me. Let Bush declare victory. Just end the Debacle.

< Progressive Originalism: The Debate Continues | Life, Liberty . . . >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Aiken Solution | 20 comments (20 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Draw down? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:06:28 PM EST
    Does that mean 500 troops for Christmas? (Or was it 5000 that Warner was asking for?)

    Two pretty insignificant numbers. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:58:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Re: (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:11:31 PM EST
    whatever ends the Iraq Debacle is fine by me. Let Bush declare victory. Just end the Debacle.

    Works for me, too. After all, he lied the country into it.

    Let him do what he does best, and lie the country out of it.

    Then arrest him.

    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:29:23 PM EST
    Let him save face and then off to the dungeon. Too bad he is sooooo untrustworthy. He  will try anything to leave a winning legacy, and withdrawl from Iraq does jive as part of his playbook.

    This may be more about preparing us for future incursions than anything else.

    Parent

    I think he'd look good as a piece of art. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:40:28 PM EST
    Attached to a wall. No? ;-)

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:01:06 PM EST
    Mediocre to lousy art.

    Parent
    OT: (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:14:20 PM EST
    they let O'Hanlan back on the op-ed page again.

    O'Hanlon is a liar (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:18:15 PM EST
    who cares what he says?

    Parent
    The Times doesn't seem to care about him (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:23:31 PM EST
    much either; they misspelled his name in the byline. (And forced me to too!!!)

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:27:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, and when something gets published (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:24:10 PM EST
    on the Times op-ed page that's stupid, I care.

    Parent
    Not this time (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:29:01 PM EST
    O'Hanlon's piece is as of little interest as Brooks' ridiculous attempt to move the goalposts.

    Bush's statements are much more of interest.

    Parent

    I'm trained to ignore Brooks (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:34:49 PM EST
    I curse the space he takes up on that page.

    That's becoming a familiar feeling.

    Parent

    Increasing security? (none / 0) (#2)
    by chemoelectric on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:22:30 PM EST
    Apparently 'increasing security' means 'no change whatsoever'. I mean, seriously, does a person have to be Albert Einstein to actually look at a graph once in a while? As the graph plainly shows by taking the form approximately of a straight line, in terms of US military fatalities we have seen no change since the beginning of the occupation.

    It seems reasonable to hypothesize that, 'Surge' or no 'Surge', what the US military is doing in Iraq hasn't changed in any significant way, ever. All the 'changes', including the 'Surge', amount to shuffled paperwork, tampering with the figures at the expense of having daddies and mommies in combat boots tucked away somewhere far from home.

    Resolving Iraq will take more than a Happy-Dance (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ellie on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:29:22 PM EST
    Holmes suspects this hooey surge for a brand new war of deflection is a cynical skull-softening massage to lull media and public into blaming the NEW new new Perpetual Enemy for the failure in Iraq ... Iran!!!. (With the application of the right English, this failure will even spin backwards in time.)

    One woman's opinion.

    A loud messy bombing campaign right now is out of the question, but having the Bomb-Iran tease around every other empty bloviation of an issue gives everyone a face-saving way to combine not resolving Iraq with the opportunity for, gosh, decades of unmerited, annoying self-congratulation for doing SFA but casting menacing glances at Iran.

    The latest, slick shift will backdate to "explain" away colossal failures like fabricated immediately threatening WMDs, gossamer 911 connections, insurgency woes, etc.

    And even at this early stage, the Rethuggernaut and enabling Democratic asslicks can prop up each others' empty dual-reps as kickass warriors AND peacebringers for not doing the thing they didn't do anyway.

    Even in theory this sounds too completely ridiculous for anyone with two sparking brain cells to buy. However, I don't work in long pants media.

    In fact, I'm so lax in downing my requisite daily Koolaid consumption until the old stuff gets explained. No venerated know-it-all has yet explained old vintage Koolaid, llke what the white powder was in the tube Colin Powell waved for the UNSC in his "irrefutable" performance that "proved" Iraq's WMD's were 20 mins away from hitting Cletus and Churleen Dumbass smack dab in the middle of the Homeland. (What flava was that stuff? Yabba dabba doo Berry? Scary Black Cherry?)

    Sophistication (none / 0) (#15)
    by koshembos on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:52:30 AM EST
    Bush will not declare victory in my judgment. He likes the war, he doesn't mind the casualties (he doesn't allow photographing of funerals or coffins), he has the sophistication of a dead wood, the Republican party made war its central motif since Reagan and they are not going to drop their prey.

    I think he'll declare whatever he feels (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:58:00 AM EST
    like declaring to get his money.  He'll worry about the truth later.  Remember when during his reelection campaign it was brought up he wanted to privatize SS and he vehemently denied that and then the following January he sprung it on us that suddenly SS needed privatizing?  This guy is such a snake I take nothing he says or does at face value.

    Parent
    I fear he will say drawdown and play (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:54:06 AM EST
    at drawdown to get his Iraq money, but it won't be much of a drawdown after he gets what he wants with as little fuss made about it as possible.  I still believe he has no intention of leaving Iraq before he leaves office and every intention of trying to get a Republican elected who makes noises that he will continue Bush's war.

    This morning, Eric Reed, (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:00:43 PM EST
    of Capital Hill Connection, opined that Congresspersons who visit Iraq come back determined to "support the troops."

    Bush Will Not Leave Iraq (none / 0) (#20)
    by john horse on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:49:06 PM EST
    BTD,
    I don't believe Bush will just declare victory and leave Iraq even though I believe that this is a more rational course of action than continuing this war.  He could have gone Aiken anytime since his "mission accomplished" speech and he hasn't.  Its just not in his MO.  Also, note his comments to Robert Draper  
    "I'm playing for October-November." That is when he hopes the Iraq troop increase will finally show enough results to help him achieve the central goal of his remaining time in office: "To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence," and, he said later, "stay longer."

    Instead of declaring victory and leaving, Bush will declare the surge a success so that we can continue to stay.  There will probably be a reduction in the number of troops by next Spring.  General Lute and others including the Secretary of the Army have already said that we don't have the manpower to sustain the surge beyond next Spring.  Of course Bush will say that he is reducing troop levels because of the "successs" of the surge.

    But suppose Bush does declare victory and brings the troops home?  Does the ends (bringing the troops home) justify the means (lying about the surge being a great success).  Despite the fact that I believe that the truth matters and that by doing this Bush may escape accountability for this fiasco, I'm with you.  It is more important that no more Americans must die for Bush's march of folly.

    The Aiken Solution | 20 comments (20 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment