Here's another mind-bender for you, Mr. Clarke

In case you missed it, Richard Clarke's recent op-ed in the New York Daily News, "Put Bush's 'puppy dog' terror theory to sleep," was classic instruction in Logic 101 and a sneak preview into Intermediate Propaganda, a field in which we're likely to be returning but unwilling students, and soon.

The "puppy dog" theory his title referred to is the president's insistence "that terrorists will 'follow us home' like lost dogs. This will only happen, however, he says, if we 'lose' in Iraq." And this, Clarke notes, "is the corollary to earlier sloganeering that proved the President had never studied logic": "We are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities."

This is, of course, hogwash of the most transparent kind. First, Clarke writes, "nothing about our being 'over there' in any way prevents terrorists from coming here. Quite the opposite, the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists."

Furthermore, observes Clarke, "U.S. military raids in Iraq have uncovered evidence that Iraqis are planning attacks in America, perhaps to be carried out by terrorists with European Union passports that require no U.S. visas." So it may be that deadly, hard evidence of Bush's illogic will emerge well before his departure from office.

If, however, it does not, and comes only later, "if Bush is down on the ranch cutting trees, he and whatever few followers he retains by then will blame his successor. You can almost hear them now: If only his successor had left enough U.S. troops in the Iraqi shooting gallery to satisfy the blood lust of the enemy, as Bush did, then they wouldn't have come here."

And there's a bet against a sure thing, which you will never find a bookie to take.

Yet there's another mantra repeated by Team Bush even more often than the "puppy dog theory."

How many times have we heard that if the U.S. publicizes a timetable for withdrawal, the bad guys will simply wait us out? They'll simply wait till we leave at the appointed time, then unleash their dastardly havoc (as if today's situation is tolerable).

What am I missing? Timetable proponents should point out just as often that this argument's corollary is that once this hoped-for peace is achieved, American military forces would, the administration implies, then withdraw -- but what's to stop the bad guys from likewise simply waiting out an artificial, internally imposed, interim peace? What's to stop them from laying down arms (as some are, in fact, now doing), smiling deferentially at occupational forces and thereby bamboozling policymakers into thinking it's OK to withdraw?

In short, what's the difference between them waiting out a timetable and waiting out a peace?

And who's to say when such a peace is permanent -- that is, at which precise point of peacefulness would American forces begin a confident, large-scale withdraw? Six months after quiet? Two years? Ten years or twenty? The logical fact is, we could never be sure. Hence U.S. troops -- and American taxpayers -- would then be the ones doing the waiting, and waiting ... and waiting. It's a prescription for permanent occupation, which of course creates its own set of gargantuan and self-evident problems.

So either way -- whether Iraqi sectarians continue their internecine slaughter or suddenly shake hands -- the logic of Bush's "They'll wait us out if we announce a withdrawal date" theory is as mangy as his "puppy dog."

Comments

[Maezeppa]

Does anybody remember the one about how the US intended to invade in such a way as to "preserve the wealth of the Iraqi people"?

I have not heard that meme uttered even one time since the first bomb dropped.

[meohmy]

I wonder if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Gonzales, Feith, Wolfowitz ,et al. have taken into consideration their families legacy. With history sure to spell the truth, future generations of their families will be blacklisted as genes of nitwits. Ya think?
On many occasions, I have read books where grandchildren and great grandchildren have sought revenge against the perpetrators family. As the Middle East anger has gotten hotter and hotter against relatives of enemies, will it play out the same way with Americans? Just saying.
With the enormous amounts of monies they made from these wars(Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/Syria/et al), protection is paid for in the many generations ahead. Ya think?

[War lover]

Those un-Americans are trying to stop this wonderful war, this could lead us to economic slow down and even a depression.

We need more wars for peace, Now!

[Vannie]

The first administration that I have seen that could be plopped down intotem at the Madhatter's tea party and the insanity would have continued to flow unbridled.
Peace,
Vannie

[War lover's brother]

Yes, I agree with my brother. this is a wonderfull war and has done a wonderful job of fattening out portfolios. We have no one in our immediate family fighting in Iraq so we have nothing to lose if we stay there but we would lose a ton of money if we pull out. Stay the course and keep breeding, you poor and middle class. We need more soldiers.

[Melissa]

If we quit in Iraq it would be terrible, awful tragic. Oh yes, and if Castor isn't taken out , God only knows what would happen. I remember both scare tactics clearly. Well Castro is still around and we lost Vietnam. Is anyone suffering because of either? I thought not.