Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Makes sense to me

Jed Babbin writes about the need for a President to sell a war. The jist of the article is this paragraph:

Wartime presidents have to tell our people what is going on, and why. They have to ask people to make sacrifices and explain, in compelling terms, why those sacrifices are essential to the future of the nation. And though he is not failing in the war planning task Mr. Bush is on the road to making as much of a hash of it as LBJ did in Vietnam.
He ends with this paragraph:

Because Mr. Bush is allowing the anti-war left to dominate public debate, America is being led to believe that victory in Iraq is the only goal in the war, and that such a victory is impossible to achieve. Both beliefs are false. But it is not enough for Messrs. Cheney and Rumsfeld to go about stating the obvious truths. There is no substitute for personal leadership by the President. Actually, there is: leadership by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CBS News. None of them received 53 million votes last November. So where is the guy who did? We need him, right now and for more than the next five days.

When Jeb says "we" need him, he is I suspect referring to Republicans, a suspicion that is backed up by more points in the article. But the media giveth, and the media taketh away. Gone are the post-invasion stories of troops rebuilding Iraqi schools and playing soccer (football) with Iraqi children. You could argue that the media is over-compensating for their lame doormat attitude during the run-up to the war, and being duped over the ever-changing reasons/motivations for our going into Iraq in the first place.

Jed is right however, in that most Americans would like to see us succeed in Iraq, and yes, I say most. We just need a better explanation as to what that success is supposed to look like.

Here's the article.


Post a Comment

<< Home

free web page hit counter