Muddying the Water, part 1

What comes to mind when I say “Iraq”?

If you are like me, then a lot. We now have war images of soldiers with enormous guns, patrolling or firing at someone we hope is an “insurgent”. We have thoughts of lies (yellow-cake uranium from Niger) and thoughts of dissatisfaction (remember the calls from the hawks: “the first Bush should’ve finished the job”) and mercy (the families torn apart, the women that can no longer work, and the fewer than four hours a day of electricity). We think of all of the President’s speeches and public appearances—including the aircraft carrier with the cod piece and the “Mission Accomplished” banner. We remember all of the conservative pundits repeating the refrain “stay the course” and reminders that any dissention from the president’s strategy is unpatriotic (regardless of the fascist hypocrisy of it all).

If I had asked you about Iraq four years ago, you certainly wouldn’t have thought of those things. A few images may have come to mind. Most likely Saddam Hussein, a well-orchestrated army, and Desert Storm. That’s about it. Maybe the conflict with Iran, maybe the U.S. abandoning of the Kurd uprising (that we encouraged), and maybe the encouragement and support we gave Saddam to take over the country. Maybe those things would pop into your head.

The latter makes a lot more sense, doesn’t it? The popular conservative tactic over the last two decades is to muddy the water. We treat it like the bad-sport manager that kicks dirt over the plate after a bad call, but it isn’t that at all: it is a political tactic. Make the people confused, keep them that way, and then do whatever you want. If someone drops something in the water at the beach, what do you do? You wait for the sand to fall back to the bottom so that you can see.

So the president keeps using that tactic in Iraq, or demanding that we do. Wait. In December, it was wait a couple of months. In March, it was wait a couple of months. In May, it was wait a couple of months. In July, it was wait until September (a couple of months). Each suggestion of waiting was accompanied with “the next two months will be critical: a potential turning point”. It has become clear that we have to stop waiting.

While you are waiting for the sand to fall back and clear your vision, you also have to stop moving. If you remain still, the sand won’t kick up again. So what happens when regardless of what you do, a kid nearby keeps kicking the sand? And we’re talking, huge upheavals, muddying your vision for yards all around. And what if this kid is the one who claims to have dropped the toy in the first place? What is the purpose of waiting? Don’t you eventually come to a time to decide? You could restrain the kid and keep him from kicking up the sand. You could do his work for him and get on your hands and knees, feeling along the bottom, hoping that you don’t get kicked in the process. Or you could leave.

Our prospects in Iraq are muddied; not by insurgents, but by a president whose only interest in Iraq has been revealed to be merely staying—not building a democracy, not ending terrorism, and not bringing stability to the region—just staying. He wants you confused. He wants you to act in the manner that comes most naturally to us: wait and see. That is all part of the plan.

The only alternatives are stopping him, working even harder despite him, or to withdraw.

Am I the only one that thinks impeachment is the most rational solution of all of these?