Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Who Says the Democrats Don't Have a Plan?

Actions define our intentions - not our words. So, I've taken the liberty of putting into writing, the Democrat's plan for Iraq and armed conflict in general based solely upon their actions. It is curious why this approach isn't resonating with more Americans:
  • Support the war and make compelling cases for use of force provided it’s popular.
  • Articulating threats is risky politically. Responding to realized threats is not.
  • Support military conflict provided it's winnable quickly.
  • Rush to defend any peoples in danger provided Europe agrees and domestic elections are not within one year.
  • Rush to defend any strategic US interests provided Europe agrees and domestic elections are not within one year.
  • Use caring, empathetic language for those oppressed or killed behind iron curtains. This placebo approach can be couched in soaring rhetoric to persuade others of sincerity and earnest intents - very safe politically.
  • The UN is the perfect forum for the above. Voting and debate on suffering plays well in US and world media.
  • Remain keenly aware that Americans do not care about suffering they do not see (i.e. pre-invasion Iraq).
  • Americans care a great deal about suffering they do see on TV (i.e. post-invasion Iraq) and will hold US forces as responsible for violence they perceive as new.
  • Express vague, lofty concerns throughout beginning of conflict – politically safe and does not preclude you from claiming victory as your own or failure as someone else’s.
  • Stand proudly behind any quick victory pointing to original support.
  • Distance yourself from any sudden failures pointing to your original concerns.
  • Protracted battle requiring sacrifice of blood or political capital is not advised - better to suffer a short, sharp defeat and exit theatre quickly.
  • Short battle failures can be dismissed as the failure of subordinates.
  • Most short battle failures will be forgotten as quickly as the next scandal or missing teen story.
  • Short battle failures may even be termed successes should original objective have not been clarified in detail.
  • Do not run the risk of articulating a vision. Vision may run afoul of changing public opinion and is considered retrograde by media.
  • Conversely, as public support wanes, refer to the pre-war status quo as peaceful and not a threat.
  • Do not address specific pre-war threats to Iraqi citizens, Americans, regional neighbors, or Israel. We do not believe public is informed enough to sustain attention on these topics.
  • The moment Europe or the electorate begins to fatigue on realities of armed conflict; distance yourself from our original support reiterating how you were misled.
  • If a clear scapegoat is available, place blame quickly. Use polling data to ascertain “jumping off point” and begin citing lies disseminated by your political opponents to start an unjust war.
  • When questioned about original support for conflict, explain original support as naïve trust.
  • At every opportunity, decry abuses of your trust and the American People’s trust.
  • At every opportunity, decry missed opportunities to build non-existent coalitions.
  • As opinion polls dip below 50%, deploy base to advocate retreat and silence any supporters of war effort.
  • If immediate retreat is not feasible, demand artificial timelines, politically motivated timetables, and withdraw based upon non-tactical considerations.
  • Refer to enemy prisoners of war as "detainees." This frames their capture as a law enforcement matter and suggests entitlement to attorneys and protections of US courts.
  • Should situation continue to deteriorate, claim moral high ground by being first to demand an end to unjust war.
  • Should situation improve, silence retreat advocates. Claim credit for good news items citing your original support.
  • Qualify success or failure daily based upon media reported body counts.
  • Be advised that major media will report primarily on the operational efficiency of the enemy (car bombings, suicide attacks, kidnappings, beheadings, etc…) and their death tolls.
  • Media will not report on successful American raids, attacks prevented, diplomatic successes, “hearts and minds” activities, school openings, hospitals opening, infrastructure improvements, etc… Reporting American activities in positive light may jeopardize objective observer status.
  • Use restraint when voicing support for American forces or reciting good news items seen online or in alternative media sources. This will be perceived by many in our base as cheerleading and is dangerous politically – not advised within one year of election.


Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

This comment placed here for the same purpose that a bartender puts a couple of his own dollars in the tip jar at the beginning of his shift. Comments beget comments.

8/30/2005 11:38:00 PM  
Blogger HRP said...

LOL - I Like the ideas - it's good to see Democrats do have a platform and agenda instead of a mixed bag of whatever is most popular among the fractured radical movements that can be spun as sane, popular and sellable. Oh wait- that was an agenda item.
Nice blog by-the-way.

8/31/2005 11:48:00 AM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

Thanks HRP!

8/31/2005 09:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Ray B. said...

Of course those darn Democrats stole many of those agenda items from the Republicans circa 1990s (Kosova/Balkans) and the Republicans circa 1966/67 (Nixon harping about Vietnam...) and the Republicans circa 1945 (arn't you tired of the war?).

Here's the clincher:

"Any time we send our sons and daughters into harm's way, it is a tough decision," [Gingrich] said in a statement after the vote. "But I do believe America has a vested interest in supporting NATO and in keeping peace in Kosova."

His stand put him at odds with the two senior members of his team.

The House majority leader, Dick Armey, and the Republican whip, Tom DeLay, opposed deploying troops. DeLay called the plan a "big dangerous quagmire" and "another bad idea in a foreign policy with no focus."

He said the Clinton Administration had become too dependent on air strikes and the threats of air strikes, referring to bombings in Iraq, strikes against targets in Sudan and Afghanistan and the threat of strikes in Serbia.

"Bombing sovereign nations for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines American stature in the world," DeLay said. "The international respect and trust for America is diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber."

--- http://www.alb-net.com/kcc/12mars.htm

Let's face, many Democrats AND Republicans are hypocrites!

The more things change...

9/01/2005 08:49:00 AM  
Blogger HRP said...

Well, as much as we don't like to hear it, it's difficult to balance out desire to deploy troops and (whether for humanitarian reasons or security) with economics, image and ability. We just can't do everything. And I'm sure the US has made the wrong decisions on going to places - or worse yet the wrong decisions on running it (like Vietnam or Somalia). But it is an opportunity cost decision (not saying it's all economic - but you weigh the cost of everything). For whatever people say about Iraq, the running of the war was at least decisive and directed (unlike Vietnam until Nixon got around to being serious). Just read Tommy Franks book. I can understand the differences in opinion about the follow-up - but those differences should be based on real understanding of the situatino (if that's possible) and not on what CNN or Al Jeezera decides to play.

9/02/2005 10:03:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home