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

[babylonsister]

http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2007/05/heres_another_m.html

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."

snip//

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."

[waiting for hope]

1. My thought process

on the 'puppy dog' terror theory has been - shit, the majority of our troops are overseas, this would be the most vulnerable time to attack us...just look at what happened on the Gulf Coast after Katrina. Would we be anymore prepared or better yet, have the resources of our military if something did happen?

Bush is an Asshat - Hi Agent Mike! :hi: Yes, I called our President an ASSHAT. For justification, read the above post.

[babylonsister]

2. Very good point; how can we be more vulnerable than we already are? nt