This comment was in response to a veteran, darkfeather, who commented on a post-VP debate article at HuffingtonPost. His comment's context was over how our departure from Iraq isn't being seized as aggressively as it should by the Obama campaign.
darkfeather, my family's thanks for putting it on the line.
I'm with you on this. However, I suspect the campaign is comfortable with assuming that since most people want a timetable to get out of Iraq, that they don't have to work the issue. I think that's the wrong approach.
I'd at least give it a new spin. For example, I recall some insanely right-wing colleagues talking about the issue and their rationalization of American soldier deaths in Iraq was, "If these guys were living in Camden, NJ, they'd be getting killed at a higher rate than what is happening in Iraq." I'm certain this is a silent but pervasive sentiment in those at the far and leaning-right.
So why not call that out? "Hey, is winning in Iraq when we get the murder rate lower than our own US cities? Thanks to the miracle of ethnic cleansing and some sensible counter-insurgency alliances and tactics, the rate is lower than our most populace cities. If we can't get our own country's murder/violence problems solved, how are we supposed to believe that we can get Iraq's murder/violence rate even MORE lower than US?!?! Or should we redeploy troops to Philadelphia? If our mission is to create safer urban areas than we have in 'the greatest country in the world,' then we are truly stupid if we let this occupation nonsense go on for one more day."
That gives the argument a new spin and a grounding that makes it clearer to "average" Americans that "winning" has either been achieved or is completely unachievable.
No comments:
Post a Comment