Neither side can offer a reasonable plan forward because they are both looking backwards. And so rather than having an honest debate about the future, both sides justify decisions past and disguise them as visionary.
Stay the Course
By now we all know the oft repeated refrain. Thousands of Americans killed in Iraq. Stay the course. Many more thousands are maimed and lie in hospitals. Stay the course. The image of Americans occupying Iraq has been a virtual recruiting poster for terrorists. Stay the course. There’s no WMD in Iraq after all. Stay the course. It turns out Sadam wasn’t much of a threat to us. Stay the course. Osama is chilling in a cave somewhere watching American Idol with contempt. Stay the Course. For two years, stay the course has meant that any mention of changing courses would be construed as an acknowledgment that we were on the wrong course, even if all evidence suggested we were. We couldn’t even send in enough troops to do the job properly because that would be off course.
You’d think a situation like this would be easy pickings for an opposing party. An administration marching mindlessly down what appears to be the tragically wrong path. Parading soldiers to their death, like sheep to slaughter, chanting stay the course. Of course…not.
Staid with No Course
From day one in this debate, the opposing party has been too worried about how they might be portrayed. Too worried that Americans might not like them if they told the truth. Too conservative to take on a popular president in his war of folly. Too unsure of themselves to clearly and convincingly speak their minds. Too busy pointing fingers to pen their own plans. Too calculating to stake out a strong position without offering every other viewpoint some consolation.
For instance, here’s John Kerry’s speech on the floor during the first war debate. Some have trotted out this speech as evidence that Kerry has some predictive powers:
"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
"Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with al-lies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.
"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."
In other words, I am voting against the war before I vote for it. What was the point of all of that gas bagging if you were going to authorize the president to go to war? Did anyone seriously doubt at that time that George Bush planned to go to war? Seriously? It was Congress' authority to declare war. If you have serious concerns about the way we should go to war, then you keep that power of the checks and balances to make sure that the president cannot act unilaterally. For a senator to hand his responsibility over to the executive branch with an ominous warning is irresponsible not visionary.
And now most Democrats spend an inordinate amount of time explaining nuanced statements like Kerry’s. Three years later, still no clear alternative plan to victory only “we told you so’s” when actually they didn’t.
It's clear both sides are shackled by their past mistakes. I'd like to just forget what everyone said way back when and focus on the course. From the reason we invaded to the way we occupy, it’s become increasingly clear that this course is a wrong one. We've spent too much in dollars and lives while the other side of the balance sheet offers very little to offset it in the way of what we've gained.
But, there appears to be good news on the horizon. The American public has stopped hitting the Iraq snooze button and is waking up to the reality of our situation -- we're off course. I think the time is right to start a new chorus. It isn’t nuanced and complicated. In fact, in light of the current situation, it is rather simple.
Change the course.
