By this point Karl Rove’s penchant for simplistic catch-phrases and talking points, such as “when they stand up we’ll stand down” and “up or down vote” must be apparent to the majority of Americans, and hopefully everybody is tired of them. The current argument being repeated is that “a timetable for retreat” in Iraq means the enemy would simply hide until we are gone.
Let’s follow that reasoning a bit. If we stay indefinitely the bad guys will continue to fight. If we announce that we’ll be leaving, they’ll run away and hide.
OK, so if the bad guys lay low, that should result in relative calm in Iraq. Will the administration then say the “situation on the ground” must be getting better? Or will we be told there is merely the appearance of stability, and we must therefore stay? I would bet on the latter. In other words, there will be no definition for victory. With Karl Rove there’s just no winning.
Obviously, the so-called surge isn’t working and it won’t work. If Iraq can’t be secured in the next 18 months, then it can’t be done. Not by foreign military occupation, anyway. We’ve got stop enabling the devious, deceptive and dangerous men in the Bush administration, and that means no more money without a timetable for withdrawal.
Added Comment: By Bush’s own logic, by his declaring that the surge would focus on securing Baghdad, didn’t he signal to the insurgents that they should leave the city for a while?