Jesse takes issue with this Wolfowitz quote:
The number two Pentagon official said reducing American casualties in Iraq was more important than bringing US troops back home — and pointed to the rising Iraqi death toll as evidence this strategy was working.
“I’m more concerned about bringing down our casualties than bringing down our numbers,” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in an interview with PBS television’s “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” program. “And it is worth saying that since June 1, there have been more Iraqi police and military killed in action than Americans.”
Jesse then states:
The point, my friends, is not to make sure that the toilet works. The point is to make sure someone else is in the bathroom when it overflows.
I would like to see some context, but even without context Jesse is leaping to conclusions, making the worst possible interpretation of the remarks. I may be wrong, but I would be willin tobet that Wolfowitz’s line of thinking is that he would like to stop all of the fatalities, but that he would rather work to keep American casualties down first.
That sounds callous and unthinking, but there is a reasoning behind it. While it mayappear that we are throwing Iraqi’s to the wind, if the insurgency is attacking only Iraqi’s, or mainly Iraqi’s, two things happen. This battle becomes less legitimate in the eyes of jihadists, as this is muslim on muslim violence, rather than jihadists fighting the Great Satan. Second, the primary goal of this endeavor is to give ownership of Iraq to Iraqi’s and that ownership will translate into a population steeled against the minority of insurgents. That is the whole point of not delaying the elections.
I may be wrong, but I would like to see some context.
Rachel
I see that angle, but one can argue that bringing the troops home can also bring up those same ideas. I concur with this angle, because I had read one op-ed that stated the US was doing the Sunni’s work for them. It’s time for them to come to grips.
Captain Wrath
May I also point out that this, less American casualties, more burden on others, was a talking point of the Democrats? They were complaining that we were doing too much of the fighting and suffering too many of the dead and wounded. So now, when Wolfowitz articulates this as a goal and as a reality, he is being a jerk? Uncaring? What?
CadillaqJaq
Captain, Wolfowitz’s critics are beyond fathoming: they always want everything both ways regardless of the issue. Makes for good political discourse in their minds. What is simpler in life than being critical?
As far as our troops taking fewer casualites than the Iraqis, let’s determine WHICH Iraqis are being killed… it appears to me that our troops are watching the early shots in what well could be an inevitable civil war. And won’t the left feed on that?
Kimmitt
Well, it is your cock-up that we warned against, so if we have to watch $200 billion and more than a thousand American lives pissed away, the least we get to do is goddamn well say “I told you so.”
Cold comfort, but that’s all the comfort thinking men get these days.
ben
First off, I don’t think Iraq is the “cock-up” you want it to be.
Second, what you are articulating is essentially no different than Saddam should have been left in power, left alone to murder, torture, rob and rape the Iraqi people. You guys supposed care more about the little guys than us. So why support a brutal dictator?
I don’t think you have thought through your position very well.
Paul
You’d gladly sacrifice 1000, or 10,000, or 100,000 Americans just to say “I told you so”. The left has produced a tally of corpses absolutely staggering in number in the pursuit of it’s “high minded” ideals. You people live for the opportunity to preen your self righteousness and imagined moral superiority. Too bad your wrong on just about everything.
The Washington Post has a well buried article on the latest poll in which 80% of Iraqis say they are committed to vote. That’s 80% of 24 million people who are determined to finally get a chance to taste the freedom of self determination that the whiners here take for granted. So when you say 200 billion and 1000 lives are for nothing you state that such freedom is worth…nothing. Would that justice could be done and you LOSE the freedom that counts for so little to you. You
Kimmitt
Second, what you are articulating is essentially no different than Saddam should have been left in power, left alone to murder, torture, rob and rape the Iraqi people.
Yes, just as you articulate that the Myanmar junta should be left in power, left alone to murder, torture, rape and rob the Burmese people. And the Sudanese Arabs should be left in power, left alone to murder, torture, rob and rape the Fur. And the Rwandan militias in the Congo should be left in power, left alone to murder, torture, rape and rob the Congolese people. And the Chinese Communist Party should be left in power, left alone to murder, torture, forcibly abort, and rob the Chinese people. And the Turks should be left in power, left alone to murder, torture, rape and rob the Kurdish minority. And the Indonesian government should be left in power, left alone to murder, torture, rape and rob the separatists in Aceh. And the Mexican government should be left in power, left alone to murder, torture, rape and rob the indigenous peoples of the Yucatan.
We can’t fix everything, so we have to set priorities. Iraq should have been a low priority, because of the fact that the aftermath was so unpredictable, and because we had yet to finish the job in Afghanistan.
Hell, it’d only cost about $4 billion to permanently wipe out measles, saving the lives of approximately a hundred thousand people a year. Why are you against that?
You’d gladly sacrifice 1000, or 10,000, or 100,000 Americans just to say “I told you so”.
You are scum.