Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djtestudo
Oh, I didn't say politics had NOTHING to do with it 
Just that this is the exact same plan we had all along. Stay until we're finished. However, now what "finished" means is becoming clearer. |
Well maybe I'm not up to speed on all the latest shifting rhetoric, but it seems to me pre-Murtha the argument was: we are establishing a stable democracy in the Middle East, that is our goal, and we're not leaving until that task is finished. If it takes another decade, so be it.
So "finished" meant a stable, functioning government, a stable, functioning infrastructure, and a stable, functioning economy. Currently none of these are "stable and functioning". In fact, all of them barely even exist. Therefore, pre-Murtha, the line was: if we leave now, this barely functioning country is going to collapse into a civil war. The wolves will invade and take over. Zarqawi will assume the reins, and the whole place will devolve into a permanent terrorist/training/camp/war/zone. It doesn't matter how well-trained the security forces are. They'll just be another participant in the civil war; the better equipped they are the more people they will kill.
Now, post-Murtha, we're saying, sorry Iraqis, that all that doesn't matter anymore. We're coming home as soon as you elect a parliament and the security forces are better trained. Which, in any practical terms, translates into: as soon as possible.
Don't get me wrong, I think a speedy withdrawal is great. But I also think we should see this for what it is.