Our old friend from Last Chance Democracy Cafe, Steve, says he has a cold and is "a bit cranky this morning".
He should be cranky more often, take a look at this:
And you know something else I’m sick and tired of, as I wallow in my crankiness? I’m sick and tired of pro-war politicians and commentators attacking those of us who opposed this stupid war from the beginning for not coming up with our own constructive proposals for solving the problem. Hey bozos, read my lips: There are no good solutions to the mess you’ve made in Iraq. None. Whatever we do will be the wrong thing. Whichever turn on the road we choose will lead to despair.
But here’s the thing guys: The burden of proof isn’t on those of us who want out of Iraq. We’re the ones who were right at the beginning, are still right today and have been right at every point in between. The burden of proof is with those of you, dwindling though your ranks may be, who are still part of the war party. It’s your burden to prove that staying in Iraq is likely to produce some sort of good, some improvement in the current nightmare, sufficiently great to justify the expenditure of even more precious American blood and treasure.
I found it interesting that Steve addressed some of the questions I raised in an earlier post about how to respond to the Right-wingers who insisted that the situation in Iraq would only be worse if we pulled out too early. I really like Steve's work over there at "the cafe", and generally I feel like he speaks for me (only in a much more articulate manner)but I have to take issue with him on this one...a slight one anyway.
It's true that it is patently unfair for the war party to criticize us for not having a solution to the mess THEY CREATED but telling them that it's unfair doesn't do anything to solve the problem. As Steve points out early in his essay:
"This war is a wildfire blazing across the body and soul of this nation."
Our goal isn't to blame the other party but to end the wildfire. The other side is so obviously incapable of doing it that they should never, ever be entrusted with the power to make war again, but in the meantime, it is up to us, whom we assume are the more rational, intelligent and patriotic of the two parties to put the fire out. The question still remains, how?
I wish I had the answer at the tip of my fingers but I don't.
I suspect that the answer may in fact lie in some Pan-Regional Coalition where the neighbors step in and impose a peace on the warring factions. I can't buy into the theory that a strong leader will emerge (like Mel suggested in an earlier comment) only because there is much too much meddling by Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and god knows who else (maybe some small elements of Al Queda) to allow an Iraqi "Thomas Jefferson" to emerge. Further, the meddling neighbors are using the religious factions as their surrogates and therefore trying to turn it into a jihad of some fashion.
I guess the point is that the answer will lie in a concept totally foreign to the Bush Administration :