Over at the Talking Points Memo, someone suggested that what's holding up the new plan is the need for a three word marketing phrase to sell it--among the old phrases were: War on Terror, Cut 'n Run, and Stay the Course. (Also note, New Way Forward.)

So, let's help them out:

Surge and Turn?

Surge and Burn?

Surge and Learn? (Nope, Bush doesn't like that word, learn.)

Surge and Earn? Surge and Fern? (Makes as much sense as anything else.)

Surge and Return? Surge and Churn? Surge and Urn? Surge and Urge? Surge and Worse? Surge and Go? Surge and Home? Surge and Woe? Surge and Hope? Surge and Soap? Surge and Rope?

Surge and Resurge? Surge and Reverse? Surge and Emerge? Surge and Surge and Surge Again? (Sorry, not three words.)

Wait! I got it! The only catchy three word phrase that can sum up Bush's plan:

Surge and Stay.

...because a draft would be the end of George Bush. It would be the end of Republicans.

The Iraq war is currently merely a blip on the American scene. Nobody has to go except the volunteers. Taxes haven't gone up. Gas hasn't been rationed and energy prices aren't even that high. All we've been asked to do for the war on terror is to continue to go shopping.

But a draft will bring the war into every American home. Suddenly the war will no longer be another boring story on the news. Suddenly Americans will have to ask, WTF is this all about? Why are we there? What are we doing?

Whatever you may think of George Bush and the Republicans, they are certainly NOT the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. They are simply pure politicians in a democracy that no longer accepts such concepts as self sacrifice and responsibility. Thus they can only go so far and no further, and the draft is beyond anything they can do.

Bush is more akin to Bill Gates than Hitler. The Iraq war is more like MS Windows than WWII. That is, they're not doing the best they can do, they are just simply shoving out the door whatever crap they can get away with. Gates doesn't worry if Windows works or if it's secure, he only worries about keeping down the competition and being dominant. And Bush doesn't worry if the war in Iraq is winnable, or if it's good for the world, he only worries about his standing in the polls. This is all he's ever worried about.

It's basically the general boomer philosophy of doing only what is best for me and the hell with everything else. Bush went to war in Iraq because it was best for him at the time. Now it's not the best for him, and he may be sorry, but even at this point he's still only looking out for what is best for him. Hence the 'surge' and the "new Way Forward" all of this bullshit. And a draft won't be best for him.

The "New Way Forward" that's coming up will simply be Iraq Vista--the same old thing that doesn't work all that well, but now in different colors. And Iraq will probably end up being just as hard to get rid of as Windows.

Is it even possible for us to leave? If we leave, what happens to our oil supply? What happens in Saudia Arabia? What happens to the Iraqis who supported us? What happens to our reputation and standing in the world?

This is why I've called Iraq a glue trap. We might not even be able to get out, even if we try. Some disasters are simply not recoverable and Bush may have gotten us into one of those.

BTW, I loved Garrison's elegiac New Year's Eve show on PBS. What a concept, a New Year's Eve show with good songs, good singers, and no shots of screaming drunks in Times Square.

..but the article starts getting a little bit unfair.

Quote:

Would any self-respecting liberal or conservative have written, as Vidal did in a 1979 issue of Playboy, "Many Christers and some Jews don't like poor white people very much, the old Puritan ground that if you are good, God will make you rich"?

Uh, yes they would, because it's true. Of course it's also true of many an atheist/agnostic who can't quite shake his prejudices. This particular puritan prejudice does exist in this country and manifests itself in many ways. Should we just ignore it?

...a good place to start would be the Reaganese/libertarian nonsense that God has blessed America and everything ought to take care of itself without the active intervention of responsible and thoughtful government. This is what led to the disaster in Iraq and the loss of New Orleans: we didn't think we needed to think or plan ahead. In fact we thought planning was so traitorous we fired the general who called for many more troops in Iraq. We thought we could just automatically win in Iraq, because we're supposed to be the good guys and God is on our side. Who needed to worry?

It's also the reason we don't have health coverage for everyone in this country; we believe that any kind of governmental action is doomed to failure or will end up as communism.

The upshot is that we're helpless as disaster after disaster unfolds: who can do anything if government is useless and all government action is futile?

This is what the Democrats ought to oppose. Democrats ought to stand up for active government and present it for what it is: actually taking charge of our own lives and accepting responsibility for the world we create. We may make mistakes, but making mistakes is far better than being helpless.