"Cut and Run": the right policy that's been given a bad name

[welshTerrier2]

those who argue against immediate withdrawal seem to like to say that we can't just "cut and run" as if to imply there is something irresponsible about "cutting and running" ... perhaps there is even an implication that doing so seeks "instant gratification" and is not the "mature" thing to do ... those who use this phrase often see themselves as the "responsible ones" ... on that, we agree ... they, along with most republicans who continue to push for an ongoing commitment, are indeed "responsible" ...

but what, exactly, is meant by the phrase "cut and run"? ... let's get passed the rhetoric to look at what the phrase really calls for ...

"cutting" ... what we're talking about is cutting further American casualites ... we mean by this cutting our losses ... we mean by this that we don't believe putting more American lives at risk and allowing the body count to continue to rise is worth what is being sought in Iraq ... we also don't believe that what is being sought can or will be achieved ...

so, if you oppose "cutting", it seems only fair to assume that you believe there is something worth achieving in Iraq and that it is possible to achieve it ... if you are someone who uses the phrase "cut and run", please explain exactly what you hope to achieve by remaining in Iraq and exactly why, especially with an incompetent CIC, you believe your objectives can be achieved ...

and what about "running"? ... by this we mean to withdraw our troops from Iraq as quickly as THEIR SAFETY allows with no other conditions ... there is no reason that this should take more than a month (give or take) ... the insurgency has very limited firepower ... they have no tanks ... they have no aircraft ... most of the damage they've done has been with IED's planted along the highways ...

so we mean "get out quick" when we talk about "running" ...

and what is the alternative to running? ... it's more of what we've been getting ... the alternative, whether it's what we want or not, is more FOOT DRAGGING ...

CUT and RUN is exactly the strategy we all should be supporting ... but many who are supporting candidates refuse to call for this approach ... with very few exceptions, and there are one or two, most who are supporting "leading" Democrats see the Cut and Run advocates as the enemy ... they toss around all sorts of insults about "the left" ... i wonder how many of those who currently oppose this strategy would FLIP FLOP overnight if "their leader" changed his or her position and called for immediate withdrawal ... to me, that would be the epitome of hypocrisy but i fully expect it would be the case ... changing your position can be honorable; doing it as part of a game of follow the leader is not ...

it's time we stopped using phrases like "cut and run" in a negative context ... if you use the phrase, you're invited to defend your position by explaining what you hope can be achieved in Iraq and why you believe success is possible with bush in power ... in the meantime, we are losing an average of two Americans everyday; how many more Americans are you prepared to "invest" in your cause???

Cut and Run is not just the right policy for the Democratic Party; it's the right policy for our troops in Iraq and the American people as well ...

[panader0]

1. There's going to be trouble anyway we do it

Pull out, apologise, help rebuild, and don't do it again

[welshTerrier2]

2. "trouble anyway" plus two dead Americans everyday

i agree with you ...

how can anyone condemn to death two Americans a day with bush running the show in Iraq?????

that's what those who oppose immediate withdrawal are doing ...

[Jacobin]

3. Hey, just call it "Peace with Honor"

Nixon/Ford did it in Viet Nam as a euphemism for losing an unwinnable guerilla war.

We can recycle that one all over again. Say it: "Peace with Honor". Get used to it.

We are gonna lose this one big time and instead of a nation of Buddhists who just wanted us to leave them along in their rice paddies, we are looking at 26 million extraordinarily pissed off and furious Muslims with LOTS OF OIL.

Nice way to fuck up, Smirky, but we'll call it Peace With Honor, okay? Just to save a few tens of thousands of young people from getting mutilated.

[DinahMoeHum]

14. or better : Declare Victory And Leave

which is what we should have done with Vietnam back then.

:evilfrown:

[Vincardog]

4. There may be trouble either way but it is clear THE LONGER WE stay THE

WORSE IT GETS. LEtting the Crime Family continue to exploit the situation accomplishes NOTHING PRODUCTIVE

[YvonneCa]

5. I advise...

...you watch John Kerry's Georgetown speech on Iraq (on C-SPAN, click on Iraq and scroll down to the speech on October 26th). He uses the phrase "cut and run" repeatedly in the speech. He says we are where we are in Iraq because of a policy of "cut and run" by this administration. I like the way he has framed the argument.:patriot:

[Dunedain]

6. and after us, deluge. eom

[IndianaGreen]

7. They are the same people that refuse to see Iraq war as a criminal act

on the part of an aggressor state (USA).

How many names do they want on a future Iraq War Memorial?

U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 2054
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 4
Total 2058

Latest Coalition Fatality: Nov 08, 2005

http://icasualties.org/oif/

How many GIs do they want dead before we withdraw?:

2,500?

3,000?

4,000?

5,000?

6,000?

8,000?

9,000?

10,000?

Until the war is "won" in a decade or so?

[welshTerrier2]

8. 2 dead Americans everyday

here's the math:

we invaded Iraq in March, 2003 ... that means we've been there about 32 months ...

using the number of dead you provided, 2058, and dividing by the number of months, 32, yields and average of 64 dead per month ... dividing that by an average of 30 days in a month shows that, on average, we are incurring 2 dead Americans everyday ...

there are 62 days left in this year plus another 365 next year giving a total by the end of 2006 of 427 days ... with 2 dying a day, that means that plans calling for continued occupation through the end of next year may result in the deaths of an additional 854 Americans ...

notice that no one in this thread explained why they thought staying through next year was a good idea ... no one provided a description of what they hoped to achieve and whether they thought it could be achieved with bush in power ... they'll defend a candidate pushing a plan but they never have real answers to the questions ...

Democrats who refuse to call for near-term or immediate withdrawal weaken the case against bush because they are taking a nuanced position that does not send a clear, bold message that the war is insane, bush is too incompetent and evil to be trusted waging it, and we will never "succeed" in Iraq ...

[ClassWarrior]

9. It's Lakoffian framing... and if anyone is still surprised by this...

...they need to read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff. Inexpensive, an easy read, and it'll change forever the way you think about politics and persuasive communication.

NGU.

[jonnyblitz]

10. I bought it but haven't read it yet. not sure what i think of

word manipulation. kind of frank lunz-esque. :shrug:

[ClassWarrior]

12. Please read it. Lakoff makes the point that WE don't need to manipulate...

...because the truth is on our side. We simply need to be more persuasive in our language. The Radical RW, on the other hand, has to engage in "Orwellian language," to use Lakoff's phrase, because they're selling lies and manipulation.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

16. here's a quote from our side:

source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660748/

"I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy," Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Massachusetts senator accused Bush and his aides of a “sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability,” which he called “an invitation to failure.”

He contended that it would be "a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle” to accelerate the transfer of authority to Iraqis so as to allow “a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops."

[welshTerrier2]

13. sorry, but this thread ...

sorry, but this thread just cannot condone the use of the phrase: "lunz-esque" ...

we'd prefer "lunzification" ...

thank you ...

[welshTerrier2]

11. who's doing the framing?

the question is, is this "framing" using the phrase "cut and run" being done by republicans, by Democrats or by those calling for the occupation to continue regardless of party?

[ClassWarrior]

15. Wrong question. You see, that's the beauty of framing.

Once the frame is out there, people unwittingly pass it along. "Detainees," for instance, instead of "prisoners."

The question should be, "Where did this framing originate?" And that may be nearly impossible for us to determine. My guess is a bloated, over-funded Radical RW think tank.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

17. yes and "know"

you make a good point saying that many may be "unwittingly" passing a poisonous phrase along ... i think we've all been guilty of not realizing we are strengthening certain themes by repeating them ...

so, in that context, i think it's correct to focus on who planted the poison seeds in the first place ...

but that does not necessarily mean that all who follow the original framer do so "unwittingly" ... some of them "know" exactly why they're using the phrase ... they "know" why the framing is as it is and they understand the power of the words ...