Watching What You Wish For
Scott Kirwin
I don't listen to the radio much. My musical tastes - which run the gamut from Abba to Zydeco with a long stretch between Goth and Techno - aren't served by radio stations. In my opinion radio stations are about as diverse as a congregation of Mormons in upstate Utah except the Mormons are friendlier and won't bore you with 10 minutes of commercials between songs.
While switching CDs yesterday during the drive home I heard a local DJ talking about this story, a leaked British memo that purpotedly discusses troop reductions in Iraq. The possibilities of a troop reduction in Iraq doesn't surprise me; I mentioned it awhile back in this post and it has become clear by the dwindling numbers of Coalition casualties that a drawdawn was inevitable. Such a drawdown is an affirmation of our success in Iraq. The Iraqis are showing themselves capable of handling their own security, and are becoming better trained by the day.
However this DJ, whose opinion lay obviously in Green Day territory, mistakenly believed that the memo discussed a complete withdrawal - not just a partial one. What I found interesting is that he seemed to finally consider what a move would mean.
"If we bring them home, does that mean that those who died did so in vain?" He wondered. "Wouldn't it be better if we stayed then, to finish the job and make sure that Iraq is stable?" As stable as the Philippines or Minnesota he didn't say.
For several minutes you could hear him - apparently for the first time - consider the ramifications of such anti-war slogans as "Bring them home now!" and Mission - NOTHING - Accomplished" - and I could almost see tentative steps into the "mental DMZ" that separates anti-war from the pro-war side on Iraq. He was clearly treading new territory, and I commend him for doing so.
I believe I was also witnessing another instance of a new meme that the Democrats could use to challenge the Republicans in next year's elections: The Republicans are in a hurry to leave - only the Democrats truly support our troops and our allies by wanting us to stay until the job is done. Hillary made a similar statement to that effect recently, and it strikes me as one that could reverse the Democrats slide and eventually return them to power.
It would be a win-win for the Dems. If the insurgency continues to weaken, then the Dems' anti-war base won't have anything to whine about. If the insurgency flares up, the Dems can say that it's the result of the troop withdrawal. Karl Rove himself couldn't come up with a better strategy to do well in the midterms of Fall 2006.
Are the Democrats that smart? The cynic in me says "no". However if one lone DJ from a rock station can begin to think rationally perhaps it isn't too late for Democrats.
The Defense Department wants to pull some of its 135,000 troops out of Iraq in 2006, partly because the mission is stretching the Army and Marine Corps perilously thin as casualties mount.
Yes, we're stretched so perilously thin we may even have to withdraw our troops from Germany, leaving Western Europe vulnerable to a Soviet tank invasion. Woe, woe is us!
But hey, anything that gets Dems to support the mission has my vote.
The media's desire to continually portray our efforts in Iraq as a failure and a quagmire would be comical if it weren't so damaging.
It would be unusual for the total number of casualties to decrease.
Perhaps. Or a reverse-psychology ploy against the Democrats. The administration suggest that we stay, the Democrats reflexively insist that we must leave. A leak suggests we may withdraw and they now insist that we stay. Meanwhile Bush continues to do exactly what he's planned to do all along, but now certain Democrats are on record as insisting we remain until the job is done.
And if you want to pick a particularly non-diverse part of Utah, talk about the "East Bench." This means the wealthy neighborhoods in Salt Lake and surrounding suburbs which are built on the side of the mountains that form the eastern boundary of the Salt Lake Valley. Affluent, white, Republican, and very Mormon. Not very diverse, in my experience.
I know it's a throwaway line, but the pedant in me can't let it go.
"And if you want to pick a particularly non-diverse part of Utah, talk about the "East Bench." This means the wealthy neighborhoods in Salt Lake and surrounding suburbs which are built on the side of the mountains that form the eastern boundary of the Salt Lake Valley. Affluent, white, Republican, and very Mormon. Not very diverse, in my experience."
Far more diverse than a Politically Correct college campus where everybody is expected to parrot the current Communist Party Line or else be sent to a "sensitivity training" brainwashing camp.
Let's get a couple of things straight, Steven. I have spent plenty of time in college, but I am not "Politically Correct" by any means. I am a hawkish Republican from Texas. I am also an active Mormon, an RM with who has lived 7 years in Utah.
I am neither anti-Mormon nor left-wing. I am not saying diversity is good or bad. I'm just saying the East Bench is not a very diverse place. Because it ISN'T! Go spend a Sunday sitting through sacrament meetings in Monument Park and tell me you don't see a lot of sameness there.
Even if all that matters to you is the diversity of political opinions, as it seems from your comment, I think I am right. Check the voting records for these precincts. 10 to 1 for Bush in 2004. Not many college campuses have that kind of tilt in the voting record-- unless you ignore all the students and all the faculty and staff outside of liberal arts and humanities. Good grief.