'Hope is not a strategy'

Those words were said by Madeleine Albright during her statement to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in January, 2007.

To maximize time for discussion, I will speak both plainly and bluntly.

There are no good options.

If there were, many of us would not have objected to the timing of the invasion in the first place.

At this point, we can go or stay, de-escalate or surge, change our tactics or not, and disturbing—even horrifying--events will continue to occur.

The goal of our policy must be to minimize the damage.

The question is how.

The first step is to clarify what our interests are.

Three nightmares come to mind.

First, an Iraq that serves as a training and recruiting ground for Al Qaeda.

Second, an Iraq that is subservient to Iran.

Third, an Iraq so torn by conflict that it ignites a region-wide war.

As a direct result of U.S. policy, all three nightmares are possible.

We have brought this on ourselves.

In so doing, we have put our armed forces in an absurd position.
[...]
We cannot celebrate an elected government in Iraq and then demand that it act like a performing animal in our circus.

For better or worse, the Iraqis think they know their own society and their own interests better than we do.

They have responsibilities to each other that they must meet, but no reason, based on our recent record, to take our advice.

They have no appetite, after Abu Ghraib and Haditha, to listen to our lectures about human rights.

And they know that President Bush has ruled out leaving, so where is our leverage?

That is why the president’s speech last Wednesday night should be viewed less as a statement of policy than as a prayer.

It was not about reality. It was about hope.

But hope is not a strategy.

Not only is hope not a strategy for Bush, it ought not be a strategy for those who oppose his escalation.

The house on Friday passed its non-binding resolution in the hope that that Bush would get the message that congress disapproves of his decision. His argument that congress has unjustly judged his plan before it's had a chance to work is preposterous. On Saturday, the senate will have its chance to chime in as well and the resolution there will most likely fail. The Democrats have promoted this resolution as a 'first step'. What lies beyond that step however is unclear. There's no majority appetite to stop the funding, a la Vietnam. What else can the Democrats do?

Simply making noise via non-binding resolutions is not enough.