“Resolution”: Palin’s goal in Iraq

McCain’s VP pick Sarah Palin has left almost no record at all of having said or thought anything about foreign affairs. However, Matt Yglesias found this audio record of her saying, just a couple of weeks ago, that what the US seeks in Iraq is “resolution.” H’mm. Could actually mean any number of things.
She also says that, since her oldest son, a 19-year-old, is due to ship out to Iraq on Sept. 11, that she doesn’t know what the plan is, “to end the war that we’re engaged in… Let’s make sure we have a plan here… Respecting Senator McCain’s position on that.” (Biden’s son, a much more mature member of the Delaware National Guard, is due to ship out sometime soon. Actually, Biden’s son is about the same age as Sarah Palin and has a lot more government experience than she does.)
Her uncertainty that Bush has a plan for Iraq is expressed loud and clear!
But what is this “resolution” she seeks there? On its own it’s a totally non-specific term.
Could it mean, “To demonstrate the US’s resolution, and power?” I doubt it. Been there, done the shock and awe. Shocked a lot of people and was truly awful. But mainly, it ended up demonstrating (and increasing) the US’s weakness, not its strength.
Could it mean, “To find some kind of a resolution of the intra-Iraqi and US-Iraqi differences, as as to allow a graceful exit?” Maybe. But, um, Sarah, Bush has been trying to do that for five years now, and hasn’t succeeded.
Could it mean, “To get out fairly fast and find ‘resolution’ that way?” In the context of her mentioning her own son, it certainly sounds as though it could mean that, too.
But what it doesn’t really seem to bear any plausible relation to is McCain’s plan to stay in Iraq “as long as it takes.” I guess the old guy will be educating her pretty fast on the campaign’s poarty line.
I can’t wait to see her and Biden debating.

8 thoughts on ““Resolution”: Palin’s goal in Iraq”

  1. “Bush has been trying to [find some kind of a resolution of the intra-Iraqi and US-Iraqi differences, as as to allow a graceful exit] for five years now, and hasn’t succeeded.”
    Excuse me, Helena?!!! That sounds an awful lot as if you are suggesting that Bush has spent the last five youers trying to create conditions that would allow him to exit Iraq. That is certainly not what the reality on the ground indicates, is it? Nor is it what the original plan appears to have been. Haven’t you yourself insisted from the beginning that a key goal of the invasion was to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq? And now you are saying that Bush is looking for a “graceful exit”?!!! I submit that he is not looking for an exit at all, but rather quite the contrary.
    As for Palin, whatever substance there might be there remains to be seen, but I am not even a little bit impressed – on the contrary.

  2. Helena
    Educating Ms Hilton
    1 As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber
    (just so she knows what the job is about)
    If Senator Biden doesn’t barbecue her and then dine off the more succulent bits a Democratic majority Senate will.
    Have the Republicans still got the option of dumping McCain?

  3. What Shirin said. The US policy has been divide-and-conquer, not resolve differences. “We have to stay in Iraq to avoid civil war.”–how convenient. The US military, in my view, was complicit in the January 2006 mosque bombing that exacerbated the Sunni/Shi’ite divide, given the facts.
    Here’s a transcript (excerpt of Aug 14 interview):
    Palin on Iraq: “The GOP agenda to ramp up domestic supplies of energy is the only way that we are going to become energy independent, the only way that we are going to become a more secure nation. And I say this, of course, knowing the situation we are in right now — at war, not knowing what the plan is to ever end the war we are engaged in, understanding that Americans are seeking solutions and are seeking resolution in this war effort. . . .I have a 19 year old who’s getting ready to be deployed to Iraq. His striker[sic] brigade leaves on September 11 of this year. He’s 19 and he’ll be gone for a year. [And so] on a personal level, when I talk about the plan for the war, let’s make sure we have a plan here. And respecting McCain’s position on that too, though. . .My son being in a striker brigade in the army has really opened my eyes to international events, and how war impacts everyday Americans like us when we have a child who chooses to enlist and to serve [for] the right reasons.”
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837536-1,00.html
    I, too, look forward to the VP debate. Biden is a verbal roadwreck and Sarah might clean his clock.

  4. Palin may well be something of an isolationist, not much enamored of the Bush war in Iraq. According to Daily Kos, she supported Pat Buchanan in 2000.
    BQ

  5. “Palin on Iraq”
    Don’t you mean Eye rack? And what about Eye ran’s nucular weapons program (yes, that one, the nonexistent one)?
    And that VOICE! And that ’80’s beauty queen hairdo. And that standard Miss-American-pageanter-turned over-reproducing-PTA-president delivery style. Spare me!
    However, I did hear last night that she is supposed to be a devastating debater, so maybe she is one of those deceptively dumb-appearing, but really sharp as a tack types? I don’t know. She comes across to me as having less substance than the average middle American housewife.

  7. ““We have to stay in Iraq to avoid civil war.”–how convenient.”
    And how does anyone reconcile the notion that Bush has spent the last five years looking for a graceful exit with his flat refusal to accept Maliki’s demand that he agree to be gone completely by 2011? And didn’t Bush actually say at least once that if the Iraqi make-believe government asked the U.S. to leave, he would? Did he think everyone who heard that would forget he said it? Or did he think that no one heard it?

Comments are closed.