Iraq analogy - whose fault would failure be?

Question

I have seen it said that Democrats should not receive any blame for a failure in Iraq, even if they cut funds or otherwise cripple the effort, because Bush got us into Iraq in the first place.

I hate to talk in terms of credit or blame, but it's come up, so here goes:

Imagine a doctor who, let's assume, schedules a patient for unnecessary surgery. The operation doesn't go as well as planned. A new doctor comes in and says "you botched it and we need a new approach." This new doctor then says "this is already a failure, so let's just quit" or "let's decide on a deadline - this will be over in an hour no matter what." Wouldn't Dr. #2 share some responsibility for failure?

No, my example is different because the operation doesn't cost billions of dollars, people aren't shooting at the doctors, and maybe the "patient" (Iraq) cannot, or should not be saved.

But my point is, the past is not the only consideration. I want to know what we should do NOW.

Any thoughts?

Maybe the more "honest" approach would be for the Democrats to just say "it's over" than to partially support further efforts.

BOTH parties play the blame game too much. that's why it's called politics!

But I wish there could be more STATESMANSHIP on display here.

I don't care who gets the credit. Just do the right thing and worry about the rest later.

Answer 1

Your a bit flawed in your facts. The democrats voted almost unanimously for this war. Then, when the going got tough, they started to undermine the president seeking political advantage.

A better analogy would be a team of surgeons starts a complicated operation and then some of them want to quit before it is over and when the chief surgeon refuses to give up they start turning off the lights and refuse medicine. The hope the patient dies so the chief surgeon gets fired and they can replace him.



.

Answer 2

I agree the blame game is played to much. It is either Demos this or Republicans that. I think from your analogy about the doctors that the new one was as much to blame as the old one. So I think even though Bush has put us in Iraq I think when the Democrats get in there I think if they screw something up they should be in the same boat with Bush. They should not be aloud to pull the troops out of Iraq either. That is just looney. No offense to the descent Democrats. I have friends that are Democrats and I agree with some of their points of view. I have a Demo teacher though and she is a pain with her political views!!!!!!!!

Answer 3

You miss the point that removal of Saddum has been US policy under both Democrats and Republican presidential administrations. The Democrats agreed and supported the war too. It's more like a board of doctors supporting a lead surgeon in an operation and then bailing out and pretending that they didn't agree after the fact.

The Dems supported the war and touted the same bad intelligence that Bush had.

Answer 4

The Commander and Chief would be responsible for the 4 years of screwing up a functioning country!
The Head surgeon would be responsible and it would be HIS fault even if a second surgeon came in to help! For why take out his spleen if the patient just needed knee surgery?
Can Not Iraq pay for our Military? After all Our Military is policing them? and they have a bigger oil reserve than the USA

Answer 5

Why would we waste billions of dollars intervening in a civil war when we could secure the pipeline and oil fields for substantially less? What we are doing in Iraq is fiscally irresponsible. It was a bad investment. People are tired of throwing good money after bad. Here's an alternative analogy. Suppose you own your own business - in an effort to grow your business you slash prices and increase spending. You try this strategy for four years and have accumulated more debt than you can pay in this lifetime should you stay the course. Do you change direction or just continue on with business as usual?

Answer 6

The Republican neocons cooked the books and beat a drum of urgency to start the conflict. no longer all the Republicans have been for it, and a few, like Trent Lott, have been quickly lied to concerning the so-referred to as danger via Cheney. The Democrats did no longer vote for conflict. They voted, in sturdy bipartisan trend, to grant the president the authority to act by using fact they, like their Republican colleagues, have been bought a bill of things. they are at fault for no longer asking for all the data earlier permitting Bush to place the militia into operation. Bush took great thing concerning the submit-9/11 bipartisanship, went way too far and started a conflict of decision--you already know, that Bush Doctrine thingie that Palin did no longer understand approximately. If Bush and agency hadn't lied to the yank human beings and rushed to conflict in campaign mode, he does not have squandered the goodwill of no longer purely the yank human beings, however the full planet, to incorporate Iran. the determination to bypass to conflict exchange into Bush's, and he exchange into the pinnacle of the Republicans as POTUS. Then Sen. Obama voted against it, and history has shown his vote actual. meanwhile, in my job i've got considered way too many memorials for comrades who died in Iraq. i'm a liberal, and that i do no longer say a hundred% approximately this. There are no absolutes, there are continually hues of gray. I with politeness publish which you have have been given generalized.

Answer 7

I thought the war in Iraq was a success, we got Saddam, we took over the oil fields. I am just wondering why we are still there. There is nothing left to accomplish.