Last Throes

[andyfox]

Dick Cheney last month said that the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes."

Don Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "I didn't use them [the words "last throes"] and I might not use them," saying the insurgency could "go on for four, eight, ten, twelve, fifteen years, whatever . . . We don't know."

Again today, Rumsfeld said it may take as long as twelve years to defeat Iraqi insurgents and that Iraqi security forces will finish the job because U.S. and foreign troops will have left the country.

That being the case, what is the problem with setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces? The administration has maintained that setting a timetable would embolden the insurgents. But if the insurgency is going to continue anyway, why not say when we're pulling out?

Rumsfeld said, "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, ten, twelve years.

"Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

Rumsfeld, in interviews on the Sunday news shows, warned that the insurgency could grow through the year as Iraqi leaders develop a constitution for a democratic government.

At the same time, Rumsfeld defended Vice President Dick Cheney's description of the insurgency as being in its "last throes." Rumsfeld said the U.S. commander in the Middle East did not contradict Cheney when he told the Senate last week that the insurgency was as strong as it was six months ago.

"If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."

He must have a dictionary of which I am unaware.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."

He must have a dictionary of which I am unaware.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some dying persons, said to be in their "death throes", may undergo violent spasms, contortions or convulsions.

One common meaning of "throe" = spasm

[andyfox]

I don't doubt that a throe can be violent. I'm wondering about Rummy's definition of the word "last."

C'mon, just this week Rumsfeld criticized Cheney's remark. ["I didn't use them, and I might not use them."] When Republican Senator Chuck Hagel heard what Cheney said he said that the White House was "completely disconnected from reality." That's why Rummy made the talk show circuit today to emphasize that Cheney's remakr was WRONG. The insrugency is not only not in its "last throes," it will, according to Rumsfeld go on for years and we won't defeat it, it will be for the Iraqis themselves to beat it, we'll be long gone before it's defeated.

But of course he couldn't just say the VP was wrong, he had to put the best face on it he could. Nobody quite manipulates the language like Rummy does (unless it is the character in Alice in Wonderland who asserts that words don't have a definitive meaning, rather they mean what she says they mean), hence he was the perfect man for the job. Thus he tried to show why the insurgency being in its "last throes" is not different from it continuing for another twelve years.

But for those of us for whom English is our mother tongue, it is.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
He must have a dictionary of which I am unaware.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the unwritten political dictionary. It’s a ghostly and diaphanous work known only to our elected or appointed government officials.

Speaking of Rummy, I read an article about him in the recent Esquire, a magazine I somehow acquired at a coffee shop through sanguine means that can only be described as questionable. The more I read about this man; the more I like him.

'Last Throes'? Not even close. The timeline for all this goes back at least 5,000 years and will continue at least 5,000 years into the future, if we are still around in 7005 that is.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

"Last" might be wrong, although it is possible that the insurgency is now in one great big "last throe" which may linger on for years.

Come to think of it, that must be what Rumsfeld meant, no?;-)

[slamdunkpro]

If we treated Iraq like we did Oakanowa and Iwo, the insurgents would be gone in short order.

[shots]

Instead of arguing semantics I would like to address the general point of your post. Why not set a timetable to leave if we know we won't ever totally wipe out the insurgents? Well mainly that it just doesn't make sense we have to keep reassesing the situation as we go along and when the job is done we can leave there's no magic day when this will be.Of course we won't completely wipe out the insurggents but we have to make sure that there's realative security and stability before we leave.

[MMMMMM]

We are far too "kid glove" oriented over there, in my opinion.

We need to kick the crap out of the insurgents, line them up and shoot them in the village squares, and lock down any trouble spots with curfews and armored coloumns, and disarm the hot spots entirely via man-to-man and house-to-house searches.

And if they hide out in a mosque and shoot at us from there, flatten it.

We should a message of "Enough with this bulls*t"--and mean it. And it IS bullsh*t.

This is still war, and civilian rules of conduct do not and should not apply. And civilians caught trying to sabotage military or reconstructive efforts may be summarily executed--just as in our own Civil War.

[slamdunkpro]

"Time to take out the trash" (thanks Zeno)

That’s the biggest difference I see between Republicans and Democrats – Most Republicans see this as a war and if they are unhappy with the way the administration is handling it is because we aren’t treating it like a war. A lot of Democrats (in congress) want to treat this as a criminal investigation and prosecution applying domestic standards to an international event. They are upset because the administration is going beyond domestic criminal case protocols.

Paraphrasing John Wayne in the Green Berets “In a war due process is a bullet.”

[slamdunkpro]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if you could muck with time and all this occurred on Reagan’s watch.