Leave Or Stay? More Dualistic Political Artwork From The President - Subtitle: The Difference Between Tactics And Strategy

I love Martha's approach to questioning the president almost as much as I enjoy reading Helen's questions. Today, Marth sets up a great question. Let's have a look at the President's "Answer."

Q That's quite all right. Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You've continually cited the elections, the new government, its progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You've had to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?

This is a fairly straight forward question. A very good one at that. Let's see what the President has to say:

THE PRESIDENT: You know, Martha, you've covered the Pentagon, you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so.

Q I'm talking about strategy --

Ah, I see, diverson won't work. Have another try Mr. President:

THE PRESIDENT: The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as I'm the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.

Still doesn't answer the question, now does he. Can he prove his his points? Are we shoveling a dream down the Iraqi's throats? Did that "dream" exist before we got there or did he forget that we were supporting Saddam long ago to have him enforce his dream on the Iraqi people? Leaving will "embolden extremists?" I say, prove it.

No, we're not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this government succeed. That's the strategic -- and not only to help the government -- the reformers in Iraq succeed, but to help the reformers across the region succeed to fight off the elements of extremism. The tactics are which change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is complete. And we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.

there's another great leap. We weren't in Iraq when they attacked us before, but there is no way you can prove that being there stops them from attacking here. Or if you move the troops elsewhere, say to where OBL is and "bring him to justice" that we couldn't stop "terrorism" by means of a different, but workable strategy...but the W, spills on:

And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with Plan Baghdad. And that's when we moved troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replaced them with the Stryker Brigade, so we increased troops during this time of instability.

Suzanne.

Q Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy --

THE PRESIDENT: Sounded like the question to me.

See, you didn't answer the question but continue to use these venues to push your own political agenda, Mr. President. You don't want to hear what the real answer is: That the W, Rove and Co strategy is not working well, not by a long shot.

Q You keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave. But is your strategy to win working? Even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before, these things have happened before.

THE PRESIDENT: If I didn't think it would work, I would change -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy. They believe it will work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki government has been in power for less than six months. And, yes, the people spoke. I've cited that as a part of -- the reason I cite it is because it's what the Iraqi people want. And the fundamental question facing this government is whether or not we will stand with reformers across the region. It's really the task. And we're going to stand with this government.

Obviously, I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as the Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down. But, incredibly enough, they show great courage, and they want our help. And any sign that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country.

This is a campaign -- I'm sure they're watching the campaign carefully. There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now; vote for me, I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they'll try to do to get our troops out. It's a big mistake. It would be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the mission is complete in Iraq.

More speculation from the presdident...and no real answer for Martha and the American people go unrequited.

The difference between tactics and strategy are important. More importantly, staying the course in a failed strategy does not mean abandoning the overall vision for the mission.