Virtually everybody who doesn't work in the White House -- and many who do -- agree that we are losing in Iraq. There are only bad options left. If the administration were responsible, they would admit this fact, delineate the possible options, and choose the least bad one.
Unfortunately, they have a long track record of dishonesty. They and their toadies smeared for a long time those who dared to speak the truth -- that we are losing. Finally, after getting pummeled in the recent election, they've allowed that perhaps we aren't winning quickly enough.
Tim P. (via Andrew Sullivan) makes this prediction:
My feeling is that Iraq will play out just like the “preparations” for insurgency did. For political reasons withdrawal will be treated as a naughty word, stifling discussion and heading off planning until it becomes absolutely unavoidable. Then when the light finally goes on we will have a chaotic bugout with huge, avoidable losses of men and materiel.
Unfortunately, I suspect he's dead-on. The administration will smear anyone who suggests we might have to cut our losses and leave. (The dreaded "cut and run.") They'll do so right until there is absolutely no other option. Then it will be an unplanned, "chaotic bugout with huge, avoidable losses of men and materiel." Then they'll blame the Democrats.
If they're responsible, we can minimize the damage we do by leaving. We can set a timetable and do our best to prepare the Iraqi army. We can take other diplomatic and military options to make our inevitable withdrawal less harmful. But they're not responsible. They're going to wait and wait and soldiers are going to keep dying until finally the truth is absolutely undeniable, and then they'll bug out in an awful mess and blame the Democrats.
7 comments:
I think that's incredibly short-sighted and wrong, but I think we've gone through this one before.
(Note also: Andrew Sullivan has steadily gone off his rocker the past couple of years, from what I've seen the WSJ quote.)
It's obvious that under no circumstances could Bush ever consider any type of withdrawal from Iraq, because that would be admitting failure; and Bush just can't do that. It would mean admitting that his entire presidency was a failure. His main concern now is to save his "legacy." Let us pray that his ineptitude doesn't plunge the U.S. into deeper trouble. I actually voted for him the first time, but now I can't wait until his term is up. I worry daily about the further harm he could cause the U.S. and the world.
It was reprted in those terms here as well. - We are not winning in Iraq.
These words are carefully chosen to minimise the political blowback. When I became convinced that politicians' main focus was re-election above everything else, I gave up expecting anything but obfuscation from them.
Unfortunately JA I think that you're spot on in your analysis.
We will all be paying for the fiasco in Iraq for decades to come.
Okay,
This is a war in Iraq. Who exactly is the enemy? What would be considered victory? Please name the definitive battles in this war.
As Israelis are blown up on a daily basis by terrorists who simply want to kill them, the concept of Israel is therefore being lost according to this logic.
In another war, once Hitler was toppled and the Nazis surrendered, we didn't see the German people begin killing each other over all types of things and endangering the allies who were occupying the country.
Please remember that among the folks who gave the President power to wage this war was, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and the majority of the Congress.
asher:
If Iraq turns out like Israel, I'd consider it an overwhelming success.
In another war, once Hitler was toppled and the Nazis surrendered, we didn't see the German people begin killing each other over all types of things and endangering the allies who were occupying the country.
Any idiot could have seen this coming. There's a reason Bush I stopped without invading Iraq.
Please remember that among the folks who gave the President power to wage this war was, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and the majority of the Congress.
Don't worry. I remember.
asher said: Who exactly is the enemy? What would be considered victory? Please name the definitive battles in this war.
Good questions. The war is probably going baddly because they are so difficult to answer. As to definitive battles - there are none as such. Its a new style of war. One we are not really equiped to fight. The enemy know that they cannot win in a stand-up fight... so they don't give us one, and slowly we lose heart and eventually give up.
In another war, once Hitler was toppled and the Nazis surrendered, we didn't see the German people begin killing each other over all types of things and endangering the allies who were occupying the country.
WW2 was a totally different conflict. It was one of the last great Industrial wars. The war in Iraq is a war amongst the people where friend and enemy are indistinguisable - just like in Vietnam and just like Vietnam we will lose the war if we don't understand it.
Post a Comment