Brief post: I know I'm dollar short on this but I thought it was worth documenting for posterity:
The "end" of the "surge" was political reconciliation. The "means" was some additional forces and some new strategy. Well, the "means," by all notices, has been mildly effective. Yet when the critical September deadline occurred (which was, to most Americans, advertised to be a Go/No Go decision) we ended up with groveling equivocation by everyone. More of the same, we somehow agree to keep doing the same in the absence of any Iraqi political movement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
" has been mildly effective". Isn't it a little early to declare that? It will probably be the deadliest year to date.
U.S. Casualties By Calendar Year
If the New York Times is very belatedly admitting that, it must be true. I spoke with a recent returnee recently who said the same thing. If things continue to improve, it will be quite the conundrum for "If I knew then, what I know now then I wouldn't have voted for it" Hillary.
Jim, maybe I'm too addled by Chivas, but I don't grasp your point. From what I've gathered violence has dipped but there are no signs of the political reconciliation the "surge" was designed to foment. That fact came out today in the words of Ricardo Sanchez, our first General in Iraq, who said to bring the troops home because, as many have said, the war cannot be won militarily...there must be political progress. And I paraphrase from Clausewitz saying that war is a continuation of policy by other means.
Not only have Dem strategists already admitted they are changing their rhetoric, but Iraqi officials from two parties have asked the US to stay, to ward off Syria and Iran's meddling. Make no mistake, this war has been handled very poorly up to now, but my point is, that if it continues to improve, some Dem candidates are going to have a tricky dance to perform.
Post a Comment