Surging towards disaster
If you had any doubts that Bush was going to announce a surge when he finally unveils his new plan for Iraq, Steve Benen at the Political Animal puts those to rest with a link to the latest from the WSJ. It would lead one to believe that the surge is imminent -- if you call a paltry 20,000 troops a surge -- and it will focus on security, not training the Iraqis to secure themselves. But the money quote comes from one of the White House's chief cheerleaders.
We turned over sovereignty to the Iraqis 2 1/2 years ago and they expressed confidence then that they could handle their own security. Yet today, we're still leading the charge in what can only honestly be called a civil war. Our mission never was, nor should it be, to keep the Iraqis from killing each other. Surely, we would regain more respect in the eyes of the international community if we truly turned over sovereignty and made an orderly exit from the daily intercine warfare.
It's time for the war supporters to admit that those of us who were against the invasion from the beginning were right. It was a mistake to go in and it's a bigger mistake to stubbornly refuse to leave in order to save face for an incompetent Commander in Chief.
[Thanks to The Daou Report, Real Clear Politics and Memeorandum for the linkage]
For what it's worth, AEI resident scholar Frederick Kagan, a leading proponent of escalation, told the WSJ, "If we surge and it doesn't work, it's hard to imagine what we do after that. But we're already in a very bad spot, and if we don't do anything defeat is imminent."I'm endlessly astounded by how clearly intelligent people can continue to live in such denial and support a tactic that is doomed to fail by any realistic assessment. Yes, we're in a bad spot and all choices are doomed. There is no graceful exit route and victory, if one is to measure it by leaving behind a stable Iraq with a secular and united government, is a pipe dream that's went up in the smoke of IEDs a long time ago.
We turned over sovereignty to the Iraqis 2 1/2 years ago and they expressed confidence then that they could handle their own security. Yet today, we're still leading the charge in what can only honestly be called a civil war. Our mission never was, nor should it be, to keep the Iraqis from killing each other. Surely, we would regain more respect in the eyes of the international community if we truly turned over sovereignty and made an orderly exit from the daily intercine warfare.
It's time for the war supporters to admit that those of us who were against the invasion from the beginning were right. It was a mistake to go in and it's a bigger mistake to stubbornly refuse to leave in order to save face for an incompetent Commander in Chief.
[Thanks to The Daou Report, Real Clear Politics and Memeorandum for the linkage]
posted by Libby Spencer at 10:47 AM
9 Comments:
just say no
I'm shouting as loud as I can Lester. I don't think the prez is listening to me.
half of the names on the wall died after lbj knew the war was unwinnable. maybe kagan isn't worried about the blood stains on his hands.
Jay I think Kagan is only worried about his own reputation. The warmongers are looking a little ridiculous now that everything the anti-war predicted, which they expressed great scorn for at the time, has come true.
That's the real difference between the wingnuts and the left I think. Lefties aren't afraid to admit they're wrong if they are, while the right seems to be genetically incapable of admitting a mistake.
Greg, they're going to whine whether we support it or not and when it doesn't work they will still blame us, or the liberal media or the Tooth Fairy for why it failed.
It's a bad idea. I didn't support the invasion when half of the country was for it. Heck, I'm one of the few that predicted invading Afghanistan was a bad idea when most of the country was for it. I'm surely not going to start supporting bad policy now.
There s a "third way" beyond:
"There is no graceful exit route and victory, if one is to measure it by leaving behind a stable Iraq with a secular and united government, is a pipe dream that's went up in the smoke of IEDs a long time ago."
Victory needs to be defined by the Military Objectives that were set forward by Bush in 2003, not the Nation Building exercise of today.
Those against the War from the beginning, need to simply acknowledge that the Uniformed Military met it's objectives that they were given.
Those that have supported the War from the beginning need to acknowledge that this has grown into something beyond what was asked of the uniformed military.
The hanging of Saddam provides the perfect backdrop to not only bring the troops home but to bring them home as Victors. They did what they were asked to do and no one should try to take that away from them.
Going down this path for another year is bad for the Nation and bad for the military.
Bringing the military home in defeat is bad for the Nation and bad for the morale of the military.
We can thread the needle.
Oak Leaf, that is the most sensible take on the current situation that I've seen. I'm certainly willing to admit we met the military objectives. I thought that was true the minute they dragged Saddam out of the hole.
I have nothing but respect for the job our troops have done.
we are humbled by your presence Oak leaf
Lester, thanks for reminding of my manners. It is indeed an honor to have Oakleaf in the comments of my humble little blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home