Two Views on Ending the War -- Or Continuing It Maybe Forever
Posted: 1/20/2008 | By: Greg Mitchell
Old reliable Michael Gordon of The New York Times, who helped bring us this war, explained today in the paper's Week in Review what's wrong with all of the Democratic candidates' plans for a phased withdrawal from Iraq.
His prime assumption, as always, is that only the U.S. can save the Iraqis from each other. Umm, I believe we have spent thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and almost five years training a very large Iraqi army and police force?
Gordon once got his wrists slapped by his bosses for endorsing the surge on Charlie Rose.
Now he lamely declares, in shooting down the argument for a timetable for withdrawal in 2009, that "if the Iraqis know that American forces are on their way out regardless of what they do, would they be more likely to respond by overcoming their differences or by preparing for the sectarian blood bath that might follow?"
Well, they could do both: But it's up to them. It's their country, and their citizens.
For a more sane commentary, try the redoubtable Andrew Bacevich at The Washington Post today. Bacevich, a former military officer, is one of the sharpest analysts (who also happens to have lost a son in Iraq, unlike virtually anyone else who writes about the war).
His opinion piece is titled "Surge to Nowhere," and carries this deck: "Don't buy the hawks' hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair, and we still own it."
He reviews the year-old escalation: "In short, the surge has done nothing to overturn former secretary of state Colin Powell's now-famous 'Pottery Barn' rule: Iraq is irretrievably broken, and we own it. To say that any amount of 'kicking ass' will make Iraq whole once again is pure fantasy. The U.S. dilemma remains unchanged: continue to pour lives and money into Iraq with no end in sight, or cut our losses and deal with the consequences of failure.
"In only one respect has the surge achieved undeniable success: It has ensured that U.S. troops won't be coming home anytime soon. This was one of the main points of the exercise in the first place."
He concludes:
"The real legacy of the surge is that it will enable Bush to bequeath the Iraq war to his successor -- no doubt cause for celebration at AEI, although perhaps less so for the families of U.S. troops. Yet the stubborn insistence that the war must continue also ensures that Bush's successor will, upon taking office, discover that the post-9/11 United States is strategically adrift. Washington no longer has a coherent approach to dealing with Islamic radicalism. Certainly, the next president will not find in Iraq a useful template to be applied in Iran or Syria or Pakistan.
"According to the war's most fervent proponents, Bush's critics have become so 'invested in defeat' that they cannot see the progress being made on the ground. Yet something similar might be said of those who remain so passionately invested in a futile war's perpetuation. They are unable to see that, surge or no surge, the Iraq war remains an egregious strategic blunder that persistence will only compound."
The full piece is at www.washingtonpost.com.
*
To comment or read more, go to blog.
His prime assumption, as always, is that only the U.S. can save the Iraqis from each other. Umm, I believe we have spent thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and almost five years training a very large Iraqi army and police force?
Gordon once got his wrists slapped by his bosses for endorsing the surge on Charlie Rose.
Now he lamely declares, in shooting down the argument for a timetable for withdrawal in 2009, that "if the Iraqis know that American forces are on their way out regardless of what they do, would they be more likely to respond by overcoming their differences or by preparing for the sectarian blood bath that might follow?"
Well, they could do both: But it's up to them. It's their country, and their citizens.
For a more sane commentary, try the redoubtable Andrew Bacevich at The Washington Post today. Bacevich, a former military officer, is one of the sharpest analysts (who also happens to have lost a son in Iraq, unlike virtually anyone else who writes about the war).
His opinion piece is titled "Surge to Nowhere," and carries this deck: "Don't buy the hawks' hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair, and we still own it."
He reviews the year-old escalation: "In short, the surge has done nothing to overturn former secretary of state Colin Powell's now-famous 'Pottery Barn' rule: Iraq is irretrievably broken, and we own it. To say that any amount of 'kicking ass' will make Iraq whole once again is pure fantasy. The U.S. dilemma remains unchanged: continue to pour lives and money into Iraq with no end in sight, or cut our losses and deal with the consequences of failure.
"In only one respect has the surge achieved undeniable success: It has ensured that U.S. troops won't be coming home anytime soon. This was one of the main points of the exercise in the first place."
He concludes:
"The real legacy of the surge is that it will enable Bush to bequeath the Iraq war to his successor -- no doubt cause for celebration at AEI, although perhaps less so for the families of U.S. troops. Yet the stubborn insistence that the war must continue also ensures that Bush's successor will, upon taking office, discover that the post-9/11 United States is strategically adrift. Washington no longer has a coherent approach to dealing with Islamic radicalism. Certainly, the next president will not find in Iraq a useful template to be applied in Iran or Syria or Pakistan.
"According to the war's most fervent proponents, Bush's critics have become so 'invested in defeat' that they cannot see the progress being made on the ground. Yet something similar might be said of those who remain so passionately invested in a futile war's perpetuation. They are unable to see that, surge or no surge, the Iraq war remains an egregious strategic blunder that persistence will only compound."
The full piece is at www.washingtonpost.com.
*
To comment or read more, go to blog.