By: E&P Staff Nearly all of the national debate over what to do about Iraq has centered on withdrawing troops or staying the course. Now two influential conservative editors/pundits have called for sending many more troops to Iraq, in an Op Ed in Tuesday's Washington Post.
William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and Rich Lowry, editor of The National Review, have both been close to the Bush administration, raising the possibility that their column could be a kind of trial balloon. They declare: "We are at a crucial moment in Iraq. Supporters of the war, like us, have in the past differed over tactics. But at this urgent pass, there can be no doubt that we need to stop the downward slide in Iraq by securing Baghdad.
"There is no mystery as to what can make the crucial difference in the battle of Baghdad: American troops. A few thousand U.S. troops have already been transferred to Baghdad from elsewhere in Iraq. Where more U.S. troops have been deployed, the situation has gotten better. Those neighborhoods intensively patrolled by Americans are safer and more secure. But it is by no means clear that overall troop numbers in Baghdad are enough to do the job. And it is clear that stripping troops from other fronts risks progress elsewhere in the country.
"The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment. This means the ability to succeed in Iraq is, to some significant degree, within our control. The president should therefore order a substantial surge in overall troop levels in Iraq, with the additional forces focused on securing Baghdad.
"There is now no good argument for not sending more troops."
To read the rest of the column, click
here.
For a rebuttal by blogger Glenn Greenwald:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/rich-lowry-serious-foreign-policy.html
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here