I found this shot on the AP wire adjacent to a report of yet another suicide bombing in Iraq. Are we winning this war, or have we done just about all we can do there?
Here's an intersting slant authored by James Dobbins, Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at Rand:
The recent American presidential campaign has had the perverse effect of postponing any serious national debate on the future U.S. course in Iraq. Electoral considerations placed a premium on consistency at the expense of common sense, with both candidates insisting that even with perfect hindsight they would have acted just as they did two years ago: going to war or voting to authorize doing so. The campaign also revealed the paucity of good options now before the United States. Keeping U.S. troops in Iraq will only provoke fiercer and more widespread resistance, but withdrawing them too soon could spark a civil war. The second administration of George W. Bush seems to be left with the choice between making things worse slowly or quickly.
The beginning of wisdom is to recognize that the ongoing war in Iraq is not one that the United States can win. As a result of its initial miscalculations, misdirected planning, and inadequate preparation, Washington has lost the Iraqi people's confidence and consent, and it is unlikely to win them back. Every day that Americans shell Iraqi cities they lose further ground on the central front of Iraqi opinion.
1 comment:
Now I know why I bought the Hummer
I bought it for good gas mileage. That didn't turn out to be ''accurate.'' I bought it because it's big.
We reason we invaded Iraq was to rid the place of WMDs. There were no WMDs. The Bushies went into WDF-mode. The reason for the invasion now moot, excuses abound. Bush never makes a mistake.
If you thought backing away from a reason was difficult, try backing away from an excuse. Before, you were wrong. Now, you're wrong and a liar.
Post a Comment