Still, the hard thinking that was not done before the war, or even during it, has to be done now. If, really, reliance on the Iraqi army is just a fig leaf to cover what ultimately will be a sorry U.S. withdrawal anyway, then it would be best to leave now rather than later. Maybe the administration is justified in reporting some progress in the war against the insurgents -- some journalists are finding confirmation -- but this is an administration famous for its happy talk and mindless optimism. It has shown itself capable of becoming intoxicated on its own ideology, and it has, as a result, deservedly earned our deepest skepticism.From the editorial board we have Strategy for Iraq. This editorial to is against an immediate withdrawal or timetable.
Yet Mr. Bush continues to understate the magnitude of the challenge. The hard truth, as the administration's own strategy paper puts it, is that "it is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power." It's not realistic to expect it after four years, either -- whether or not there are benchmarks and timetables.OK, there seems to be some agreement that Bush has no plan that is based on reality. What neither editorial addresses is what that means.
One thing we do know is that there is a timetable. That timetable is set by two factors. The first is that the American military is simply unable to "stay the course" much longer, the generals know this but as usual the administration isn't listening. The second factor is the American people. The have heard and had enough. As the midterms approach the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats will have to listen.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be Nice