July 13, 2007
Critics called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a change in command in Iraq and at Centcom, new strategies, and more troops. But now that we have a new secretary, a new command in Iraq and at Centcom, new strategies, and more troops, suddenly we have a renewed demand for withdrawal before the agreed-upon September accountingÂ—suggesting that the only constant in such harping was the assumption that Iraq was either hopeless or not worth the effort.
Amen to that. I had a discussion back in 2003 with a German friend who said we were wrong to go to Iraq without support from countries like France. I pointed out that the problem is that there was actually no possibility of getting France's support, that Chirac said they would not vote for war no matter what. They had already made their decision, no matter what we said or did. Same with the anti-OIF types at The Times: there's absolutely nothing we could do to ever get them to admit that Iraq is not a lost cause. So what's the point?
July 07, 2007
When Time magazine interviewed a bombmaker claiming to be responsible for Â“rising American casualties,Â” they forgot to ask the Â“sophisticated and tenacious enemyÂ” the tough questions like, Â“WhatÂ’s your exit strategy?Â” or Â“How broken is the insurgency?Â” Â“Could you define victory?Â” or even the most basic, Â“Why are you doing this?Â” The fact that the press demands accountability from one side and offers servility to the other is a very cunning strategy to win an asymmetrical war.
47 queries taking 0.0669 seconds, 136 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.