A chronology of successes in Iraq
Petraeus lets slip the ugly truth of this war
Andrew Sullivan
Sunday Times of London
When historians look back on the past week in Washington, I suspect they will see it as a seminal moment. It was the moment when the president and his party recommitted themselves to an indefinite, decades-long Iraq occupation, and when the Iraq war was formally handed over to the next president, with forces near the maxed-out 2006 level.
The realist and moderate Republicans were essentially defused by the calm, factual demeanour of General David Petraeus, with the key senators John Warner, Richard Lugar and Pete Domenici deferring to the president in the face of the first trickle of good news from Anbar.
Amazingly, the president even got the press to echo the notion that he is actually withdrawing troops, when he is simply maintaining the maximum level compatible with not breaking the US military entirely.
And so, barring something unforeseen, after the surge dies its predicted cyclical death next spring, well over 100,000 American troops will likely be occupying Iraq when the next president takes office.
The argument that won the day is that however deep the current hole, leaving now would create an even deeper one. So they’re digging some more.
For me, the critical exchange evinced a response from Petraeus that, after a recess, he decided to withdraw. Too late. The truth had been blurted out. When staunch Republican Senator John Warner asked him: “Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?” Petraeus replied with admirable honesty: “I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.”
Who in the administration, one wonders, has?
Let us review the stated objectives of the Iraq war chronologically:
(Continued here.)
Andrew Sullivan
Sunday Times of London
When historians look back on the past week in Washington, I suspect they will see it as a seminal moment. It was the moment when the president and his party recommitted themselves to an indefinite, decades-long Iraq occupation, and when the Iraq war was formally handed over to the next president, with forces near the maxed-out 2006 level.
The realist and moderate Republicans were essentially defused by the calm, factual demeanour of General David Petraeus, with the key senators John Warner, Richard Lugar and Pete Domenici deferring to the president in the face of the first trickle of good news from Anbar.
Amazingly, the president even got the press to echo the notion that he is actually withdrawing troops, when he is simply maintaining the maximum level compatible with not breaking the US military entirely.
And so, barring something unforeseen, after the surge dies its predicted cyclical death next spring, well over 100,000 American troops will likely be occupying Iraq when the next president takes office.
The argument that won the day is that however deep the current hole, leaving now would create an even deeper one. So they’re digging some more.
For me, the critical exchange evinced a response from Petraeus that, after a recess, he decided to withdraw. Too late. The truth had been blurted out. When staunch Republican Senator John Warner asked him: “Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?” Petraeus replied with admirable honesty: “I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.”
Who in the administration, one wonders, has?
Let us review the stated objectives of the Iraq war chronologically:
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home