Surge in foolishness
Tom Friedman has an article in today's New York Times declaring that "[i]f it takes a Middle East expert to explain to you why... [a surge] is working, it’s not working." Therefore, he has no interest in what Petraeus or Crocker will say in September.
Having been disastrously wrong on the Oslo process over a period of years, among other things, Friedman demonstrates that if one spouts nonsense with enough self-importance, some will take it for wisdom.
The surge presumes that political accord will follow, not precede, physical security. To understand whether security is being achieved and how it ties into the process for achieving political accord, you need to hear from the people charged with implementing the policies. Otherwise, CNN is setting your military and foreign policy, and CNN is in business to make money, not promote US interests.
I am not saying here that the surge will establish security or that it will lead to political accord, but shutting our eyes and ears is foolish. Isn't this the complaint that many make of how the White House handled pre-war intelligence?
Having been disastrously wrong on the Oslo process over a period of years, among other things, Friedman demonstrates that if one spouts nonsense with enough self-importance, some will take it for wisdom.
The surge presumes that political accord will follow, not precede, physical security. To understand whether security is being achieved and how it ties into the process for achieving political accord, you need to hear from the people charged with implementing the policies. Otherwise, CNN is setting your military and foreign policy, and CNN is in business to make money, not promote US interests.
I am not saying here that the surge will establish security or that it will lead to political accord, but shutting our eyes and ears is foolish. Isn't this the complaint that many make of how the White House handled pre-war intelligence?
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:00 AM
2 Comments:
I agree that dismissing the Petraeus report out of hand is foolish -- we need every bit of information we can find. It's sad that the American people have pretty much decided that it won't change anything. The fact that it's being written by the White House, not General Petraeus, further damages its credibility. But I certainly want to read it when it comes out.
The NYT has another piece on Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
It was written by seven soldiers, mostly sergeants, of the 82nd Airborne. They criticize much of what we're doing in Iraq. I anticipate that they will be subjected to some petty official retaliation, and that the right will proceed to demonize them, promulgating all sorts of tales about their moral and intellectual deficiencies. I have never understood the right's penchant for personal attacks.
I am waiting to hear what Gen. Petraeus has to say before any judgement. All I have read leads me to believe that the surge is working. That is the operative word-working. It will be a longer process that some people will not have the patience for. But, I believe that it will bring back some who have felt that the effort has been in a huge bump in the road. I think what we are discovering is that in the initial begining of the conflict, more troops should have been sent and wholesale dismantling of the Iraqi armed forces may have not been the right thing. I am sure there were some professional soldiers and generals that would have been able to assist the coalition forces from the begining. Also, we probably should have taken out al-Sadr when we had a chance. But even there, we are trying to fight a politically correct war. Wait for General Petraeus' report, then we can take it from there.
Post a Comment
<< Home