Krugman: What About Iraq?

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

A funny thing happened after the United States transferred sovereignty over Iraq. On the ground, things didn't change, except for the worse.

But as Matthew Yglesias of The American Prospect puts it, the cosmetic change in regime had the effect of "Afghanizing" the media coverage of Iraq.

He's referring to the way news coverage of Afghanistan dropped off sharply after the initial military defeat of the Taliban. A nation we had gone to war to liberate and had promised to secure and rebuild - a promise largely broken - once again became a small, faraway country of which we knew nothing.

Incredibly, the same thing happened to Iraq after June 28. Iraq stories moved to the inside pages of newspapers, and largely off TV screens. Many people got the impression that things had improved. Even journalists were taken in: a number of newspaper stories asserted that the rate of U.S. losses there fell after the handoff. (Actual figures: 42 American soldiers died in June, and 54 in July.)

[grytpype]

1. Nobody wants to say anything...

... because nobody knows.

Our Army and Marines, Reserves, and NG are already stretched beyond their limit. It is hard to see how we can maintain the current force levels in Iraq.

And even those forces are inadequate to stablize the country enough that we can leave.

Someone else is going to have to step in, but for God's sake who?

Iraqis are not going to fight to enforce American policy against their fellow Iraqis. But that is what Bush's strategy is now: train Iraqi police and security forces to fight their own countrymen on the side of the Americans, and under American command. There is no possibility that this can work. There is simply no way.

So the help will have to come from elsewhere. The only way to get international cooperation is to allow sharing of command with the allies. Bush refused to do what was necessary to get international involvement. Kerry's best argument for why he would be better than Bush w/r/t Iraq is that he would be more credible and flexible in seeking and getting international aid. No one trusts Bush anymore.

[tom_paine]

2. kick for Krugman

:kick: