Reinforce Baghdad (WaPo: OpEd by Neocon William Kristol)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091100879.html

Reinforce Baghdad
By William Kristol and Rich Lowry
Tuesday, September 12, 2006; A23

We are at a crucial moment in Iraq. Supporters of the war, like us, have in the past differed over tactics. But at this urgent pass, there can be no doubt that we need to stop the downward slide in Iraq by securing Baghdad.

There is no mystery as to what can make the crucial difference in the battle of Baghdad: American troops. A few thousand U.S. troops have already been transferred to Baghdad from elsewhere in Iraq. Where more U.S. troops have been deployed, the situation has gotten better. Those neighborhoods intensively patrolled by Americans are safer and more secure. But it is by no means clear that overall troop numbers in Baghdad are enough to do the job. And it is clear that stripping troops from other fronts risks progress elsewhere in the country.

The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment. This means the ability to succeed in Iraq is, to some significant degree, within our control. The president should therefore order a substantial surge in overall troop levels in Iraq, with the additional forces focused on securing Baghdad.

...

Administration spokesmen have jettisoned talk of "staying the course" in Iraq in favor of "adapting to win." If those words are to have meaning, the administration can't simply stay the course on current troop levels. We need to adapt to win the battle of Baghdad. We need substantially more troops in Iraq. Sending them would be a courageous act of presidential leadership appropriate to the crisis we face.

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard. Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.

Hey Bill and Rich: Are you and your kids signing up to be part of "more troops"? Thought so.

[Ilsa]

1. Let's hope they take mAnn Coulter and that asshole

limpbog and a few others with them. No excuses about being too old or too thin or too fat or not drugged up enough. Send their asses NOW.

[madeline_con]

2. Come on, Dingleberries, say what you mean...

just secure the oil wells and terminals. Fuck the rest of it!

[rodeodance]

3. what a whiner!

[Oilwellian]

4. What a complete turn around from their previous editorials

Rich Lowry, National Review, April 14, 2006 -- just 5 months ago

You hardly qualify as a retired general these days unless you have written an op-ed piece demanding Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. One of Rummy's alleged sins was not providing enough troops to secure postwar Iraq. The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is both characteristically American and somewhat beside the point.

Obviously, if we had it to do over again, we would send more troops in the hopes that sheer numbers would head off our problems. But to think that higher troop levels would have been a magic bullet is to indulge a very American faith in the power of mass to overcome anything. In Iraq, we have faced a delicate political and cultural problem that requires finesse above all — finesse dependent on a fine-tuned understanding of an alien society.

So, in just five short months in Rich Lowry World, we went from "The debate over troop levels" is "somewhat beside the point" and "to think that higher troop levels would have been a magic bullet is to indulge a very American faith in the power of mass to overcome anything" to "There is no mystery as to what can make the crucial difference in the battle of Baghdad: American troops" and "The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment." It's not just profoundly wrong; it's worse than that. It's ludicrous.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/