joe1347 said:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1106254,00.html
. . . . But the Pentagon leadership is unlikely to support a strategy that concedes broad swaths of territory to the enemy. In fact, none of the intelligence officers who spoke with TIME or their ranking superiors could provide a plausible road map toward stability in Iraq.
The key word here, of course, is "plausible". Who made that judgment of plausibility? The journalist, of course. But what are his criteria? How does he evaluate plausibility? Does he have a track record on evaluating such plans? We do not know. We have only his word.
I do not take journalists at their word alone, not anymore. They have not earned my trust, they have earned my mistrust.
It is quite possible that the occupation of Iraq was an unwise proposition from the start, as many U.S. allies in the region warned before the invasion.
Sure. It was also possible that our invasion could create a massive exodus of refugees from Iraq, as allies in the region warned. It's also possible that the conflict could spill out into a broader conflict, and even spark open war between Israel and its neighbors, for example. We were also warned about those things. It was also possible that these things would NOT happen.
And they did not happen. That's the possibility that actually came to pass.
It is quite possible that the occupation of Iraq was not an unwise proposition from the start.
Yet, despite their gloom, every one of the officers favors continuing—indeed, augmenting—the war effort.
Funny, but I often see journalists describe the military as being gloomy about Iraq. Yet when I listen to what the military people are ACTUALLY saying, it comes across entirely differently. Take, for example, this very interesting press event on Tal Afar:
http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050913-3901.html
Note, in particular, the last paragraph, the parting words from Col. McMaster to the press:
"And please, everybody, just please tell the American people how great their soldiers are. You've got to tell them. I mean, it is unbelievable what they're doing. I mean -- and I know I can't keep you any longer, but I just want to tell you, they're fighting. They're defeating the enemy. They are partnered with Iraqi security forces. They're building Iraqi security force capability. They're providing humanitarian assistance. They're organizing reconstruction right now. They are taking care of the people of the city as they're pursuing the enemy. I mean, it is extraordinary the quality of the young men and women who we have here pursuing the enemies of our nation and helping to secure the people of Tall Afar and western Ninevah. So you got to tell them."
I don't think the press is telling us.
Certainly seems like we're now in a dammed if we do and dammed if we don't situation.
We'll be damned by our critics if we do (stick it out), but I have no reason to think that we'll be damned by the actual events. I see no reason to think we cannot win. We're on a path to creating a self-sufficient, democratic Iraqi government. In the long run, that's really the victory condition. And at every single major milestone along that path, the terrorists have failed to stop our progress. They could not stop the handover of sovereignty. They could not stop the creation of an interim government. They could not stop elections. They have not stopped the drafting of a constitution. They will not stop the ratification of that constitution. There is, in short, nothing that they can do which actually prevents us from reaching our victory condition.
And yet, it is always OUR position, not the terrorists' position, which is portrayed as being hopeless. Sorry, but I really don't get it.
