ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, August 13, 2007

The NYTimes Flip-Flops - Calls for Continued Efforts in Iraq

This editorial today is just idiotic in the back-handed way that they arrive at supporting our efforts in Iraq, but we're not surprised by anything from the Times these days:

August 13, 2007
Editorial

Wrong Way Out of Iraq


As Americans argue about how to bring the troops home from Iraq, British forces are already partway out the door. Four years ago, there were some 30,000 British ground troops in southern Iraq. By the end of this summer, there will be 5,000. None will be based in urban areas. Those who remain will instead be quartered at an airbase outside Basra. Rather than trying to calm Iraq’s civil war, their main mission will be training Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, while doing limited counterinsurgency operations.

The previous paragraph reads more accurately if you replace "Americans" with "Democractic Presidential Candidates and the Inside The Bubble Mainstream Media."

Also, it's interesting to see that the Times is fretting about the lack of military intervention into Iraq's "civil war" and limited counterinsurgency ops. Hmmmm... I thought that The SurgeTM had these very objectives?

Back to the op-ed:
That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It’s a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed.

Again, replace "some Americans" with "Democratic Presidential Candidates" and it's a bit more accurate.

I like how the Times just can't let this editorial continue with getting in a jab about how the mission has failed, but I do appreciate their restraint in not adding "despite Bush's Mission Accomplished banner."
If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work — that the United States can simply stay in Iraq in reduced numbers, while ignoring the civil war and expecting Iraqi forces to impose order— the British experience demonstrates otherwise. There simply aren’t reliable, effective and impartial Iraqi forces ready to keep the cities safe, nor are they likely to exist any time soon. And insurgents are not going to stop attacking Americans just because the Americans announce that they’re out of the fight.

I don't recall the White House pushing for a reduction in forces, but an increase... Perhaps I'm detecting a slam on the WH when one wasn't intended, when they actually are attacking those outside of the White House (aka Democratic Presidential candidates).
In Basra — after four years of British tutelage — police forces are infiltrated by sectarian militias. The British departure will cede huge areas to criminal gangs and rival Shiite militias. Without Iraqis capable of taking over, the phased drawdown of British troops has turned ugly. The remaining British troops hunkered down in the city at Basra Palace are under fire from all directions. Those at the airbase are regularly bombarded.

And Basra should be easier than Baghdad. Most of the population is Shiite, and neither Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia nor other Sunni insurgent groups have a significant presence. Elsewhere in Iraq, where internal rivalries are overshadowed by the Sunni insurgency, sectarian civil war and rampant ethnic cleansing, a reduced American force might find itself in an even worse predicament. The clear lesson of the British experience is that going partway is not a realistic option.

The NYTimes finally realizes that you can't be halfway at war... nor can you be halfway pregnant. Welcome to reality, you twerps.

Here's the kicker:
The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.

But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. That’s exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.

Holy cow... someone must've run a few polls over the past few weeks and shown the results to the Times, because this is a total flip-flop.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler