Monday, January 08, 2007
# Posted 8:26 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Pelosi: B+. For some reason, I had trouble with the CBS podcast, so I had to read the transcript of Pelosi's interview instead. She knew exactly which point to hammer on Iraq. Bush said he would listen to the generals, but now he ignores the opposition of Casey and Abizaid to a surge. Although I think a surge is the right policy, Bush clearly flip-flopped on the issue of listening to the generals. Now he has to pay the price.See you in seven. (6) opinions -- Add your opinion
Wait a minute - all those retired generals had one major complaint about the ongoing execution of the war: not enough troops. (They had criticisms of every aspect of the war, but that's the only one that could be rectified going forward.) Bush was vilified for listening to the team he had in place rather than taking the advice of the others. Well, now he's removed the team he was supposed to ignore, and he's implementing the advice of the people he's supposed to listen to. Pelosi has flip-flopped every bit as much as Bush has.
"Bush said he would listen to the generals, but now he ignores the opposition of Casey and Abizaid to a surge."
They, GEN Abizaid and GEN Casey, are nearing the end of their commmands. What do the incoming leadership, Admiral Fallon and LTG Petraeus, think of the idea of a surge?
I can almost see the Joy Joy feelings in your writing. Oh that the Dems and Rhinos would appear every weekend.
"Although I think a surge is the right policy"
First, why do you think a surge is the right policy? What, in honest, practical terms, will it accomplish?
Petraeus, who wrote the book on counterinsurgency, is dead-on accurate that the proposed force is too little, while the adequate force necessary does not exist.
When the Pentagon announced that the number of troops in Baghdad would be increased -- increased! -- to 12,000, I, a common man-on-the-street, stood with a wild surmise. By basic common sense it's ludicrous to expect 12,000 or 30,000 men to pacify a city of nearly 6 million.
So what's the goal? What can feasibly be accomplished? If the goal to be accomplished cannot feasibly be accomplished (which just about everyone other than Bush acknowledges) then what IS the purpose? (Other than a wag-the-dog maneuver to keep the Democratic hounds off the subpoena trail.)
Second, your other correspondents have noted the apparent discrepancy between whether Bush is leading the generals or vice versa, and the apparent discrepancy between all of us on the left calling for more troops and then reversing. First, neither Bush nor the generals is really calling the shots here. You and I both know that. Second, adding more troops now is the definition of "too little, too late." We on the left were terrified all this was going to happen, precisely the way it did, the moment Rumsfeld abandoned the Powell Doctrine.
If only the Sunni and the Shi'a would be so kind as to take her advice.
Which is precisely why there has to be a political solution to this, David, unless we plan to make Iraq the 51st state.
Surge all you want, unless both sides want to live together amicably, none of it will matter
The Hermes handbags name persists to be synonymous owning just one of the selected in leather-based products for greater than 170 years. What started out out getting a institution that made saddles has grown right into a institution earth well-known for shoes, bags, and perfumes? The options that hold the Hermes name are merely outstanding.Post a Comment