Monk

♠
"You've betrayed Vietnam. Someday you're going to sell out Taiwan. And we're going to be around when you get tired of Israel."

-- Syrian Dictator

Mark Steyn is doing the quoting, in a piece supporting President Bush's use of the Vietnam War as an analogy for his case to stay the course, in the face of the controversy that the Vietnam analogy is more fitting for the left and why we need to withdraw from Iraq.

Losing in Iraq certainly isn't going to help America's cause, but not even having a real strategy to win isn't better. We don't seem to be able to do what it takes to win, so it is hardly insensible to cut our losses.

It is a nightmare.

It is so bad a nightmare that, if Iraq does fall into chaos and becomes effectively a platform and staging ground for anti-Western hostilities, we may have to go back sometime, maybe within ten years, and it is likely to be costlier and harder, but we might not have any choice.


(Source: Mark Steyn for The O.C. Register)

xXx

♠
The Democrats should not fight Petraeus & Crocker over their answer. They should redefine the question. They should say: “My fellow Americans, ask yourselves this: What will convey to you, in your gut — without anyone interpreting it — that the surge is working and worth sustaining?”

My answer: If I saw something with my own eyes that I hadn’t seen before — Iraq’s Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders stepping forward, declaring their willingness to work out their differences by a set deadline and publicly asking us to stay until they do. That’s the only thing worth giving more time to develop.

But it may just be too late. Had the surge happened in 2003, when it should have, it might have prevented the kindling of all of Iraq’s sectarian passions. But now that those fires have been set, trying to unify Iraq feels like doing carpentry on a burning house.

-- Thomas L. Friedman for The New York Times

xXx

♠
This is a powerful clip on the Iraq war that is perhaps making the LJ rounds. It plays like a real tragedy and is like a sharp punch to the guts.

♠
Frank Rich takes up the O'Hanlon and Pollack op-ed along with his poison-barbed treatment of all those pundits who he believes only disingenuously aver that they support the troops in what is really a desperate bid to support this Republican Bush Administration in the face of a political free-fall.

As usual, Rich is a bit one-sided, but, again, he is more of an opinion-maker than a neutral analyst. I like his strong account for my record.

I would only note that those who continue to beat the drums for an effort that would seem to have no chance at any meaningful success are not necessarily crassly poltical and partisan. For it is true that defeat in Iraq will be a terrible blow for the country, such that it could be worth almost anything to try to win, even to try to manipulate public opinion to maintain support for a long war, which is always difficult in a generally peace-loving democracy.

But you have to win. And it is not enough to be America. You have to win.

Arguably, though, the problem was choosing this war and going in only half-cocked. I, myself, thought it was a bold stroke that could be a decisive move in the larger War on Terror. But this Administration apparently went in with no conception about what it would take to secure the country, and they certainly had warnings about the consequences of breaking the country and then having to own it.

And their mess is our tragedy.

( Rich )

xXx

♠
Michael E. O'Hanlon is being reported as backtracking from that controversial op-ed declaring 'victory' is yet possible in Iraq:

In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. O’Hanlon said the article was intended to point out that the security situation was currently far better than it was in 2006. What the American military cannot solve, he said, are problems caused by the inability of Iraqis to forge political solutions. “Ultimately, politics trumps all else,” Mr. O’Hanlon said. “If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don’t see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing.”

The tone does suggest some backpedaling, but the substance of the comment only brings out the same qualification he made in the original op-ed about how success ultimately hinges on the success of the Iraq government, which seems to rest on flimsy hope indeed.


(Source: Mark Mazzetti for The New York Times)

xXx

♠
The The O'Hanlon and Pollack op-ed has erupted in tremors in the blogosphere and in Washington:

Putnam said the op-ed was more significant than recent GOP defections on Iraq. "It has shifted momentum going into August recess," he said. "It transforms the debate from purely political calculations of how many votes to prevent a defunding of the war … into an intellectual discussion about whether the surge is working."

This Politico.com article lays out the odds against any withdrawal of troops in the near term, speaking of forces that the op-ed only reinforces. In the end, the president obviously has the key strategic position when it comes to war and the troops. More than that, President Bush maintains support from enough Republicans to keep Congress from forcing his hands:

"At the end of the day, all of this hand-wringing needs to be understood (in the context) of how Congress works: There will always be 33 of us [to uphold a presidential veto], as long as there is not a complete meltdown, to support a military strategy that is aggressive and is not based on needs of the next election," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Furthermore, as far as the prospect of voters forcing Republican hands, it is noted that conservative voters are continuing to support the president's Iraq moves:

The only way Republicans will force the war's end is if voters -- especially conservative ones -- demand it. That is not happening as quickly or as forcefully as many Republicans anticipated a year ago. Polls show a majority of GOP voters still generally back the war.

What happens over this month of August is understood to be critical. In addition to possible changes on the ground, some new data could be influential. In response to the O'Hanlon and Pollack piece, George Packer is going on his own fact-finding tour.

Mr. Packer wrote "The Assassins' Gate" and we read and blogged that book. As I recall, he was neither adamantly anti-war nor a wide-eyed neo-con hawk. I would be very impressed by what he has to say.

xXx

♠
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

-- Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, "A War We Just Might Win" in The New York Times

I have come across little suggestions in the news here and there that we are actually making progress in Iraq with the surge, but I had remained persuaded by, like, the remaining 99% of the media coverage, that it is only Bush delusion that keeps us in a losing fight.

I am moved by this editorial, though. We are not talking William Kristol and The Weekly Standard. O'Hanlon and Pollack continue to point out that the political situation in the Iraq government remains critically problemsome, and I gather that all reputable accounts are solid on the fact that we are stretched disturbingly thin carrying out this war. Nevertheless, if General Petraeus can continue to secure Iraq, I am not sure that he should not have the opportunity to try it.

It has been so many disastrous years flailing away dysfunctionally in Iraq, but maybe President Bush can see through a stable Iraq government that is not a puppet to Iran and that won't fall apart and become a jihadist base.

If the Iraqi politicians can only come through...

( column )

UPDATE:

Maybe I shouldn't be seduced so easily by a smiling face. There is some real controversy about the O'Hanlon contribution.

I even checked a little before posting. O'Hanlon is part of the Brookings Institute, which is not a neo-con think tank. And Pollack is a former CIA guy who is apparently noted for being non-ideological in his analyses. And this is The New York Times! Which has hardly been a pro-war forum.

Does the Administration have something on O'Hanlon to make him support the War? This would seem farfetched.

I just don't know.

___ ___ ___

UPDATE 2

I was just taken in. It looks like O'Hanlon and Pollack were always zealously optimistic on this war.

xXx

♠
I've been meaning to get something on the General Petraeus chapter in our Iraq War woes, as there have been some serious questions about the authenticity of his public statements.

This is Frank Rich's column, so it is a bit shrill (which is often the cost of being a strong writer of rapier rhetoric). In the end, Mr. Rich suggests that it would Be Petraeus's fault if we take some terrorist attacks, for distracting us in Iraq. Of course, it really would be the terrorists' fault, as well as perhaps President Bush's responsibility for his Iraq-mania. At most General Petraeus is Bush's enabler, but if it weren't Petraeus, it would be someone else - it's just that Bush now has his man.

I wish it were Lincoln and Grant, but I'm not a believer.

( Frank Rich )

xXx

♠
The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side.

-- Adam Cohen for The New York Times

Mr. Cohen gives us the historical and constitutional grounding for the argument that Congress does have a determinative voice in matters of war. I must confess that I had thought that Bush really did have all the cards as commander in chief, in spite of the level of popular and Congressional disapproval, and this was just one of the consequences of electing the man to a second term. But I guess it's not that simple.

( Adam Cohen )

xXx

♠
“I want you to move to the Green Zone, meet with the Iraqi factions and do not come home until you’ve reached one of three conclusions: 1) You have resolved the power- and oil-sharing issues holding up political reconciliation; 2) you have concluded that those obstacles are insurmountable and have sold the Iraqis on a partition plan that could be presented to the U.N. and supervised by an international force; 3) you have concluded that Iraqis are incapable of agreeing on either political reconciliation or a partition plan and told them that, as a result, the U.S. has no choice but to re-deploy its troops to the border and let Iraqis sort this out on their own.”

-- Thomas L. Friedman for The New York Times

Mr. Friedman also lets off some steam. The above quote is the mission that he argues President Bush should charge our best negotiators. But you can tell there isn't a lot of hope left in Dubya.

We have what you might call a presidential crisis: no president.

( Friedman )

xXx