Time, Out of Time
Max Boot, Wall Street Journal:
… Slow progress toward an acceptable modus vivendi may still be possible as long as the U.S. doesn’t insist on artificial timetables to resolve complex and emotional issues. What incentive do Iraqi politicians have to make compromises if they think that American troops are heading out the door? If that’s the case, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would be well advised to avoid making any concessions that would strengthen their mortal enemies. Thus all the talk in Washington about troop withdrawals has the opposite effect from what is intended. Instead of spurring Iraqi politicians to compromise, it leads them to be more obdurate.
It’s still possible to stave off catastrophic defeat in Iraq. But the only way to do it is to give Gen. Petraeus and his troops more time–at least another year–to try to change the dynamics on the ground. The surge strategy may be a long shot but every alternative is even worse.
Bronwen Maddox, Times of London:
The US surge has almost run out of time – and it isn’t even complete. In military terms, President Bush’s decision to pour more troops into Iraq has had some success, if you don’t judge it by car bombs, which continue to kill dozens in Baghdad.
The only reason for it was to buy time for Iraq’s Government to get a grip – and it hasn’t. Now Congress wants deadlines for getting out, the White House has boxed itself in with self-imposed benchmarks and Gordon Brown, if Prime Minister, is likely to take a brisk view of Britain’s obligations.
In short: after five months, the surge is probably about halfway through, and the Iraqi government has wasted all of that time.
Topics: Iraq
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:54 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2007
6 Responses to “Time, Out of Time”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
“Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul. With American seriousness and credibility thus restored, we will enjoy fruitful cooperation from the region’s many opportunists, who will show a newfound eagerness to be helpful in our larger task of rolling up the international terror network that threatens us.”
Max Boot,
October 15, 2001
http://tinyurl.com/2zepdk
Exactly how wrong does a wingnut pundit have to be before the WSJ stops printing their tripe?
May 15th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Maddox’s comments are broadly reasonable but Petraeus has said over and over again wait till end of September. That said her criticisms of the Government do mirror Bing West’s recent criticisms that the real weak link is the government. I am not sure if Al Maliki is necessarily part of that problem, however I think he needs to have a real good clean out of his advisors etc. I think there has been enough smoke to conclude there is a fire in relation to some senior bureaucrats not aiding the Anbar Salvation Council/ISF in Anbar enough and also that generals and colonels that do a good job of standing up to the Shiite Militia’s keep losing their jobs or their responsibilities are changed to just looking after stationery and office supplies.
Likewise Max Boots views are valid and to some degree show why the bureaucrats are behaving the way they are ie get all the Military and police controlled by Shiite loyalists quick smart before the Americans go home.
We are in a bit of a “chicken or the egg” situation which I think Max Boot has summarised well
May 16th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
alphie:
I remember Clinton saying that we should remove Saddam from power and liberate the people of Iraq. He said that he refused to believe their tribal differences would make it impossible for them to eventually create a representative government.
No one burned any flags or ranted about wing nuts when he made that comment either.
How many faces does a lefty have? I would say at least two.
But cheer up, maybe the whole thing will go to hell and a million people will die. That would make you a happy alphie no doubt.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Clinton in 1998 in one of his many speeches on Iraq:
However, over the long term, the best way to address that threat is through a government in Baghdad, a new government that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them, that is committed to peace in the region.
Over the past year we have deepened our engagement with the forces of change in Iraq, reconciling the two largest Kurdish opposition groups, beginning broadcasts of a Radio Free Iraq throughout the country.
We will intensify that effort, working with Congress to implement the Iraq Liberation Act, which was recently passed, strengthening our political support to make sure the opposition, or to do what we can to make the opposition a more effective voice for the aspirations of the Iraq people.
Let me say again, what we want and what we will work for is a government in Iraq that represents and respects its people, not represses them. And one committed to live in peace with its neighbors.
In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between tyranny and freedom, between chaos and community, between fear and hope.
In this case, as so often in the past, the reason America can make this difference is the patriotism and professionalism of our military.
Once again, its strength, its readiness, its capacity, is advancing America’s interests in the cause of world peace.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I think the Iraqi government is working under some very difficult conditions. Many of the same people who never supported the new government in Iraq and who were willing to let Saddam play games for decades now want the new government whose members risk death just to show up for work…to overcome major obstacles on a time table the likes of which Saddam did not even have to deal with. Just think, if a decade ago the governments of Britain and the US and made such an ultimatum and meant it we might not have gone through all this.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Terrye,
I don’t see where Clinton is saying to invade Iraq. Can you paste that part, please?