Genocide Preferred
NYT editorial board offers up a very stern and earnest demand:Â
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
NYT acknowledges what will follow:   Â
… Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.
The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.
Genocide preferred. NYT should be applauded for its honesty. An outcome that is “even bloodier and more chaotic … further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows … power grabs” is better than continuing the path of progress toward eliminating al-Qaeda, exposing and hopefully acting against Iran’s influence, training increasingly effective Iraqi troops, working with a nascent democratically elected government in its fits and starts.  Â
NYT, expert in military retreat, has thought of everything:
The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.
The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.
If only NYT was running this war from the start. Meanwhile, in the spirit of expecting Turkey and other neighboring countries to be of assistance, I have to remember to buy a scratch ticket today, because I need to pay some bills.
Moving on, NYT acknowledges Iraq’s role as a battlefield in the war on terrorism. But because Bush lied, and people died, al-Qaeda is stronger there. Strangely no mention of al-Qaeda being booted out of Anbar, local cooperation vs. al-Qaeda in Diyala and Baghdad. Counterinsurgency experts and strategic deepthinkers on NYT board counsel carrying on the fight from distant bases:
… the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.
The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.
Here I have to question NYT’s logic. Those Crusader bases will become another source of why they hate us. Okinawa is not too distant if all you need to do is drop a few bombs. After all, Bill Clinton dropped cruise missiles on Osama bin Laden, and 9/11 didn’t happen until Chimpy McHitlerburton stole the election!  But the distant we shall bolt is a detail to be worked out later. In any case, NYT strategists agree it is better to fight with one’s hands tied behind one’s back:
The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.
Now it gets confusing. NYT in remarkable admission says surrender-happy Democrats are “foolish” for thinking a forced withdrawal date will prompt the Iraqi government and its neighbors to “finally focus … on reality.” But, NYT goes on to state foolishly, a forced withdrawal date might prompt Iraq and its neighbors to finally focus on reality:
The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraq’s neighbors to help achieve a negotiated solution.
Iraq’s leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival — might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate.
NYT insists that Turkey, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia all need to show their concern, help with refugees, prevent civil war spillage.  Given the track record, this must mean shipping them all to Gaza, putting a big Israeli fence around them, and giving them rockets. Â
NYT acknowledges a fly in the ointment:
One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors — America’s friends as well as its adversaries.
Very tricky indeed. A coffee klatch should suffice:Â
Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.
For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.
In conclusion, Bush lied, people died:
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.
OK, let’s review. Bloody chaos and genocide preferable to what’s going on now. What’s going on now not discussed in any inconvenient detail. NYT has retreat all figured out, will shares plans with Pentagon. Fighting terrorism works better from a distance. Democrats are “foolish” but so is NYT. Iran, Turkey, etc., should all step up to the plate and get Israel to build a fence around Iraq. And finally, Bush lied, people died.
Makes sense to me. Out now!
Prior NYT focus on reality here. Some of the inconvenient details NYT chose not to discuss here. NYT ed board may want to read its own newspaper. NYT’s Burns on Anbar progress here. Obligingly suggests Anbar can’t be duplicated, which would have allowed NYT ed board to poo-poo Iraq progress.
UPDATES:
Don Surber elbows me aside to pick through this pile of NYT dog vomit here.Â
Lorie at Wizbang: “You’re entitled to your opinion but you’re not entitled to your facts.”Â
Bush-bashing editor Greg Mitchell at trade maggie Editor & Publisher thinks this NYT editorial will someday be viewed as historic. I already see it that way. Anyone recall offhand where NYT stood on U.S. KIAs vs. genocide circa 1944?
Dem Daily: NYT channels John Kerry, foreign policy genius.
Daily Kos: Time too short to explain all the ways NYT is as stupid as this community. More on abandoning troops in the field later.
Enough to Bring Up One’s Breakfast: Unforgiven. NYT lied, people died.Â
WarmPuppyPuddle: NYT a military genius, Al Gore busy thinking about ways to save your life!
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:10 am on Sunday, July 8, 2007
63 Responses to “Genocide Preferred”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:19 am
I can only imagine that the writers of the editorial and the publisher got into some bad merlot and/or a spoiled hallucinatory drug to come up with this nonsense. Surber rightfully rips the NYT a new a..hole.
No doubt the paper will classify this garbage as a result of deductive reasoning, not BDS.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:48 am
“Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.”
Those ideas especially go into the “cold day in hell” bin.
NYT’s principal suggestions here are based in notions of leveraging and influence and let’s make a deal, with a soupçon of John Murtha.
Seems rather pie in the sky , particularly when you consider the disinclination of Arab states (and one Persian ) to make deals with the infidel. Or the agenda of Iran in the region to establish itself as top dog, Iraq included.
As for the Times, it seems to be the hallmark of the blue state élitist to think he should be running things, instead of those yahoos in DC.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am
A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would result in the jubilant cry of jihadis everywhere that America was defeated and run out of town. How then does the NYT suppose that we could “influence” anyone, anywhere, ever again?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
At last! The NYT shows its true colors: pro-genocide.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Is it me or is the NYT, Al Queda’s mouthpiece in the US. I know about the 1st amendment, I also know about treason!!
July 8th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
[...] Also, fellow Dead Tree Media man, Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald, mockingly applauded NYT “for its honesty.” [...]
July 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
NY Times Calls for Surrender in Iraq
The left is all atwitter this morning over this absurd New York Times piece calling for surrender in Iraq. Breathtakingly delusional and dishonest throughout. They even offer helpful suggestions on how to do it.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
[...] a post titled “Genocide Preferred,” Jules Crittenden slams the NYT: OK, let’s review. Bloody chaos and genocide preferable to what’s going on now. [...]
July 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I used to believe the NYT was of sufficient quality to line my cat’s litter box. Now I must reluctantly conclude that I can’t afford to foul the litter box with the Times!
July 8th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Is it me or is the NYT, Al Queda’s mouthpiece in the US.
Bought and paid for, and they’re staying bought. This is no cheap rental.
July 8th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
The NYT needs to get some basic facts right, too. Sunnis may be the majority in Syria, but the country is run by Alawites (a sect of Shi’as, depending on who you ask - some consider Alawites to not be Muslims at all), and Sunnis really don’t have that much power. Its alliance with Iran is at least in part because of external pressure, and Iran’s the big bully of the neighborhood that Syria’s trying to get protection from….and a Shi’a bully at that. Did the NYT even do any research at all to get basic facts right?
July 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Don’t be that way, guys.
The New York Times lied to help get your war going.
It stuck by your war for over four years,
It even helped your guy get re-elected.
It’s been one of your greatest allies.
Carping about it now would reveal a lack of character.
July 8th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
[...] “Genocide Preferred” Save and Share: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
July 8th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“Genocide Preferred”
Jules Crittenden writes the New York Times “should be applauded for its honesty” regarding the results of the US leaving Iraq: An outcome that is “even bloodier and more chaotic … further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing ref…
July 8th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
A Tale of Two Papers: OUR MEDIA
That picture above will the type of things we see every single night on our news if we should leave before we have accomplished what we set out to do.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
also, have the NYT intellectuals thought about chaos throughout the Middle East? And therefore supplies of oil to the world?
Warm Puppy Puddle is a great descriptor for this idiot ‘editorial.’
July 8th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
and of course, as the US retreat from Iraq, Turkey and Kurdistan will CERTAINLY be willing to help out!!!
this will be a re-run of Anabasis, only with nuclear weaponry
July 8th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I can picture those NYT editors, preening themselves on their ‘practical’ recipe, to finally put a stop to this ‘illegal’ war, and bring the ‘boys’ (you know, the soldiers they despise) home to get jobs in MacDonalds…
and there are plenty of over educated people who will think that at last, at last, they have a smart, cool recipe for bringing Peace to the World.
Warm Puppy Puddle. Decadence personified.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
[...] Crittenden gives the less verbose version: OK, let’s review. Bloody chaos and genocide preferable to what’s going on now. What’s going [...]
July 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Ya know,
I do believe the NYT has a cunning plan. They want to get our unedjimucated sojers back from overseas so they can fill all the jobs the illegals won’t do. Heh…
To paraphrase a quote: “Will no one rid us of this meddling paper”?
Respects,
July 8th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
“It is time for the United States to leave Iraq…”
Get serious. We’re going to need bases when we finally go after Iran and Syria (also the Pale-swinians), and Iraq is as perfect a base as we’re going to get.
“President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster…”
Yeah, it’s a disaster all right. For the Baathists.
“The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces.”
Spare me. The United States and our allies have been fighting in Iraq for 17 years, and our total casualties are on the order of 5,000 killed. That’s not likely to bring us to our knees.
What a bunch of idiots.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Your outrage — and intemperate language — are fully justified. Approximately 12 hours after having read this contemptible editorial, I am having difficulty containing my own.
July 8th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
More brilliance from the New York Times…
“Doctor Accused in Glasgow Attack Described as Loner Angry About the Iraq War”
“GLASGOW, July 4 — In some ways, he was the unexceptional product of a privileged upbringing in an educated Baghdad family: an intelligent, pious young man who enjoyed swimming, hiking and socializing at the Iraqi capital’s exclusive Hunting Club.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/world/europe/05abdullah.html?fta=y
A loner who enjoys socializing, eh?
Morons.
July 8th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
“Your outrage — and intemperate language — are fully justified. Approximately 12 hours after having read this contemptible editorial, I am having difficulty containing my own.”
Hey, insulting the halfwits who run the New York Times is good for the soul, and it’ll help lower your blood pressure.
Try it.
July 8th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
The Big Shift
One day, One edition of the New York Times, Two different worlds…..
There is a big shift on concerning Iraq, but depending on which NYT article you read, it may not be the one you were thinking of.
July 8th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I’ve sometimes twitted paranoid types that they’re actually inverse egomaniacs– so important that the universe finds it worthwhile to conspire against them.
Same with any committed exploiters of victimhood, but that’s not the point I want to make.
There’s also a disguised super ethno-egotism at the foundations of the Left’s whole world view. Remember, all ills and tribulations of all societies and “races” everywhere are a result of the overweening arrogance and callous greed of Western (European) civilization, which has subordinated the equally-valid values and lifestyles of everyone else. More or less. So, clearly, these other cultures need defenders, and who better and who else than the self-abasing and own-culture-hating enlightened Western Left?
And here’s the hidden, quintessential arrogance and egotism: as Westerners, they are solely and uniquely qualified to shield and shepherd the rest of the world, victims all, from the West and especially über-evil Corporate America, Inc. The depths of this condescension are such that it is pretty much impossible to plumb, or for its hosts to acknowledge, or even to glimpse.
The tip-off is the absolute insistence on adherence to the assumptions of moral superiority imparted by other-culture victimhood, also assumed as axiomatic.
Like most forms of arrogance, including covert forms, this can get aggressive at times. Anyone denying or denigrating it is assailed as not just wrong, but evil and in cahoots with the Exploiters, and exempt from and undeserving of any protection from attacks by others, who necessarily belong to the universal class or category of Victims of Western Cultural (or Economic or Military) Imperialism.
In truth, the ones who can’t live without non-stop, 24/7 exploitation of the poor wogs and their suffering are the Saviours of the Left. Just observe quietly for a moment or a day or two. You can’t miss it.
July 8th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
A Quick Index To Today’s Posts, Quick Hits, Open Post
Click here for a handy most recently updated posts at the top listing of the posts on this page. Click here to see a similar listing for the Old War Dogs site. Indefinite light blogging Some things worth knowing about that I didn’t devote separate pos…
July 8th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
[...] through the Times’ extended shrug at the great possibility of an unprecedented slaughter, but Jules Crittenden did. His post is a must-read today. Here’s an excerpt. OK, let’s review. Bloody chaos and [...]
July 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
“But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse”
If genocide is NOT happening presently in Iraq (the Times states that it could happen if we leave), then how could keeping troops in Iraq make things worse????( assuming that genocide IS worse than what we have now).
What am I missing?
NYTimes: truly the most unintelligent and illogical opinion imaginable….but high minded!
July 8th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
[...] Here is Jules Crittenden’s critique of the editorial opinion. Maybe the Times believes, as I do, [...]
July 8th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden cracks me up: Bush-bashing editor Greg Mitchell at trade maggie Editor & Publisher thinks this NYT editorial [this one, which says “it’s time to leave Iraq. Now. –ed.] will someday be viewed as historic. I already see it that way. Anyone recall offhand where NYT stood on U.S. KIAs vs. genocide circa 1944? [...]
July 8th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
and then, there was their loving embrace of the Soviets during the Ukraine Famine… and their pride - which continues to this day - of their reporter’s knowing lies about that particular genocide. Anything for a Pulitzer, eh?
Yep.
NYT. Your go to newspaper for all the news that’s fit to print!!!!
July 8th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
sorry to come on again BUT
since when would Turkey or Kurdistan or Israel or Egypt “help” a retreating loser of an army???
because. Retreat is done by Losers!! Weaklings!! Fools!!
July 8th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
[...] one largeand how! is it safe enough. . . Sunday July 08th 2007, Filed under: commentary . . .for us (and the world) to have a leftist in charge of U.S. military? No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI [...]
July 8th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
[...] Update: Jules is more patient. Or, in any case, more thoroughgoing. [...]
July 8th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
A winner’s attitude:
“we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender”
The NY Times attitude:
“It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”
July 8th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
What did Churchill ever win, Dave?
Gallipoli?
Dunkirk, maybe?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Alphie:
2WW; he almost had 1WW sewn up, but Lloyd-George cheated at the last minute.
Cheers
July 9th, 2007 at 12:16 am
With all the wit of a child writing profanities on a wall
T-U-R-D-S…”hee hee hee”
“A-phart in the elevator” attempts suck the air out the room but only gets blue in the face.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:21 am
[...] Spades, who cannot wrap his mind around the idea that things are getting worse in Iraq. By way of Jules Crittendon, ol’ Ace gets mighty het up over an editorial in the New York Times: The NYT says that an [...]
July 9th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Sure 4Iraq,
Chruchill made nice speaches, but he had little to do with WWII victory.
If you look beyond the hype, you’ll find the Soviets bagged 90% of the Nazi soldiers killed during WWII.
The remaining 10% credit can be spread out however you want, though, to best bolster neocon mythology.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:19 am
I can hear the liberals now…
“We shall run away on the beaches, we shall run away on the landing grounds, we shall run away in the fields and in the streets, we shall run away in the hills; we shall never stop running!”
“Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the United States lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was their finest hour…no one could run away as well as these guys”
Inspiring.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Folks should know that alphie has been know to go by the name “Neville Chamberlin” at other sites (for example — http://patterico.com/2006/12/19/allah-asks-is-the-ap-covering-its-tracks/#comment-124361). So his antipathy to Churchill should be seen in that context.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:06 am
The NY Times is no Walter Cronkite! When did genocide ever both them? You had to look for reports on the post-VietNam slaughter in Cambodia between ads in the back pages.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:19 am
WWII buffs know what General McAuliffe’s reply to the German demand for the surrender of the 101st Airborne Division, cut off and trapped in Bastogne was:
“Nuts!”
If only the New York Times had been in command…the reply would have been:
“You bet! Where shall we stack our arms?”
Also…
“Can we keep our latte machine if we quit fighting right this second?”
July 9th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Operation DUNKIRK
I really think we should call it that. And speculate how many casaulties we’ll take in the future Operation OVERLORD.
In no way is this a slam on the UK. Their choice was retreat or elimination of the BEF.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:44 am
[...] Iterum. Jules Crittenden can’t believe it either. [...]
July 9th, 2007 at 9:48 am
If you look beyond the hype, you’ll find the Soviets bagged 90% of the Nazi soldiers killed during WWII.
Sure, jihad boy. Sure.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Robert Goddard, the man who invented modern rocketry, was much maligned by this same editorial page in the 1920’s. The New York Times claimed that a chemical rocket wouldn’t work in space. They questioned Professor Goddard’s understanding of physics stating that he “only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”
Robert Goddard died in 1945.
The soviets launced Luna 2 in 1959. (proving his theories correct)
The Mercury and Gemini programs sent men into space on rockets built with Goddard’s basic principles.
In 1969 with Apollo 11 just days away from landing on the moon the New York Times saw fit to print a retraction. Saying, “Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.”
That the New York Times can’t properly report something as cut and died as the laws of physics. Should tell us all that they really don’t know what they are talking about.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:51 am
BTW, folks, did you notice that, of late, THE ALPHTARD™ has to be exceptionally stupid in order to get any attention?
Congatulations! We’re getting better at ignoring this pretentious little turd, but we gotta work on it still. Set that bar just a little lower, OK?
July 9th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/07/08/genocide-prefered/#comment-20532
Very well said, Brian.
Maybe close to the icky phenomenon Nietzsche called “the religion of human kindness”.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Speaking of stupid, what was the point of your link, Jeffy?
Just like our brand new Sunni pals in Iraq, the Soviets switched over to our side during WWII.
Lucky for us, eh?
July 9th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
“The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge.”
LOL. The guys we’re fighting couldn’t destroy an American platoon much less our entire army, but to hear these guys tell it we’re just a step away from a Dien Bien Phu disaster.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
“Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong.”–NYT dolts
Yeah?
33,000 Americans died while on active duty in the armed forces of the United States during the period 1980-2000 in order to maintain all those overseas garrisons you liberal clowns established during WWII and in the post-war period.
How come you guys aren’t bitching and moaning about that?
That’s about ten times our losses in Iraq for mathematically challenged lefty types.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
NYT Editorial Board prefers genocide to victory over evil
This past weekend, the New York Times editorial board issued a call to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq, and let the chips fall where they may (with the supervision of the UN and congressional Democrats, of course). Others have
July 9th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
That’s about ten times our losses in Iraq for mathematically challenged lefty types.
That’s smart, Dave! All lefties with both hands can count up to ten. They can grasp that number!
July 9th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
What did Churchill and the Brits do during the war? Among other things, immediately extended a line of credit to the USSR after Hitler attacked the Soviets. Won the Battle of Britain, due in no small part to advanced radar systems also developed by the Brits. Along with the Poles, broke the German codes and likely hastened the end of the war by a year or two. Launched the strategic bombing campaign that occupied the attention of about 2 million Nazis, including 75 percent of the Luftwaffe and 20 percent of all artillery ammunition, causing the Nazis to produce 35 percent less armor than they
projected, 31 percent fewer aircraft (82 percent of that in fighters) and over 40 percent fewer trucks. How would the USSR have fared against that much larger force, given that they were hanging by their fingernails before Lend-Lease?
The suggestion that it was just “lucky” that the Sunnis have aligned with us is a joke; it’s the result of hard work by our troops and the barbarism of the enemy. Yet some are all too eager to fritter away what trust has been established by the US with tribes and the Iraqis generally. They will be the first to complain (and blame neocons) if a withdrawal or drawdown turns Anbar back into an AQ haven.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Is there really that much support for keeping our troops stationed in Germany, Dave?
Who, exactly, are they protecting the Germans from these days?
July 9th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Along with the Poles, broke the German codes and likely hastened the end of the war by a year or two.
This happened in spite of the Nazis and the Soviets jointly invading, and splitting up Poland, Karl. So the Soviets did their best to ensure a Nazi victory directly against the valiant efforts by the Poles and the Brits.
Until Hitler corncobbed Stalin, that is, and then Stalin hollered for help. Says a great deal for the Brits (and the Poles), and much against the Soviets. Not counting the general bail out and strategic cooperation provided to the USSR by the Allies, even after the colossal pre-WWII commie charlie foxtrot.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden [...]
July 10th, 2007 at 11:15 am
“The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing…”
Leverage?? What leverage??!! That’s like saying lying down for a mugger will give you leverage! It’s an idiotic non-sequitor based in delusional thinking!
There will be zero leverage on the US & Iraq’s allies, let alone neighboring countries once the US announces a withdrawl. What exactly about the withdrawl gives the US “leverage”? If anything, it’s the exact opposite: “Oh, the US is leaving, we can ignore anything they ask. What’ll they do about it? Stay??”. How the NYTimes can sophist up an argument about leaving giving the US some sort of “leverage” is completely beyond me.
“Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis.”
Yes, the current international pressure on Iran and Syria in regards to Hezbollah in Lebanon is working out just wonderfully, is it not?
(*Spit*)
The textual contortions necessary to even state the argument are astounding.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
.Leverage?? What leverage??!! .
Leverage with the transnational progressive movement. The only leverage that the NYT’s limousine liberals value.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:02 am
[...] the wealth and supporting their dirty wars - errrr. But Liberals are different. Liberals are caring, and sharing, and peaceful and tolerant - how could a Liberal not feel good about [...]