Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Before last week's election, The NY Times joined other slavishly liberal newspapers in the United States to make note day after day of the problems in Iraq, making sure to highlight every death of an American soldier, every death of an Iraqi civilian, to call the violence a "civil war," and to make the average American believe that the war in Iraq is lost. Pull out now, these newspapers piped every day. Why waste any more lives and money in a failed effort? they asked. When Downies called for "redeployment" (a fancy word for "withdrawal"), and timetables, and how the war was lost and that we needed to get out now with our tails between our legs, these liberal rags (whose sales continue to plummet for some unknown reason) were there to give voice to these calls for surrender. George W. Bush, calling for us to remain in Iraq and to win the war, was mocked as "staying the course." We can't follow this strategy anymore, the liberal newspapers sounded in their clarion call. Something must be done so we get out sooner rather than later.
Downies ate up this message, and in the elections last week the party took control of Congress. Time to do as the papers said and withdraw, er, redeploy, right?
Not so fast, says The Times. It could be a mistake...it could make us look bad...it could open the region up to civil war.
How interesting. Where was The Times before last week with this message?
No where - that's where. Because now they can trumpet the same thing President Bush has been saying because the election is safely over.
Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say
One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.
This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.
But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.
Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.
“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”
Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.
Yep, it is time to send in more troops - an argument completely different than the one that the Times has been making.
Just who are they kidding? All of us, naturally. Because now they can give cover to the Downies who don't want to surrender but do want to pull our troops out now, which has the same effect.
The New York Times: Do as we say, not as we say. More liberal bullshit from the paper not worth wrapping fish with.