Two Views on Ending the War -- Or Continuing It Maybe Forever
Michael Gordon (of the Times) and Andrew Bacevich (in the Post) fundamentally disagree on the "surge" and the urgency to extract the U.S. from Iraq as soon as feasible.
By Greg Mitchell
(January 20, 2008) -- Old reliable Michael Gordon of The New York Times, who helped bring us this war, explained today in the paper's Week in Review what's wrong with all of the Democratic candidates' plans for a phased withdrawal from Iraq.
His prime assumption, as always, is that only the U.S. can save the Iraqis from each other. Umm, I believe we have spent thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and almost five years training a very large Iraqi army and police force?
Gordon once got his wrists slapped by his bosses for endorsing the surge on Charlie Rose.
Now he lamely declares, in shooting down the argument for a timetable for withdrawal in 2009, that "if the Iraqis know that American forces are on their way out regardless of what they do, would they be more likely to respond by overcoming their differences or by preparing for the sectarian blood bath that might follow?"
Well, they could do both: But it's up to them. It's their country, and their citizens.
For a more sane commentary, try the redoubtable Andrew Bacevich at The Washington Post today. Bacevich, a former military officer, is one of the sharpest analysts (who also happens to have lost a son in Iraq, unlike virtually anyone else who writes about the war).
His opinion piece is titled "Surge to Nowhere," and carries this deck: "Don't buy the hawks' hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair, and we still own it."
more...
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003699323Bacevich's article here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2734948&mesg_id=2734948