On Jun 13, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Michael Pollak wrote:
> BTW, just for the record, your (correct) analysis of why surge is a
> failure
Cover of this week's Economist (tomorrow's conventional wisdom today!, though this particular meme has been circulating for several months): "Iraq starts to fix itself." Though I doubt that Krauthammer (who, by the way, has to be the ugliest person reguarly on TV) would agree with the Economist's conclusion:
> It's really not about that any more
> In highlighting the improved conditions in Iraq we do not mean to
> justify The Economist's support of the invasion of 2003 (see
> article). Too many lives have been shattered for that. History will
> still record that the invasion and occupation have been a debacle.
> Iraqis even now live under daily threat of violent death: hundreds
> are killed each month. They remain woefully short of the
> necessities of life, such as jobs, clean water and electricity.
> Iraq's government is gaining confidence faster than competence. It
> is still fractious, and in many places corrupt.
>
> Nor does it follow that a turn for the better necessarily validates
> John McCain's insistence on America staying indefinitely. A safer
> Iraq might make Barack Obama's plan to pull out most American
> troops within 16 months more feasible, though at the moment a
> precipitate withdrawal looks foolish. But to guard the fragile
> improvements, the key for America must be flexibility. Both
> candidates have to keep their options open. If America's next
> president gets Iraq wrong because he has boxed himself in during
> the campaign, all the recent gains may be squandered and Iraq will
> slide swiftly back into misery and despair. That would be to fail
> twice over.
>