« While Reading Virginia Woolf | Main | 40 Lashes For A Teddy Bear » 26 Nov 2007 02:59 pm In Iraq For Good , Iraq"> , Middle East"> , Military"> , Politics"> , War">
Clive Crook endorses the "grueling option": "a large continuing military commitment, in support of more modest goals." My own sense is as I wrote here:
The question is: do we want a president slowly withdrawing troops from Iraq to be someone who backed the war in the first place or one who didn't? If we're going to have a de facto empire in the Middle East, wouldn't it be better if it were seen as a reluctant empire, rather than a continuing provocation to Muslims and a recruiting tool for Islamists? There are only three candidates for president who opposed the biggest mistake in American foreign policy since Vietnam when it mattered: Obama, Paul and Kucinich. Only one did so on entirely pragmatic grounds. If we're stuck in Iraq, wouldn't it be better to have a president who can legitimately claim he didn't want to be there in the first place but isn't reflexively opposed to all use of American power? At least that way, there's a small chance we can escape before too long, and a smaller chance that the threat of withdrawal might precipitate some kind of functional government coalition in Baghdad. TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c45669e200e54fa1d3c28834 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'In Iraq For Good' |
