Posted on 12/03/2007 6:28:19 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
Supporters of the Iraq invasion lower the bar for success as they try to justify the U.S. course
Campaigning in New Hampshire last week, Rudy Giuliani said he has never doubted for a moment that invading Iraq was a good idea.
"I actually believe that Democrats are going to agree with me on that by the time we get to the general election," Giuliani told the editorial board of the Manchester Union-Leader.
Now, it sure would be nice if Guiliani's prediction pans out. If the situation in Iraq improves so much over the next year that Democrats have to start bragging about how much they supported the invasion, it means things in Iraq have taken a turn for the downright wonderful.
But hard as we might wish it, that's just not likely. In fact, Giuliani's prediction will probably prove about as accurate as that infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner or those pre-war claims that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.
Giuliani bases his optimism on the fact that violence in Iraq has subsided from its peak of last summer to the levels of 2005. (It's telling that two years ago, those levels of violence were considered unacceptably high; today, they are grounds for celebration.)
The decline in violence has come in part because we "surged" more than 30,000 additional troops into the country, in part because our military has smarter leadership, and in part because the fortunes of war finally began to break a bit our way. But it has also allowed Giuliani and others, such as Sen. John McCain, to proclaim that we are now winning in Iraq.
But winning what exactly? What might this "victory" at the end of the rainbow actually look like? The answer to that is more than a little vague.
As we have been reminded many times by President Bush, Gen. David Petraeus, McCain and many others, the military goal of reducing violence has always been just a part —- the less important part —- of our longer-term strategy in Iraq. Right from the beginning, advocates of the surge cautioned that if improved security is not followed by reconciliation among Iraq's sects, tribes and militias, the gamble will have failed and violence will likely reassert itself over time.
And unfortunately, no one —- not even Giuliani —- argues that the much-sought reconciliation has occurred or is occurring. Even with violence down significantly in some areas, none of the major benchmarks of Iraqi progress set by President Bush back in January has been accomplished. It is hard to argue that Iraqi national leaders have even made a serious attempt at resolving their differences.
For some, that doesn't seem to matter. Giuliani and others are content to take a situation that we once regarded as failure and embrace it as victory, even when it isn't. There's an undeniable emotional appeal to that approach.
But in reality, with more troops employing smarter tactics under better leadership, we have won what amounts to a stalemate. And with the surge now ending and U.S. troop levels beginning to decline, even maintaining that stalemate in the months to come could prove a challenge.
So . . . is stalemate really victory, especially if it requires keeping 100,000 or more troops on a war footing in Iraq for many years to come, at huge expense to U.S. taxpayers?
Maybe Giuliani believes that outcome was worth all this. Most of his fellow Americans would disagree.
THe AJC is Cox owned,I think.
I view this as a wonderful development. I want them to continue owning defeat until the last possible moment they can and still pass the laugh test.
You're right I was thinking of the Boston Globe while writing about the AJC
Jay Bookman hates the counrty that lets him spew his lies and hate. He has no credibility here in Atlanta.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.