David Brooks, my new favorite columnist, makes a great case for staying in Iraq until the job is done. Basically he criticizes those who are for immediate withdrawal for their naive position of “if we leave the Iraqi government will buck up and take control.” As if us leaving would infuse them with some sudden ability to reign in the chaos.
This is just a small portion of the argument.
The Long Exit – New York Times
One serious position is heard on the left: that there’s nothing more we can effectively do in Iraq. We’ve spent four years there and have not been able to quell the violence. If the place is headed for civil war, there’s nothing we can do to stop it, and we certainly don’t want to get caught in the middle. The only reasonable option is to get out now before more Americans die.The second serious option is heard on the right. We have to do everything we can to head off catastrophe, and it’s too soon to give up hope. The surge is already producing some results. Bombing deaths are down by at least a third. Execution-style slayings have been cut in half. An oil agreement has been reached, tribes in Anbar Province are chasing Al Qaeda, cross-sectarian political blocs are emerging. We should perhaps build on the promise of the surge with regional diplomacy or a soft partition, but we certainly should not set timetables for withdrawal.
Technorati Tags: iraq
Filed under: Politics | Leave a Comment
No Responses Yet to “The case for staying in Iraq for as long as it takes”