The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis–who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own–are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace. And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago. “We’re putting down roots,” says Philip Carter, a former U.S. Army captain who returned last summer from a year of policing and training in the hot zone around Baquba. “The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.”
Many U.S. military experts now believe that, if there is any hope of stabilizing Iraq, the Petraeus plan is the only way to do it. The critical question now, they say, is whether we have anywhere near enough troops committed to the effort, and whether America has the political will to see the strategy through to the end.
Now this is just stupid. Why does “the future of Iraq depend on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago” ?
Why ?
Does that mean things were a lot better in Iraq in December and suddenly things got much worse in January and February ?
That is, technically, what the above sentence says.
So what happened since December to wreck all the good things that were happening?
What good things ?
Can you be specific, Mr. Hirsh ?
Does Tony Blair and the British troops in Basra know anything about these good things ?
Why are you, Mr. Hirsh, and the Associated Press, keeping these good things a secret from us ?
Why is Mr. Hirsh of Newsweek quoting as a principal source a U.S. soldier, Capt. Philip Carter, who has been stateside since this past summer? How is Mr. Carter an authority on what is happening in Iraq at this moment ? How is Mr. Carter aware of things that soldiers in Baghdad right now are unaware of?
Who are these American “military experts” who have told Mr. Hirsh the “Petraeus plan is the only way” to stabilize Iraq ? Do they have names and ranks ? Have they, like former Capt. Philip Carter, been stateside for the past 8 months ? Do they actually know anything or are we just supposed to blindly trust that they do ?
Most interesting is Mr. Hirsh’s declaration that U.S. combat troops must stay in Iraq for a long time and any time shorter than a long time would be a de facto defeat:
Even so, because the Petraeus plan will likely extend well into the next presidency, much will depend on the views and actions of whoever is elected in 2008. Ultimately, if we do withdraw prematurely, we may end up doing what embattled British Prime Minister Tony Blair has just announced he’s doing in the southern Iraqi city of Basra: declare victory (though there is scant evidence of one), and go home. But not if Dave Petraeus and his dream team can help it.
Again, what does this idiocy mean? That the only victory is to stay forever? That leaving Iraq is a prima facie admission of defeat?
And what the hell is the purpose of this “dream team” quote? Is Mr. Hirsh smoking angel dust through a lead pipe? Why on Earth would U.S. soldiers want to be associated with the lawyers who represented Orenthal James Simpson?
Oh .. By the Way …
Does the following quote really sound like a live, candid spoken utterance by a real U.S. combat soldier coming back from duty in Iraq?
We’re putting down roots … The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.
Since when does one U.S. Army Captain speak for the entire United States joint military force?
What is this crap ?