Some Irrelevant People and Their Opinions About Iraq
As we've all learned this week, to our delight, after Congress grants the president authority to go to war he can botch it with as great or as small an army as he wants. Here's the speech; here are some vaguely important public figures staking out their territory.
The thing I would add to it is a lot of accountability. I think you need measures. You need statistics. You need to be able to determine whether you've brought the violence down. If it doesn't work, then you've got to put more people in.
And if that doesn't work, you've got to put more people in. And if that doesn't work, blame Al Sharpton.
Those "networks providing advanced weaponry and training" certainly are based in Iran and Syria. It sounds like he said we are going after terrorist training camps and the IED assembly facilities, doesn't it? Well?
Indeed, it does. Not so fast, please.
Success is attainable in Iraq, and tonight the President has offered a comprehensive program to chart a new course in both winning the military struggle to establish order and in achieving the political and economic objectives to build a more promising future for Iraqis.
Lieberman endorses this 21,500-troop surge even though six days ago he claimed a plan for 30,000 troops—not less—was the only way to win. Give me a Necronomicon, a cabinet of deadly ingredients, and a first-rate cauldron, and I don't think I could conjure a slimier homunculus than the senator from the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.
Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution. In the last two days, I have met with Prime Minister Maliki, with two deputy presidents and the president of the Kurdish region. I came away from these meetings convinced that the United States should not increase its involvement until Sunnis and Shi'a are more willing to cooperate with each other instead of shooting at each other.
Which is it going to be—Brownback/Hagel '08 or Hagel/Brownback '08? I'm indifferent.
