 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
November 2006: In the wake of Republican defeat in the mid-term congressional elections, I explained to America that rather than the pace of withdrawal, the actual debate on Iraq - among people who mattered - was how we would use the additional troops we were going to send there.
The first two exchanges I've highlighted above may well shape the serious "Iraq debate" in the coming months. Don't believe what you read in the papers - watch for yourself.Bear in mind that this was weeks before the Iraq Study Group report was released, and months before the President announced a "surge". Post-election coventional wisdom and news leaks on the study group report (and no other studies were public at the time) indicated that a drawdown was inevitable and it's beginning was immediate - the only question was how fast it could be concluded. But I concluded by noting:
<...>
McCain is advocating for more combat troops in Iraq - those who will go toe-to-toe with the insurgents. This position probably won't endear him to "the Left" - or even the center.General Abizaid is calling for more troops too - but he wants more troops assigned to Iraqi units to act as advisors - not more combat batallions.
...as individuals shift their positions on Iraq (centrist Dems, Repubs, and Independents seek common ground while extremists and "party uber alles" types on both sides move to the fringes) I predict the media will pander to the minority - those extremists, who will make great headlines.That was 2006. Few have moved on from that year - but like it or not, it's 2008 (almost 2009, in fact) and yet another election is in our rear view mirror.You'll be able to identify the extremes - one side will call for "troops home now" while on the other side "don't listen to Democrats - they want the troops home now!" will rally the faithful.
The rest of us will work to "fix" Iraq.
What's next? Part two...
