I nearly spat out my morning coffee reading Tom Friedman's column at the breakfast table, and realizing that I agreed with it. (Not linked -- it's behind TimesSelect). Friedman says half-measures in Iraq won't do. Either we stay in the fight full-force, or we get out. Excerpt:
The passions that have been unleashed in Iraq are not going to accommodate some partial withdrawal plan, where we just draw down troops, do less patrolling, more training and fight Al Qaeda types. It’s a fantasy.The minute we start to withdraw, all hell will break loose in the areas we leave, and there will be a no-holds-barred contest for power among Iraqi factions. Our staying there with, say, half as many troops, will not be sustainable.
He points out that in Basra, where the British have been gradually withdrawing, Shia warlord elements have moved into the power vacuum -- and every time the Brits leave their base, they get shot at. So the British are essentially ineffective, except as targets. Is this really what we want US soldiers to be set up for?
I believe Friedman is correct about the hard choice facing US leaders, and the American public. Those who, like me, believe in a complete withdrawal have to accept that once the US goes, the entire country is going to go up like a tinder box. But those who think our soldiers ought to stay there in full force must explain a) how we're going to find the troops to sustain current force levels past the spring; b) how we're going to keep paying for this $10 billion per month adventure; and c) why, given the absence of progress among the Iraqis, US soldiers should sit in the middle of the desert babysitting a civil war that's going to break out as soon as we leave anyway.
Both choices are horrible. But we have to choose -- and choose soon. Ross Douthat fears that we'll get the worst of both worlds with a political compromise: "a continued U.S. presence and continued U.S. casualties, and a steadily-worsening civil war that we're helpless to prevent."
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I don't think the economy is fine even for those who do have a college education, i.e. recent grads.
pb, I think you're wrong on this point, too:
Job market looks good for 2007 college grads
http://www.dailynewstribune.com/homepage/x1243768100/index.html
And where exactly are the jobs? Let's see a breakdown--if most of them are office jobs or service-related, the point stands. There's no guarantee that those jobs will be around if and when the bubbles crash.
>You think the Fed or any part of it is a neutral observer, and gives bias-free information? How unfortunate.
Oh, so the Fed just makes up all these numbers?!? Where do you think these numbers come from? I'm guessing this wasn't your primary area of study . . .
I wasn't talking about the Fed making up numbers--I was talking about interpretation again, just as you would like to say how great the economy is based on the stock market or whatever other measurement you choose. I suppose it will take a crash for you to realize that these numbers don't really mean anything.
>At the risk of overkill, pb, did you see what Wall Street did today?
And if you're making $10 an hour at K-Mart with minimal to no health insurance, that benefits you how?
r.b.
Meanwhile the administration, the one headed by George Bush, loves veterans sooo much they continue to screw them over even after serving in combat and coming home with shattered lives.
Penney pinching b*****ds.
I wait to hear how this is all Clinton's fault.
pb, an interesting piece in The Times on the meaning of the decline of the dollar against the euro:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article2062059.ece
"There aren't enough troops. Come next spring the well is dry and we start leaving no matter what.
You have reservists on their fifth deployment, a shattered infrastructure and looming threats on the horizon yet every day we grind away more men and women in this futile war.
All in means the Decider goes on TV and asks for volunteers. All in means a quarter dollar tax on gas, canceling gold plated weapons designed to fight Russia across the plains of Germany, and a national drive towards conservation.
Okay, you were wrong, and I damn sure will try to make sure your party pays the price in 2008, but in the meantime men are dying. Lugar and Warner and others know the time is now to change course, or there will be a rout looming in our future, the ice berg dead ahead.
Posted by: Richard Bottoms"
I agree. We don't have any kind of strategic reserve left at all. Many of those of us who've served multiple tours will leave the Army as soon as we are no longer re-callable. Recruiting is one thing, but we need experienced sergeants and junior officers, as well as new recruits. And even recruiting is looking a little iffy. Our numbers are thin. Not thin enough to impact combat readiness just yet, but I get this sinking sensation that is only because they are moving us around to fill in the gaps before each unit deploys. I can't prove that, but they didn't send us any replacements until about two weeks ago, and we are leaving again SOON. That seems to be the going trend...
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.