The media and politicians are focusing on these miniscule numbers (20,000 troops) as if additional troops alone will make a difference when we really need bold shifts in both strategy and rules of engagement. A quick scan of my email inbox reveals that few conservative bloggers, mostly supporters of this war, are optimistic that we’ll see those kinds of changes in the President’s plan. In short, as long as Syria and Iran can operate without penalty (as they do now) victory in Iraq and in the greater war on terror is in doubt. Herschel Smith:
On a larger scale still, the Iraqi borders must be shut down. But on a macroscopic level, Syria and Iran must be dealt with, both as part of the Iraq war and also as subsets of the global war on terror and jihadism. If the deaths of more than three thousand sons and daughters of America are to mean anything, our strategy must outfit our troops to win.
I have done my share of pontificating about force size, nation-building versus traditional war, and Rumsfeld’s views versus those of Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. And as much as we might like to opine and pontificate about what we should have done four years ago, talk of Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni has now become passe. The question now is not whether there should be a troop surge, or even how large it should be if there is one. Increase troops if needed, but the question of the hour is one of strategy. Are we in the global war on terror to win? In September of 2006 I said that “The U.S. will not win in Iraq until Iran is driven out entirely.” We might expand that to say that until Iran is dealt with, we will not win the global war on terror.
The President will brief the nation on his new way forward at 9 PM Eastern tonight.
Trackback this Post:Right Click for URL
January 10th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Hi John Could you send us a small head shot ( in .jpg format )for a Newsday story we’re running tomorrow ? Thanks Nancy