Think back to over a year ago when Bush said he was going to send more forces to Iraq. The rational was that more troops would enable the American and Iraqi armies to stabilize the security situation, which would give the Iraqis a chance to build up their army and for their politicians to do what they need to do in order to create a government of national unity, then we could reduce the size of our forces in Iraq.
The first happened, sort of. An argument can be made that part of the security improvements come from the conclusion of sectarian cleansing and the placing of tens of thousands of former insurgents on the Army payroll.
The second did not happen, there has been no reconciliation.
The third is not going to happen. We are going to have as many troops on the ground in Iraq into 2009 as were on the ground before the Surge commenced.
So tell me again, how is the Surge a "success"? In any job, other than being a batter in a baseball game, accomplishing 33% of the task is called "failure."
No comments:
Post a Comment
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.