Nick Arnett wrote: > So... yesterday the administration admitted that we'll have > to stay longer in Iraq so that we have more time to train > more Iraqi police and military to take over what our troops are doing. > > Let's see... we have failed to make the country secure, but > we're teaching Iraqis our methods in hopes that they will > succeed? Don't we have to demonstrate that our methods > actually work before it makes any sense to train others?
See, Nick, you are talking about the wrong issues. Staying longer in Iraq is mandatory because any other course of action is a blatant admission that the Iraq adventure flopped. Big Time. Since the defining policy of a President's career is never that wrong [at least not until the historians start], you guys will stay on in Iraq at least until 2008. At that point, things ought to be so very bad that a Democrat ought to be able to run on the 'Get out now!' plank. > Or > are we expecting that when those keeping the country secure > are Iraqis, rather than Americans, all of the sectarian > infighting will stop? Umm, surely even those who dreamed of petal-strewn cakewalks couldn't be *that* naïve? > We have failed to make Iraq secure for Iraqis, so how can it > make sense for us to teach them how to make their country secure? Very few things about this Iraq adventure have made sense. Why should that change now? Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
