Both U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and her GOP challenger Mike McGavick are engaging in some fancy footwork lately on Iraq, to woo suburban Seattle and other swing voters. The Seattle Times today urges both to reveal more about whether our decision to invade Iraq was right, and what lessons they've learned. But what to actually do now in Iraq is paramount. Charles Krauthamer notes a hasty retreat is stupid, and inimical to Democrats. Conservative Rich Lowry says boost troop strength to secure chaotic Baghdad, as a crucial next step. He adds Bush's oft-stated resolve to win isn't nearly enough; policy is drifting badly; and Vietnam parallels ARE becoming apparent. In the Weekly Standard, former Wall Street Journal editorial board member and current L.A. Times columnist Max Boot ultimately favors increased troops deployed to Baghdad, as well. But, he says U.S. forces have too often proved incapable of winning Iraqi hearts and minds and that a troop drawdown sooner rather than later is another option - with our personnel serving more in an advisory role to the Iraqi military. Top military brass see big cultural and tactical changes needed in U.S. troop training for guerilla conflicts such as Iraq. Please read the links fully, and discuss.
UPDATE, 8/17/06: Here's an extended Q&A on Iraq with Cantwell and McGavick, from today's Seattle Times.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at August 16, 2006 10:26 AM | Email ThisThe North Vietnamese were supported by China both finacially and militarily.
The Insurgents in Iraq are supported by Iran both finacially and militarily.
To end the insurgency in Iraq you need to deal with Iran plain and simple. While serving in Iraq, at a checkpoint, we had an Iraq man approach us and gave us an inch thick stack of notes written in Farsi. He went on to tell us that his brother in law was part of the Mahdi Malitia and would take him around to all their ammo depots and drop sites to brag. What was in the notes that this Iraqi citizen (who by the way was Shite) gave us was a list of what waepons they had, the quantity of the weapons, the location of the weapons, the amount of money the milita had and some of the routes that Iran used to smuggle all this stuff into the country. Regardless of whether or not you feel it was right to go into Iraq pulling out would be a mistake. If we pull out of Iraq now we will be giving that country over to Iran on a silver platter. I say we should beef up our troops in Iraq and in Afghansistan so as to be able to have a two front invasion if Iran refuses to stop trying to build nukes and if they dont knock of their interference with the fledgeling democracies in both Iraq and Lebanon.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 16, 2006 10:27 AMAgree with you 100%. Thanks for serving.
Posted by: Jeffro on August 16, 2006 10:32 AMFirst, they supply Hezbollah. Second, they thumb their noses at the UN on nuclear proliferation.
Third, they supply the alSadr group that Iraq was afraid to squelch a year or two ago.
Now, fourth, they are bombing north Iraq with the Turks.
The problem with our military is they are slow to adapt. It gets real, real frustrating. The old saying is "Hurry up and Wait".
Posted by: swatter on August 16, 2006 10:34 AMToday's Americans see war through the lens of Vietnam, which surely explains the media and the left's incessant use of the term "quagmire" to describe the Iraq war. I don't think it's unfair to say that these people wanted Iraq to be a "quagmire" from day we invaded. Their moral equivalance even prevents us from a coherent identification of who the bad guys are.
I agree with TrueSoldier that to pull out would play directly into the hands of Iran. The big question however is, given the constant pessimism of the hand-wringing left and the left wing media do we as a country have the will to win this war?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 16, 2006 10:51 AMAnd to add to the "quagmire" topic, our current liberals say it is a quagmire if the strategy of our enemies change and we get delayed for a couple of days.
Posted by: swatter on August 16, 2006 11:39 AMCarpet bomb the cities where they insurgents are. Torture our prisoners for information. War is Hell but the objective is to make it MORE hellish upon them.
After WWII we have seemed to have lost the agreesiveness we had during the war. And we haven't really seen much military successs. Perhaps the two are related, don't you think?
Posted by: Max on August 16, 2006 11:53 AMThat is why we have to get the civilian population to fear US more that they do the Terrorists.
Yes, that means that we are going to have do things that seem very ugly - but that's WAR!
Posted by: Steve on August 16, 2006 12:53 PMPeter Galbraith has a far more realistic assessment of where we are now (his latest being in the Guardian today), and his recommendation, though controversial, is far better than "stay the course" or "cut and run."
When Americans grow weary of dying for people waving Hezbollah's flag and screaming "Death to America," they might consider his point of view.
Posted by: Tom Rekdal on August 16, 2006 03:26 PM