NYT: An Unsustainable Policy on Iraq

[dw]

In Sunday's The New York Times:

After a summer of worsening news from Iraq, it is time to rethink America's postwar strategy.

President Bush is right to refuse to be pushed by guerrilla violence and political pressure into leaving Iraq prematurely. But avoiding that will require more than proclaiming victory over a tyrant who remains at large and asking Americans to remain resolute against terrorism, as Mr. Bush did most recently in a campaign commercial of a speech on Friday at Fort Stewart in Georgia.

Mr. Bush has so far failed to explain satisfactorily how he plans to secure Iraq without a crippling, indefinite American military commitment; speedily achieve Iraqi self-government; and share the burden of rebuilding Iraq's industries and society so the United States can leave on its own terms. And his maneuvering room may soon shrink, since the Democratic challengers are desperate to break out of the herd on Iraq. If Mr. Bush does not demonstrate a clear and convincing strategy soon, he may face political pressure to bring home American troops under conditions that would be embarrassing for America and perilous for the Middle East. Of all the possible scenarios, the most important one to avoid is a poll-driven scramble to bring the troops home that suffers the same lack of preparation the administration showed at the end of major combat.

MORE

[Rollins]

1. bush must save the oil!

Sure this is a simplistic thought but I believe access and control of Iraqi oil is ALL that matters. Once bush finds a way to safeguard that oil the troops are out the next day.

[NickDanger]

2. Uh oh....

No matter what the wingers say about the NYT personifying the librul media, this is bad news for the Shrubistas

[Warren Stuart]

3. Librul Media?

I find it curious that the Times uses the term "major combat". On May 1st the banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln read "Mission Accomplished", it didn't say "Cession of Major Combat".

Only recently has the administration been referring to post May 1st period as the end of "major combat". The significance of this is if we were to declare the war over then we would have to grant to the Iraqi's the rights and privileges that free citizens throughout enjoy.

By making distictions such as "major combat" as opposed to "Not so Major Combat" or "Kinda Major Combat" or how about "Teensy Weensy Combat". Certain Geneva Conventions don't kick in.

It's a pity the wingers don't have the brains to notice how the Times covers for Bush.