Comments on: The Middle Way

By: brainy435

brainy435 — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:14:39 +0000

"Thus a middle course, which seems to me a sensible alternative, is for the U.S. and allied forces to withdraw to secure bases within Iraq and concentrate on providing training, material and strategic support to the Iraqi forces."

Uh... isn't part of Petraeus's strategy to get American troops OUT of large, fortified bases and onto the streets to engage everyday Iraqis? This would seem to mean that this was more anti-surge than middle ground.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:29:16 +0000

Not sure how this reasonable strategy fits in with the Bush Admin's goal for Iraq, which is basically "make sure someone else gets the blame".

By: A Middle Way in Iraq? « Michael P.F. van der Galiën

A Middle Way in Iraq? « Michael P.F. van der Galiën — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:43:10 +0000

[...] More: like Dave Schuler I fear that the subject has become so politicized in the US that a ‘middle way’ isn’t really an option anymore. [...]

By: graywolf

graywolf — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:43:48 +0000

How much longer before Lieberman switches control of the Senate to the GOP (who don't want it)?.......Rightly so.

By: glasnost

glasnost — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:57:52 +0000

Not to denigrate the Iraqi blogger, but this is a very vague, almost vapid post in its lack of detail, insight, and guidance. You're right in that "keep the troops in there but don't have them patrol much" won't help the war become more popular. It's essentially the strategy we were following between mid 05 and the surge - "they stand up, we stand down". Except, surprise, as people stood up, the conflict got larger, not smaller. This might have been because an occupying army can't really stand down as long as it continues to, um, occupy, and more or less aggressive postures don't really eliminate the aggravation of the locals and distortion of their political system. What the post really demonstrates is how marginal the utility of active US peacekeeping efforts are to this Iraqi blogger. Stand and watch, mix it up, he doesn't seem to think his life is made much better by either of those options. Complete abandon and retreat by the Americans would indeed constitute defeat and a victory for the enemy, and would turn the tables completely and ignite a larger conflagration in the region. Here, he's just flattering his conservative U.S. readership. Nevertheless, what you're talking about is clearly politically sustainable, even mainstream. The Senate "withdrawal plan" explicitly excepts training and Al-Quieda hunting from the withdrawal request. US troops are not abandoning those two tasks - especially #2 - anytime soon under anyone's suggestions. For better or worse. You're right, though. US troops will likely bleed as long as they guard the Green Zone. Of course, in Kurdistan, where they are welcomed, they might be viable.