It helps to read the entire article. The author does put forward a plan. I know it's really close to the end of the article, but it is there.
Nowhere does he suggest cut and run or capitulation. Again, reading the article would have provided that insight.
I gather that it is now unacceptable on this forum to even suggest that we have conducted this war in Iraq less perfectly than we should have? My goodness, governments can screw up a free lunch, but because we like GW, we refuse to believe that anything he does could be anything other than the best of the best?
I don't get it.
People are addressing his plan. Which seems to be to build the police force. Isn't that what it is? Well, when was a police force effective against a militia armed with car bombs, rockets and mortars? Maybe there was a time? I am honestly asking the question. Do you know of an instance? Does he?
Sorry dmz, I disagree with you on this one.
I read the whole article. This guy is a biased lib, loves McCain, thinks Rove is behind it all.
In my opinion, his approach is not as "nuanced" as he thinks it is. He does have a puffed up opinion of himself, and thinks it is a Sunni insurgency that can be handled by a police force.
There were (and probably still are) more munitions per square mile of landspace in Iraq than in any other country in the world. It was the most militarized country on the face of the earth when we went in there. That means there are enough munitions available and squirreled away to allow any "insurgency" to stand up to nearly any military force, particularly an ill trained and ill prepared one, not to say anything about a police force.
And this does not even mention or take into account Iran's involvement, which is deep, long and entrenched now.
If we are to judge this war by whether mistakes have been made, and then decide that we should either not have fought this war or we should leave this war, then I would posit that no war in the history of this nation should have been fought. Not even the Revolutionary War. No war is mistake free. To suggest that a war is wrong or not worth fighting because of mistakes is to lose sight of the reason for defending ourselves in the first place. The mistakes made during WWII almost lost the war for us several times. We persevered because the entire nation was in the fight for the long haul, no matter how long it took. Everyone sacrificed, and the politicians did not bicker and fight over stupid partisan ideology. If we lose this war, it will not be because of mistakes made in the war theatre, but in the stupidity of our people back home in not understanding that we have to finish this no matter what mistakes are made. My son is there now, and he might die. But he understands that fighting them there.is much better than fighting them here. When someone is suggesting placing the responsibility for taking care of the Islamo-facist terrorist on a "professional police force" of Iraqis as opposed to a professional military, I say that is a recipe for CUT-AND-RUN of our troops, and it will spell doom for the Iraqi people who want peace. I want our troops home. But I want them to finish the mission first.
"What's needed, and has been desperately needed since the summer of 2003, is a strong counter-insurgency program. And a viable counter-insurgency campaign is police work, not the work of regular Army and Marine troops with Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, artillery and air strikes."
I've read the entire article. I find no merit in your or his position. Using "cops" to oppose a well organized militia force with command and control from other nations is not a "PLAN". Scorched Earth is the way to deal with people who are quite willing to kill women and children with Iranian manufactured bombs.
Suggesting mistakes have been made is not a problem. Saying that we need to turn this over to "cops" is a problem. Let my son and his fellow soldiers do the job they were trained for.