Capitulating to the enemy and cutting-and-running are NOT appropriate measures to take. I don't care whether this man is considered "The finest combat correspondent" by anyone. Unless he (or those he is representing) articulates a real plan for how to enact a change in Iraq, then he should just STFU.
He's not saying to cut and run...he's saying that there needs to be a change in strategy in Iraq by building a professional police force to control the insurgency.
I just emailed this self-absorbed hack. One of the problems with somebody like this is that they have come to believe their own press clips and believe they have attained an all-knowing GOD status in their specific area of knowledge.
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.
This guy is all wet.
Where is his plan? What is his plan? Did anyone see anything approaching a plan in his article?
Pres. Bush's plan is "cordon, capture, control." It works one block at a time in cities, and one city at a time throughout IRaq.
It is logical, methodical, and working.
You cut off the area in question (cordon); you clear it of enemy house to house (capture); you hand off to a trained Iraqi military force (control).
Then you go on to the next block.
The only piece lacking in Pres. Bush's plan is an overt engagement with Iran and Syria who are providing not-so-clandestine support to our enemies within Iraq.
A take-down of the Iranian government is in order for a number of reasons.