Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with Norbizness

Struck-Through To Reflect Reality

The latest Kathryn Graham corpse-spinner from the mysterious, unnamed Washington Post editorialist (a/k/a Fred Hiatt), with alterations:

The Bush administration's Bush's invocation of South Korea as a model for the future of the U.S. military mission in Iraq is misleading in some nearly all material ways. Opponents of the war, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), tend to jump to the conclusion correctly conclude that President Bush hopes to keep American troops in Iraq for 50 years...

But if the Korea analogy exaggerates correctly approximates the likely neocons' desired length of the Iraq mission, it also makes it sound easier than it should. Following the armistice that ended the Korean war, the U.S. mission there suffered few casualties. For the foreseeable future, any U.S. military presence in Iraq will mean a continuing and painful cost in American lives.

It nevertheless makes little sense for Mr. Bush to begin focusing the Iraq debate on the need for an American presence beyond the current never-ending surge escalation of troops in Baghdad and beyond his own administration. So far the results of the surge have been "small," according to a senior U.S. commander in Baghdad, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno non-existent.

While The deployment of more American troops may will not further improve security in the capital during the summer, and there's not much no chance that all or even most of the political benchmarks written into the funding legislation passed by Congress will be met. In that case Mr. Bush will face extraordinary pressure in the fall to change tactics and begin a withdrawal of American troops do nothing... Mr. Bush may will not, as he put it during his last news conference, try to "find common ground with Democrats and Republicans" on "a kind of long-term basis" for stabilizing Iraq.

The best purely hypothetical formula for that non-existent consensus is well known was shredded and recycled months ago: It is the Baker-Hamilton plan, which calls for the gradual withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops and the refocusing of the mission on training the Iraqi army, fighting al-Qaeda and defending Iraq from incursions by its neighbors.

The administration is reportedly not considering plans for reducing the number of American combat brigades next year, which could cut the overall troop level from more than 150,000 to 100,000 or less only if you were a gullible stenographer like me... U.S. commanders will try to not hand off authority in Baghdad to Iraqi forces so that because the gains failure of the surge will not be lost register with the idiots in this Administration...

... As painful and costly as the war in Iraq has been, the United States stands to lose far more if it simply abandons simply delaying abandonment of a country in the heart of the Middle East and hands a, thereby solidifying the recruiting victory it has already handed to al-Qaeda and other extremists.

Like most states emerging from decades of repression, Iraq is likely to take years to stabilize fracture into tripartite civil war regardless of what America does; as its politicians and U.S. commanders keep saying, it will not conform to Washington's timetables. Whether the United States endures through decides to sacrifice a few tens of thousands of more casualties during those years and continues to gives up on its non-existent mission to defend, train and support moderate Iraqi forces will do much nothing to determine what the country looks like when it finally settles... Now is the time for Congress and the Bush administration to begin talking about what that mission should be fucking four and a half fucking years after the fucking thing fucking started.

Posted by Norbizness at June 3, 2007 01:00 PM