Claiming that the GOP came out of "Petraeus week" with the momentum, Kimberly Strassel writes, "Good military policy is good politics".
Look, even if Iraq stabilizes and we can get the heck out before we spend another trillion dollars for our kids to pay back, it will be a relief, not a "victory" or a "success", at this point ...
*eyes roll*More from the victory-at-any-cost-can-still be-called-"victory"-or-"success", crowd.
Look, even if Iraq stabilizes and we can get the heck out before we spend another trillion dollars for our kids to pay back, it will be a relief, not a "victory" or a "success", at this point ...
If there was one phrase that turned the week, my guess would be it was this:
The fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources.
In one stroke, Petraeus was able to generate the "Aha!" factor.
Afterall, this is at or near the center of most of the disagreements, including that the sectarian differences are theological, ancient, and irreconcilable; that 'the struggle' has parameters geographically and politically since it isn't just a fight to the death spurred on my AQI; that the USA is part of the source of the problem, not its solution.
Considering how much grief the Democrats have historically taken for suggesting that there might be a role for U.S. forces in conflicts that are "ethnic and sectarian ... struggles for power and resources" (Somalia comes to mind; Dafur is another, perhaps), it's amazing how quickly they embrace the General's rationale.
If that's what "good politics" is for Kim, then it is a brave new world ...
Of course, it isn't, really. She won't care for these implications. All she's really saying is that "winning" is good politics. Who knew?
Petraeus reportedly goes back to FOX TV. Clearly he knows and doesn't care.
