EDITORIAL: "Long-awaited Iraq report offers 79 ways to 'cut and stay,'" USA Today, 7 December 2006, p.12A ."Cut and stay" is about as accurate as it comes.
But it's realistic: it's really "pullback," not "pullout," because this is all about U.S. casualties.
Yes, we hear all about caring for Iraqi deaths, but let's be honest: Americans don't care about that and never did.
When American casualties go down, Iraqi ones will rise even more, and the same people who long castigated Rummy on too few troops can summarily ignore the results of this new , more drastic "tough love" version of the same.
And I'm sure way too few troops will accomplish what too few troops couldn't.
Wish Bush had been smart enough to bring enough of the right (i.e., New Core ) allies instead of too few of the wrong kind (the fragile, glass-jawed Old Core)? We all do.
Think we would have had to "give up" or "offer too much"?
Care to recalculate those costs today?
| Permalink |
