OP-ED: The New Reality In Iraq, By FREDERICK W. KAGAN , KIMBERLY KAGAN AND JACK KEANE, Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2008; Page A17
The big problem I see in this logic is that now is the time when we should be able to draw down (the original promise of the surge made last year) and redirect on difficulties in Afghanistan and Pakistan (which rise), but absent the diplomatic surge (that never happened), we're stuck implicitly arguing that Iran is now keeping us tied down in Iraq, something it can do ad infinitum at very low cost.
And that, to me, seems like an argument that goes nowhere, trapping the next president. The mission to deny Iranian influence in Iraq was lost the minute we toppled Saddam.
All this piece tells me is that the next president must figure something out with Iran or Afghanistan/Pakistan and whatever arises from there are effectively sacrificed, and to me, that sounds like Tehran is running our foreign policy, which I find stunning.
(Thanks: JFRiley)
Comments (1)
Can we use the post-Saddam Iran-Iraq relationship to our advantage? After all, the ambitious goal of all this wasn't destruction, but reform. If Iraq is our friend and Iraq becomes Iran's friend, how much can we accomplish through a friend of a friend?
Posted by Eric Chen | July 19, 2008 7:37 PM