Fulfillment.
By tacitus Posted in War — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Hot on the heels of Red State's prediction that an offensive against the terror havens in Iraq is in the offing, American and Iraqi forces have overrun one of those havens: the city of Samarra.
Read on.
And if the continued bombardment of Fallujah is any indication -- to say nothing of the rhetoric from American political and military leadership on the subject -- its time is coming shortly. In the Shi'a regions, the Sadrists in Baghdad, under relentless pressure, are calling a unilateral ceasefire. Which, as per Sadrist wont, they will use to rest and re-equip; but it is nonetheless indicative of the fierce siege they are under that they feel compelled to undertake and announce this step.
A progressive rectification of the strategic errors of 2004 is clearly underway. A nation can tolerate a leadership that makes mistakes in war: it cannot tolerate a leadership that refuses to learn from them. If the reduction of the citadels of Islamism in Iraq continues apace, we can breathe easy that, contra the terrible denouements of April, this Administration's wartime leadership is not the latter.
Which brings us again to the eternal question: knowing what Bush is now doing -- hypothetical to actualization in 24 hours is no mean trick -- what would Kerry do? Pace the well-meaning piece linked, asserting that Kerry would do as Gary Hart would have him do makes little sense except as an exercise in wishful thinking -- there is no evidence that Hart is Kerry's lodestar. Yglesias, fresh off venomous shrieking at the Bush twins, attempts a paraphrase that mostly demonstrates a lack of actual reading or comprehension, and then changes the subject. I mention these two not to take potshots (well, not just to take potshots), but because they are, to my knowledge, the only Kerry supporters who have attempted to grapple with the contention that John Kerry will abandon Iraq. Poonawalla does his level best; Yglesias does too, and it shows: neither mount an effective refutation of the distressing reality which Red State has addressed time and time and time again.
My question is: who will? Who will make the case that John Kerry is not bent upon leaving Iraq as soon as he may? Who will make the case that he can, under the conditions he says he means to? Who will say that we should ignore his words, ignore his history, and/or ignore our responsibilities toward those faraway foreigners?
Who is going to stand up and defend this man who wishes to be President and his awful intentions on the central battlefield of our war on terror? What Democrat will give us something other than denial, evasion or silence?
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The light at the bottom of the barrel. — Comments (81) »
Fulfillment. 2 Comments (0 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Buried in the constant criticism of Bush for "not having an exit strategy" is the clear implication that he believes we need to cut tails and exit ASAP. The problem is that the Kerry apologizers have to make excuses for what he says and/or explain how we need to ignore what he says in favor of a more nuanced interpretation that includes assuming that he is speaking in secret opposite coded messages to loyal followers some of the time (when he is quoting Horward Dean) and speaking directly and contrary to his Senate voting record (which was probably in its own right a secret coded message of oppositeness to faithful followers) at other times.