Sunday, March 11, 2007
Kagan Actually Says the Surge is Working
Robert Kagan, at the Washington Post, has a very optimistic column today which, as Hugh Hewitt implies, everyone should read. Now.
Money quote:
Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.
Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.
Money quote:
Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.
Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 10:39 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Why do you wingnuts insist on listening to these neocons who have been wrong on just about everything when it comes to Iraq? And don't forget, Mr.Kagan's brother , Frederick, is the architect of this surge! Time to lay off the crack pipe. Also, get a more recent photo. You're not impressing anyone.
# posted by 
: 5:01 PM
: 5:01 PM
"Why do you wingnuts insist on listening to these neocons who have been wrong on just about everything when it comes to Iraq?"
bECAUSE THEY CAN'T ADMIT THAT THEY WERE WRONG.
bECAUSE THEY CAN'T ADMIT THAT THEY WERE WRONG.
# posted by : 10:22 PM
: 10:22 PM
"An Army of Kagans
While The Weekly Standard has to make do with using Frederick Kagan's wife to write articles proclaiming the Kagan surge plan a success, The Washington Post believes in integrity and trots out brother Robert Kagan to do it instead. Maybe someday we can get Donald Kagan's take on all this. If only the whole world were made up of members of the Kagan family, then maybe George W. Bush would be a really popular president.
At any rate, you're not supposed to mention Robert Kagan in polite professional punditry circles without observing that he's much smarter and a much more honest writer than your average neocon. This pearl of wisdom even has the virtue of being true. Sadly, as Glenn Greenwald exhaustively demonstrates, this really isn't saying very much. For a neocon, he has a great analytic track record on Iraq, which means his track record is horrible rather than, say, horrifyingly horrible. That he gets to slander his employers at the Post in the first graf of his terrible column merely demonstrates how nice it must be to be a conservative . . . well-worked refs are the best refs to have."
Yglesias
While The Weekly Standard has to make do with using Frederick Kagan's wife to write articles proclaiming the Kagan surge plan a success, The Washington Post believes in integrity and trots out brother Robert Kagan to do it instead. Maybe someday we can get Donald Kagan's take on all this. If only the whole world were made up of members of the Kagan family, then maybe George W. Bush would be a really popular president.
At any rate, you're not supposed to mention Robert Kagan in polite professional punditry circles without observing that he's much smarter and a much more honest writer than your average neocon. This pearl of wisdom even has the virtue of being true. Sadly, as Glenn Greenwald exhaustively demonstrates, this really isn't saying very much. For a neocon, he has a great analytic track record on Iraq, which means his track record is horrible rather than, say, horrifyingly horrible. That he gets to slander his employers at the Post in the first graf of his terrible column merely demonstrates how nice it must be to be a conservative . . . well-worked refs are the best refs to have."
Yglesias
# posted by : 10:37 PM
: 10:37 PM
There is a list of things we tell juries to use to judge the credibility of a witness and the first and most important thing is to look at the testimony itself and judge whether it makes sense or not. Much later do we mention relationship of the witness to the party. That you guys skipped any analysis of what Kagan said tells me a lot about how concincing he is. The ad hominem supports your argument, if I can call it that, well, not at all. Thanks for commenting.
Nothing that I hadn't seen before, but still surprising in the WaPo. Maybe more balanced than the NYT, but that isn't saying much.
I am cautiously optimistic. One thing that the article didn't mention was the recent capture of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the putative leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, apparently a Sunni insurgent umbrella group that includes al Qaeda.
I am cautiously optimistic. One thing that the article didn't mention was the recent capture of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the putative leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, apparently a Sunni insurgent umbrella group that includes al Qaeda.
I wrote about that capture seperately. I thought his group was a local al Qaeda associated franchise, but your description could well be accurate.
Post a Comment
<< Home
