John Warner just repeated the same question to David Petraeus that he asked last year.
Paraphrase: "Well, I've thought a lot about this question over the last year. Obviously Iraq has meant a tremendous cost, but ultimately history will answer that question."
Crocker's answer was a bit more on point--that Iraq is a "work in progress" and that even if Iraq hasn't made us safer, pulling out now may make us less safe. But lacking a scenario in which we stay in Iraq just long enough to cut the ribbon on a prosperous and stable new country, that's still fairly deceptive. We're going to have to withdraw from Iraq at some point. In the absence of some sort of strategic miracle, Iraq will still be a mess and withdrawal will entail some unknown set of negative (and positive) consequences. Whether that happens now, soon, or far into the future--whether the aftermath is dire or more dire--this endeavor has made America less secure.
Comments
This Petreus/Crocker routine is truly disheartening, for both Iraq war supporters and war opponents. A ritual dance around the truth, when nobody expects any change in our posture to result. The Vietnam quagmire of DC non-decision-making all over again.
It now seems clear (to me, anyway) that the best argument for the US not engaging in foreign invasions is that we are unable to ever disengage.
I was tired of 'empire' long long ago and knowing that we seemingly haven't learned a thing in 40 years isn't any kind of hopeful sign.
Bah, humbug!
Post A Comment