Supporting the Troops

Ilan Goldenberg wonders why the Joint Chiefs, CENTCOM, and the Secretary of Defense all seem to have become the sort of rabid America-haters who would dare disagree with General Petraeus.

Comments

Huh? The article indicates some discussion between various parties, with various agendas, in the formulation of a plan. Nobody hates America, nor is there any indication of irreconcilable differences. Perhaps if Matt Yglesias had ever worked as part of a group larger than Matt Yglesias this would be clearer.

Posted by y81 | October 22, 2007 1:56 PM

y81--

You don't come over here often, do you?

Posted by Captain Goto | October 22, 2007 2:11 PM

Matt,

For the sake of your own credibility, you ought to take a break from posting on Iraq. Your posts have become so hopelessly biased and partisan that they lack any of the critical thinking you are often able to bring to bear on other subjects.

You have become so committed to a policy prescription -- the complete pullout of American troops from Iraq in short order -- that you willfully ignore any of the recent news from Iraq that Petraeus's strategy may be helping to stabilize Iraq. It's one thing to be critical or questioning of such news, but to completely ignore news of a huge changes in Iraq while continuing to post on Iraq doesn't seem fitting for a self-professed member of the "reality-based" community.

Posted by Juan | October 22, 2007 4:44 PM

Juan -- At best, the current violence levels in Iraq are similar to those in 2005. At which time it was also the right thing to get out of Iraq.

The idea that we should consider a two-month drop in violence (after several months during which Petraeus was lying by saying that violence was going down, when it was going up) to be "huge changes," particularly in the absence of any actual political reconciliation (not "bottom up" reconciliation), is to mistake the liberal view on Iraq. It's not based on the violence levels of the moment, it's based on national security principles.

Conservatives don't understand that because, being unserious about national security, they have no prescription for Iraq other than the fantasy that we can "win".

Posted by M.A. | October 22, 2007 4:50 PM

I destroyed Juan's "good news" piffle in an earlier thread. Of course he ignores that and keeps pushing it like it was some sort of "truthiness."

What we have seen in the last couple weeks is nearly a completely news blackout from Iraq for some reason. It seems the Syria raid and the Turkey-Kurdistan conflict has been the focus of the news - along with Bhutto in Pakistan and Putin in Iran - probably because there has been zip coming out of Iraq that is either good news or bad news - which, of course, is bad news.

And of course there was yet another US raid that killed civilians, leading Maliki to express "outrage" and promise an "investigation".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 12:08 AM