This from the Washington Post:
An Exit to Disaster By Michael Gerson -- Wednesday, June 27, 2007
"Victory in Iraq," one official of the Coalition Provisional Authority told me a couple of years ago, "was defined as decapitating the regime. No one defined victory as creating a sustainable country six months down the road."
Now Democrats running for president have thought deeply and produced their own Iraq policy: They want to cut force levels too early and transfer responsibility to Iraqis before they are ready, and they offer no plan to deal with the chaos that would result six months down the road. In essential outline, they have chosen to duplicate the early mistakes of an administration they hold in contempt.
In the article, Gerson paints grisly pictures and conjures up visions of the Khmer Rouge [I well remember the photos of the stacks of skulls].
No doubt, the right and prudent course was to stay the hell out of Iraq.
It's too late, though, to embark on the 'right and prudent course.'
So, where does that leave us? Do we stay in Iraq forever? Do we send our children there with targets on their backs to be gunned down in a futile attempt to save a failed policy that was, in actuality, no policy at all?
On that point, Gerson is silent.
While urging continued involvement in the region, he gives no blueprints for what victory might look like; whether victory is possible; how long will be 'long enough.'
Click here for the complete text.