The NYer on Iraq

Given how things are going in Iraq, I've become almost embarrassed about my repeated calls for the U.S. to  stay for now. The NYer's George Packer, though, seems to agree with me and gives a sense of how the U.S. can still have a positive effect, and how much worse things can get if--as already seems to be happening--we disengage.

I don't have much certainty about all this, nor does Packer. Keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for now is far from a slam-dunk and indeed Packer details how the U.S. and the military is still screwing up. But to understand why sticking around might be a risk worse taking--and how the alternative risk might be worse--read Packer. The story isn't online--though a short Q&A with him is. Still, worth buying the damn magazine.

Comments

[Carl]

You guys are adorable. 3 years ago the liberal argument for staying was that we had to make life better for the Iraqis. Last year the argument was that we have to prevent a civil war. Now that a civil war has essentially started, we have to stay to prevent a regional war.

In the meantime, Sy Hersh points out in that same New Yorker that Bush is planning on starting just such a war:

[Quote]...One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." He added, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’"

[!]

"You guys are adorable."
Who are "you guys?"

Off-topic:

related to that PlameNiger leak or not a leak kerfluffle:

Murray Waas has had this sitting on his site for a couple of months:
http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/2006/02/did-bush-administration-authorize-leak.html

Do ya think that the mainstream media even noticed?
If clicking the link doesn't work, cut and paste it.

[!]

OK. Maybe not a couple of months, but for over a month.

It and the latest revelations do beg the questions as to why Woodward and Judy Miller were leaked any information when neither wrote stories. Why both seemed to get false or downplayed information? And, by leaking to those two, did Libby hope or want them to in turn become sources for other journalists to put some distance between the admin. and the story? Why did Woody and Miller get the 411?

Cynical people want to know; the rest need to know.

[!]

Phew.
Apparently, and fortunately, Jay Rosen wrote something about Waas, Woody and relevance questions on Saturday.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/04/09/waas_now.html

Go read it.

I have yet to read the updated portions of Rosen's entry but I think it is not a reach to speculate that when the Bush Administration yaks about leaving judgements on current policies/actions up to "History" they are likely talking about leaving it up to Woodward to write the next or "final" draft.

It is like there is a want by the administration to impress Woody so he doesn't try to make a negative portrait of the whole deal. (Though, you gotta wonder if Woodward is beyond unflattering exposes these days.)

Again, go read the above links.