| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraq war is 'unwinnable': New York Times |
| 2007-01-15 |
| The Iraq war has been called “unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable.” According to the lead editorial in the New York Times on Sunday, what the country urgently needs is for President George Bush to chart a way out of Iraq that also limits the chaos that will be left behind. But his “disconnect” goes far to explain the harshly critical reaction of Congress and the public to his plan to further bleed America’s overstretched forces by sending some 20,000 additional troops in an attempt to impose peace on Baghdad’s vengeful streets. He proposes to do that without any enforceable commitments from the Iraqi government that it will take the necessary political steps that are the only hope for tamping down a spiralling civil war. Of all the options available, the president, the newspaper said, has come out with the worst as he would mortgage thousands more American lives and what remains of Washington’s credibility in the region to a destructively sectarian Shiite government that he seems unwilling or unable to influence or restrain. The editorial notes that Nouri al-Maliki gave the latest White House plan an even chillier reception than it received in the United States Congress. He apparently would have preferred to see American forces sent to fight Sunni insurgents in western Anbar province, leaving Baghdad as a free-fire zone for his Shiite militia partners. However, the US cannot simply wash its hands of Iraq, which is in imminent danger of violently breaking apart, driving millions of refugees across its borders and potentially unleashing a chain reaction of regional conflicts that could draw in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and perhaps others as well. Iran has already become more formidable and dangerous, with a friendly Shiite fundamentalist government in Baghdad. If the United States is to recoup any of its standing and influence there, it will have to find a way to contain the chaos in Iraq. And it will have to do a lot more to address other concerns of these governments and their people, starting with a genuine and sustained effort to mediate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #18 that's because the NYT didn't think that empire was evil. never disowned that Duranty Pulitzer, did they? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-01-15 20:49 |
| #17 It is winnable once Ayatollah intervention is halted. Then the Sunnis will turn against the terrorists. |
| Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 2007-01-15 20:12 |
| #16 #15 AH - that's because the NYT didn't think that empire was evil. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-01-15 19:15 |
| #15 Remember how the NYT was completely clueless when the Evil Empire fell? |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-15 19:08 |
| #14 "The Iraq war has been called “unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable.”" Gee, what a coincidence. The NewYorkSlimes is unnecessary, mismanaged and useless. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-01-15 16:00 |
| #13 Now, imagine if this war proves to be winnable. Will any of the Libs say they are sorry? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2007-01-15 14:31 |
| #12 I think sometimes he is just too patient and nice a guy in front of the camera. Time to get dry and sarcastic w/the idiots asking the loaded questions. God yes! He should have stopped playing Mr. Nice Guy 5 years ago. He probably wouldn't have lost Congress. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2007-01-15 12:13 |
| #11 In related news: The New York Times' war coverage is stuck in a quagmire of recycled metaphors. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-01-15 10:08 |
| #10 First, I think the terminology is all wrong. Every time some one says the Iraq war is "unwinnable" I want to puke. It took us what, like 4 weeks to whip the Iraqis. Not to mention we toppled the sitting dictator, deposed his family, broke his party. Within two years of that there were free elections and a turn out that absolutely embarrasses any U.S. election over the past 50 yrs (I know because unlike 95% of these douchebag journalists plus the rediculous ISG, I was actually on the ground there). A constitution has been written and countless Iraqis have been vaccinated, clothed, and sent back to school (to include young girls). If that's not victory, I don't know what is. 80% of the real estate is pacified and now we have issues mainly in Baghdad & Al Anbar -as to be expected. It's like saying since s.central L.A. is a pigsty that all of California is in chaos and "unwinnable) - f*cking stupid logic. Oh, and BTW we didn't even steal their oil as predicted by the far left p*ssies. The discussion should be the proposition of a viable lasting stability for the Iraqi Gov't & how best to get there from here. Not, if we won the war. We already won the war. Bush needs to emphatically spell this out to the obvious plethora of willfully ignorant morons in our own country how we are going to help the Iraqis sustain a tolerable lasting peace. I think sometimes he is just too patient and nice a guy in front of the camera. Time to get dry and sarcastic w/the idiots asking the loaded questions. Tactically IMO, if we start blacking out the media (who seem to be recalcitrant to print any success stories although there are many) and loosen the ROE - we could drain the nut-swamp in iraq in about 9 months. I'd also wetwork Tater and pit tribe vs tribe if need be. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2007-01-15 09:08 |
| #9 "unwinnable"! They said that about Ulster: It just takes longer than you can fit in a Hollywood movie, which is about the limit of NYT's attention span |
| Posted by: Uleanter Ebbinenter1449 2007-01-15 09:05 |
| #8 I said it here a couple of days ago: No war is unwinnable, but only our enemies seem to understand that. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-01-15 06:42 |
| #7 More equestrian droppings from the NYT and the left. For the civilized world, the 'rule of law' is adhered to through a common understanding of the written word and an appreciatin for peace and civility. For everyone else, it means the application of force. These squabbling tribal, fanatical bastards will settle down and play nice only with the appliction of sufficient STEEL ON TARGET! Always been that'a way, probably allways will. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-01-15 04:49 |
| #6 There was I thinking we had already won. The so-called "civil war" between Sunnis and Shiites, well that's a different matter. Whether it is “unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable” depends on which side you want to win. |
| Posted by: tipper 2007-01-15 03:45 |
| #5 Iraq, which is in imminent danger of violently breaking apart, driving millions of refugees across its borders and potentially unleashing a chain reaction of regional conflicts that could draw in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and perhaps others as well." Me like. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-01-15 03:39 |
| #4 TW2228, the NYT is working from the Tranzi Kumbaya phantasy worldview. In reality, stable prosperous states result geographic entities where the overwhelming majority are happy or at least content to be a citizen of that entity and subject to its government. Iraq is on it's way there. If it draws Iran, Syria and Turkey down the same road then that's a feature. And BTW, the Iraq war is unloseable, with the single proviso the US gaurantees Iraq's external borders. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2007-01-15 01:12 |
| #3 Leftism = Governmentism, among other precepts. It does NOT matter to dedicated Anti-US agendists, to include Anti-Amer Americans, whether SOCIALISM + OWG = GLOBALISM is empowered voluntarily by America, and or externally forced upon America. By this context, AMERICA LOSING = AMERICA WINNING, America being militarily defeated or unilater falling back into isolationism is no different than AMERICA WINNING NEW GLOBAL EMPIRE. IN LONG TERM/STRATEGICALLY, AMER MUST "LOSE" TO ANTi-US COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM + OWG NO MATTER WHAT IT DOES. Remember, WOT > IN YOUR FACE vz THEY WHOM MUST BE NAMED/SEEN/HEARD BUT MUST BE OBEYED. Lefty DIALECTICISM = Politicism = Waffle-ism = PCorrectness = the Blameless Left stays Blameless no matter what happens > ANY EACH ALL EVERY SIDE = NO SIDE. Laissez Faire/Libertarianism = the Gubmint/Regulatory Gubmint. Gubmint must be charge and the Left must be in charge of Gubmint, the STARVING FAILED LEFT MUST GOVERN/CONROL THE WELL-FED WORKING RIGHT. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-01-15 01:06 |
| #2 “unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable.” I thought this was about the NYT's business plan. |
| Posted by: Almost Anonymous5839 2007-01-15 01:04 |
| #1 "However, the US cannot simply wash its hands of Iraq, which is in imminent danger of violently breaking apart, driving millions of refugees across its borders and potentially unleashing a chain reaction of regional conflicts that could draw in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and perhaps others as well." Why not? |
| Posted by: Thraling Whomoque2228 2007-01-15 00:42 |