I was struck by a couple of things he said that indicated not just a change in tactics but a whole new attitude with regard to what's necessary. He’s taking the gloves off. . . . I'll bet that a lot of folks who support the president on this are asking themselves "what if we'd taken care of business this way two years ago?"Indeed.
Now, I'm probably hawkier than the next guy - and I sure have always said we should have mined Iraq's borders and gotten kinetic with Assad and Ahmadinejad right after major combat operations were over. And I have posted frequently that I feel that both FDR and Truman would've take their gloves off MUCH sooner.
BUT there are a few MAJOR REASONS why Bush has waited until now to crank it up a notch: We were waiting until AFTER the first popularly elected democratic constitutional government of Iraq got a little settled in before we went ballistic. We wanted to give them a chance to do more on their own - in their own way, first. The Maliki government took many months to form and it's less than a year old. They tried assuaging al Sadr and the Sunni tribes. But they failed.
Now the time has come to essentially give this Iraqi administration their last chance. If they fail to uphold their end of the bargain - and better control public safety by the end of 2007 - and include more Sunnis and fewer radical/iranianized Shias, then the Maliki administration will collapse, and Iraqis will have to form another administration. Then - because the Dem Leftie doves (and the MSM they dominate) are trying to exploit America's distaste for war and nation-building - it'll be pretty obvious that the Iraqis will only be getting one more year of aid from the USA. This will incentivize Iran to promote more instability in Iraq - and that's why it's so so so SO sad that the Dems - who might very well win the White House in 2008 - are not on board. Like Zapatero, they incentivize the enemy.
If the next Iraqi administration fails to control public safety after that stage, then I'd say that our next best national security move is to preemptively attack Iran: A weak and destabilized Iraq under the thumb of a near-nuclear Iran very risky. Under the thumb of a NUCLEAR Iran is UNACCEPTABLE. That's why I still believe that we will preemptively attack Iran not later than between November, 10 2008 and January 10, 2009
BUT there are a few MAJOR REASONS why Bush has waited until now to crank it up a notch: We were waiting until AFTER the first popularly elected democratic constitutional government of Iraq got a little settled in before we went ballistic. We wanted to give them a chance to do more on their own - in their own way, first. The Maliki government took many months to form and it's less than a year old. They tried assuaging al Sadr and the Sunni tribes. But they failed.
Now the time has come to essentially give this Iraqi administration their last chance. If they fail to uphold their end of the bargain - and better control public safety by the end of 2007 - and include more Sunnis and fewer radical/iranianized Shias, then the Maliki administration will collapse, and Iraqis will have to form another administration. Then - because the Dem Leftie doves (and the MSM they dominate) are trying to exploit America's distaste for war and nation-building - it'll be pretty obvious that the Iraqis will only be getting one more year of aid from the USA. This will incentivize Iran to promote more instability in Iraq - and that's why it's so so so SO sad that the Dems - who might very well win the White House in 2008 - are not on board. Like Zapatero, they incentivize the enemy.
If the next Iraqi administration fails to control public safety after that stage, then I'd say that our next best national security move is to preemptively attack Iran: A weak and destabilized Iraq under the thumb of a near-nuclear Iran very risky. Under the thumb of a NUCLEAR Iran is UNACCEPTABLE. That's why I still believe that we will preemptively attack Iran not later than between November, 10 2008 and January 10, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment