The Opposite Tack
I mentioned the Washington Post editorial about the new plan for Iraq earlier. To take a look at a completely opposite view, here's what the Times of London has to say about the "surge" and the alternatives, especially the tired "realities" of the Iraq Study Group:
In reality, there is no credible alternative. The Iraq Study Group proved rather better at setting out the many problems that exist in Iraq than in offering precise solutions. Its recommendation that the White House co-opt Iran and Syria as its allies in Iraq does not look remotely plausible. The idea that suddenly withdrawing American soldiers from the country would convince Shia and Sunni hardliners to be more charitable to one another is equally improbable. Mr Bush’s domestic foes, notably Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives (who has a minimal record in foreign policy) and the increasingly surreal Edward Kennedy, would simply abandon Iraq and be done with it.
This is not a course that the United States can afford to take. Mr Bush’s decision involves serious risks and it is inevitable that more American soldiers will die as a result of being sent to dangerous sections of Baghdad. Nor is this destined to be a wildly popular announcement at home. It is right, nevertheless, to make one more effort to create the sort of Iraq that its people deserve and the vast majority of its citizens aspire to. These are the appropriate means to what is a noble end.
There are a lot of people weighing in with opinions here. But it really does come down to win or lose and what we choose to do. I'm hoping America chooses to win. Because the alternative is outright disaster for both Iraq and the United States.
By wolfwalker, Thursday, 11 January , 2007 @ 9:16 am
The Times of London wrote that?
Excuse me, there’s a pig hovering outside my second-story window…
By Gaius, Thursday, 11 January , 2007 @ 9:26 am
The Times has been generally more supportive than most of the other British papers.