An Iraq reality check on the the Wall Street Journal opinion page from Reuel Marc Gerecht, Can the Shiite Center Hold?.

This is the lead, main-page opinion article in the Journal, not the right-hand corner occasionally reserved for apostates. This is the establishment talking to itself, and it sounds nervous.

Contrary to what so many in the Bush administration hoped, Iraq's salvation still rides with the two forces that few had foreseen: the religious Shiites, who recognize Ayatollah Sistani as moral guide, not the secularists in whom U.S. officials placed such store; and the U.S. military, which remains the only effective counterinsurgency force capable of diminishing sectarian strife and staunching Sunni-led violence. Together, they can corner the militants in their midst; if either falters, Iraq will probably descend into hell.

More: The Bush administration would be wise not to postpone any longer what it should have already undertaken--securing Baghdad. This will be an enormously difficult task...Pacifying Baghdad will be politically convulsive and provide horrific film footage and skyrocketing body counts. But Iraq cannot heal itself so long as Baghdad remains a deadly place...To punt this undertaking down the road when the political dynamics might be better, and when the number of American soldiers in Iraq will surely be less, perhaps a lot less, is to invite disaster.

OK, three years in, time to get serious about this thing...

Kicker: [T}he  Iraqis really are doing their part--better than what anyone historically could have expected. The real question is, will Gen. Abizaid and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld do theirs?

Comments

[Bubba]

Here's something else from WSJ......

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008182

Key point:

"Critics of the Iraq war have offered no serious strategic alternative to the president's freedom agenda, which is anchored in the belief that democracy and liberal institutions are the best antidote to the pathologies plaguing the Middle East. The region has generated deep resentments and lethal anti-Americanism. In the past, Western nations tolerated oppression for the sake of "stability." But this policy created its own unintended consequences, including attacks that hit America with deadly fury on Sept. 11. President Bush struck back, both militarily and by promoting liberty."

[Ed Cone]

Yes, I read this morning's article by a Bush employee, Peter Wehner, deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives.

It was not only unconvincing as a rebuttal to critics of the mess Bush has made of Iraq -- where execution, not just strategy is at issue -- but the passage you quote is an outright lie in suggesting that nobody has suggested alternatives to invading a country that didn't attack us, and then screwing up the occupation of said country.

[Bubba]

Whatever you say, Ed. As we have discussed before, you are entitled to your wrong opinion on this topic..

Wehner's piece didn't read like a rebuttal to me.

Let's talk specifics, Ed. What part of Whener's piece did you not like, and in specific, why did you not like it?

[Ed Cone]

I just told you that the "key point" you quoted is bullshit. Beyond that, his general happy talk tone and attempt to shift the argument to "cultural determinism" from "we failed to understand what we were getting into and now we're paying the price" are pretty weak, too.

Any thoughts, Bubba, on the opinion article by Gerecht that was the actual subject of my post, and the importance of its placement on the WSJ op-ed page?

[Bubba]

Correction: Substitute "lie" for "rebuttal" in my last post.

[Bubba]

"I just told you that the "key point" you quoted is bullshit."

I asked for specifics. Instead, you repeat an old canard, and don't offer any facts to back it up.

Nice try, but you need to do much better.

[Ed Cone]

The specifics are in my first comment. Read before you type, Bubba.

Still waiting for any thoughts on the Gerecht article.

Also waiting for you to get your own blog. You have a lot of suggestions about what I should be writing, why not start your own forum?

[Bubba]

"The specifics are in my first comment. Read before you type, Bubba."

No, they are not. Your first comment was strictly your opinion, unsupported by fact of evidence.

Once again, I ask you: Specifically, what part of Whener's article did you disagree with, and specifically, why did you not like it? Specifically what is the "lie" you speak of, and what proof do you present to support your opinion?

"Still waiting for any thoughts on the Gerecht article.

Also waiting for you to get your own blog. You have a lot of suggestions about what I should be writing, why not start your own forum?"

First things first. I'm still waiting on your answer to the questions I asked you about the Whener article.

Again, nice try Ed, but "Deflecting the Question" does not work as a debate tactic.

What line of deductive reasoning supports your opinion?

[Ed Cone]

As stated clearly, Bubba, it is a lie when the government spokesman says nobody has suggested alternatives to Bush's policies.

To be more specific, one oft-stated alternative was: don't invade Iraq. Don't declare an open-ended "global war on terror."

Once we did, another alternative would have been to do it right, by sending enough troops to keep the peace, and not ignoring the clear signs of problems ahead.

Please, Bubba, try to keep up, and if you can't, don't keep yelling for me to come back and carry you.

[Bubba]

"Critics of the Iraq war have offered no serious strategic alternative to the president's freedom agenda"

Why is this a lie? Who has posted a SERIOUS strategic alternative.......not a politically motivated alterneative?

Are you trying to tell me that......

"....don't invade Iraq. Don't declare an open-ended "global war on terror."

or

"Once we did, another alternative would have been to do it right, by sending enough troops to keep the peace, and not ignoring the clear signs of problems ahead"

....constitutes a serious strategic alternative?

Sorry. Open-ended, overly simplistic statements don't pass muster.

As far as my ability to "keep up", if your last comment is the best you can offer on this subject, let's switch to something where you're better able to rationalize your viewpoint.Otherwise, your opinion here is at the same intellectual level as your "Hate Dook" viewpoint.

[Ed Cone]

I cannot imagine a more serious alternative to invading than not invading. Or, if we did invade, to adequate troop strength.

Bubba, you seem to have unlimited time to try to hook me into start-from-scratch arguments. But this stuff has been debated for years now, millions of words have been written about it.

If you showed the slightest sign of being interested in a conversation, instead of the same old argumentative baiting and switching, I'd play.

But you don't, so I won't. See ya.

[Bubba]

"Bait and Swithch". LOL!

It's obvious who of the two of us is not interested in engaging in conversation on this issue.

You obviously don't like someone to challenge your opinions in your written work. Did you never have to defend a thesis in an academic setting?

"I cannot imagine a more serious alternative to invading than not invading. "

I can.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/04/putting_democrats_on_the_defen.html

Exerpt:

"

"Republicans should aggressively engage them on their position, as Sen. McCain did a while back. "Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war," he argued. 'It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents....'

Republicans should explain to voters that leaving Saddam in place would have been the wrong strategic decision and that following the Democrats' troop 'redeployment plan' today would also be the wrong strategic decision. President Bush made the right call. Saddam is gone. Now we must finish the job -- that's the message."

I am aggressively engaging you on your position. Get used to it.

[PotatoStew]

"Why is this a lie? Who has posted a SERIOUS strategic alternative.......not a politically motivated alterneative?"

Please stop. You're tearing up the playing field by moving those goalposts all over the place.

[Bubba]

"You're tearing up the playing field by moving those goalposts all over the place."

No, sorry......that's just your blurred vision that's causing you to see things like that.