« More Than Meets The Eye | Main | Does Rationing Makes Us Healthier? »

July 12, 2007

Return of the ISG

Do these people realize how they sound? Today, David Ignatius singlehandedly creates a safe, centrist ground that he can write all the dirty, hippy Democrats outside of, saying:

The Iraq debate in Washington this week is intense and angry. But as with the Palestinian conflict, the rhetorical fireworks mask the fact that there's an emerging consensus on what the final result should be. Leaders on both sides endorse the broad strategy proposed last December by the Iraq Study Group: a gradual withdrawal that shifts the American mission to training, force protection, counterterrorism and border security. That formula gets wide support from members of Congress and administration officials alike. As a senior administration official puts it, it's "where everybody agrees you want to go." The problem is getting there.

Oh lordy. You know who's not included in "everybody?" The "administration" that this "senior administration official" is part of. They, after all, not only rejected the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, but took the reverse course and increased the deployment without any concurrent shift in strategy. But that doesn't stop Ignatius from saying:

There's broad agreement on the need to put Iraq policy on a sustainable path that will gradually withdraw American forces without producing the bloodbath that frightens people like Ryan Crocker in Baghdad. But Bush and the Democrats are running out of opportunities to make it happen.

Given that the whole of Ignatius's column focuses on the wisdom of the Iraq Study Group's recommendation, no, it's not Bush and the Democrats who are missing opportunities to draw down the Iraq War. It's just Bush.

But then, that's not the sort of thing a Very Serious columnist is supposed to say, is it?

July 12, 2007 | Permalink


"But getting out of Iraq is now partly in the hands of Democrats who control both houses of Congress. History will be equally unforgiving if their agitation for withdrawal results in a pell-mell retreat that causes lasting damage."

I too am wholeheartedly against the clearly unarticulated and nonexistent Democratic plan to strip our Iraq-based troops to their undergarments, make them exit the country on comically undersized tricycles while bombing them, then spitting on the survivors.

Posted by: norbizness | Jul 12, 2007 9:42:54 AM

Any violence that happens while we're there is clearly not our fault, since we're working so hard to prevent it. But any violence that happens after we leave IS our fault, since we'll no longer be there to prevent it. Those are the fundamental premises underlying the need to reject "precipitous" withdrawal - since we are indubitably a force for good, our presence can only be good and our absence can only be bad. That's why we know (without any need for evidence) that things would be worse if we weren't there.

Posted by: Chris | Jul 12, 2007 10:09:31 AM

America's top print and tv journalists are allergic to telling the truth. You see, it's bad for your career.

Posted by: Northern Observer | Jul 12, 2007 10:31:02 AM

As a senior official in the administration of George III put it:

The War in Ameirca has been less succesful than expected, largely due to the obstructionism and indeed treason of the Whigs. However, leaders on both sides now endorse a gradual withdrawal of British forces to their secure bases at New York and Yorktown, where they will concentrate on training Loyalist troops, force protection, counterterrorism and border security against the French. What could go wrong?

Posted by: rea | Jul 12, 2007 10:46:50 AM

If you only talk to one person about consensus this summer, make sure it's a senior Bush administration official.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Jul 12, 2007 1:09:40 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.