Samuel Berger & Ivo Daalder in the Washington Post: "The Long Haul"

[scarletwoman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42222-2003Oct3.html

It is clear how we got into the mess we face in Iraq. Lofty ambitions . . . true believers who had all the answers before they asked any of the questions . . . an unshakable conviction that other nations would follow us, whether they liked it or not, because of our power . . . a naive acceptance of the exile narrative, which promised that we would be embraced as liberators and the exiles would be crowned with power by a population largely born after they left Iraq . . . a stubborn refusal to listen to people such as Gen. Eric Shinseki who said the peace would be harder than the war. It is tempting for those who opposed the enterprise in the first place -- or who watched with dismay as we pivoted from a brilliant military campaign to an uncertain peace without a discernible plan or strategy -- to throw up their hands and say: Cut our losses.

<snip>

Unless we quickly reorganize this mission for the long haul, we will face an unpleasant choice: to endure mounting daily casualties and an increasingly resented and dangerous American occupation or -- as some in the administration are contemplating -- to take a page from the late Sen. George D. Aiken on Vietnam: Declare victory and come home, whether the Iraqis are ready or not.

The wiser course, if it is not too late, is to end our occupation and share power, risk and truth with our allies, Iraqis and the American people.

Interesting piece, some good arguments...

sw

[ewagner]

1. Thanks for posting this

Rational thought coming out of Washington these days is sooooo rare!