Iraqi "victory" defined ...

-
This is not pick on Jeff Jacoby week. He just writes about things I care about and his arguments, left unchallenged, could be very misleading.

Jeff's opinion on Iraq is very similar to his views on Global Warming (see blog post below). He looks only at the smallest of details and yet makes sweeping proclamations.

Bush's 'folly' is ending in victory (March 25)
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/25/bushs_folly_is_ending_in_victory/

Besides, Jeff wrote almost this same article before, so I had to respond. Previously, maybe two years ago, he wrote about how good things were going in Iraq - it was just that no one wanted to cover it. My arguments then were:

1) How do you define "good" Jeff? If you mean better than the absolutely horrific and mindblowingly F-d up it was yesterday, then maybe you have a point. But if you are looking for anyone else's definition of good - Iraq is not the place.

2) And WHERE do you define "good" Jeff? If you mean within the highly fortified Green zone that is such a small portion of the WHOLE COUNTRY of Iraq than I guess you may have something. But if you are going to continue to say Iraq instead of a neighborhood in Baghdad, then I think you need to re-write your column.

There is no question that today, maybe, there are more signs of calm and normalcy in Iraq. But if you have to completely F up a country just so that when it inevitably calms down a bit you can claim SUCCESS - then I think we can still say the strategy was a bit flawed.

By writing at this time, it is also convenient that:

1) People don't know how bad it was - and that
2) People really don't know how bad it still is.

Yes terrorist bombings are less frequent - but LESS FREQUENT is not SUCCESS nor is it a victory of the Bush policy.

And if I hear about "The Surge" one more time I think I am going to puke. The surge did better stabilize one small part of Iraq. Yet, the rest of the country is still controlled by insurgents and don't you think they are there now, waiting for US withdrawal, rather than mixing it up with an increased US presence in Baghdad primarily.

Please do not take that last sentence as a critique of withdrawal. We need to withdraw and should have long ago. My point is that "The Surge" didn't solve anything. "The Surge" was not a strategy, it was an action - for which there was a re-action.

The real problem is that maybe - just maybe - there was a better way to get to where we are now or - god forbid - a better place than we are in right now. I wouldn't call the place we are in - after all the US and Iraqi deaths - a superior place to where we could have been under a leader other than Bush. That is why I can't really stand by while Jeff proclaims victory over the needlessly dead bodies of Iraqi civilians and US soldiers.

Keep an eye out in the papers. We have been desenstized to it, but the attacks continue. The deaths continue. And much like the climate, the numbers will go up and they will go down, but they won't go away. That Jeff, is victory.