Following up on this post by Blue Texan, can anybody name a point in the history of the Iraq war when Glenn Reynolds did not say that our strategy at the time was guaranteed success? Searchers can start with the times when the White House has clearly decided to change direction but the commanding Generals (e.g., Peter Pace) had not yet received their War with Eastasia! banners from the printer.
I’m just curious to know whether Reynolds or the rest of the diehard coterie have ever predicted that any of our dozens of notably non-successful strategies* would end in anything but glorious liberal-shaming victory. Because if I had an an unbroken record of wrongness stretching back to the first WMD arguments of 2003 then I would feel slightly sheepish about holding another gloating, self-congratulatory bloggasm.
(*) Using the word ‘strategy’ probably gives the Rumsfeld team credit that it doesn’t deserve. Bear with me.
A glimmer of reality in 2006? The Kristol clan’s miracle elixir cured that.
Let me explain why I’m doubtful that the recent decline in mortality counts as genuine progress. No, on second thought, I’ll let Thomas Ricks explain. I would add that ethnic cleansing necessarily cannot go on forever. Eventually the offending sect has essentially disappeared from a given neighborhood and the conflict switches to (1) intrasect conflict while different power centers vie for leadership, and then (2) the pitched territory battles that the civil war skeptics kept asking about. The surge just prolongs step (1). When our troops draw down to a token level, and readiness limitations guarantee that we soon will, the Shiites and Sunnis will start politely disagreeing over territory while the Kurds claim Kirkuk and then build a fence around it.