September 1, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 47 Download Now! (pdf)

 

EDITORIAL
The Thin Man
by William Kristol

SCRAPBOOK
Bob Herbert's History Lesson

ARTICLES
Don't Cry for Russia
by Cathy Young

Keynote Kalamities
by Matthew Continetti

Would You Hire Barack Obama?
by Dean Barnett

An Awkward Alliance
by Stephen F. Hayes

Unsuper Delegate
by Richard Burr

Hillary Supporters for McCain
by Salena Zito

FEATURES
Misfortunes of War
by Noemie Emery

The New Jews?
by Jennifer Rubin

Faith-Based Campaign
by Terry Eastland

BOOKS & ARTS
No Way Out
by Christopher J. Walker

The Texas Way
by William McKenzie

Crime Pays
by Steven J. Lenzner

Hef's Cold War
by Cynthia Grenier

Le Film Mediocre
by John Podhoretz

CASUAL
A Summer Car
by Joseph Bottum

PARODY
The Podestionary


« Remember August 31, 2006? | Main | On this Christmas Day »

Kagan v. Kerry on Iraq

John Kerry has an op-ed in today's Washington Post pushing for a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Fred Kagan, coauthor of this Iraq report, explains in today’s Sunday Times why the policy pushed by Kerry and others would lead to defeat. He writes:

A decisive moment in world history is at hand. If the United States, Britain and their allies fail in Iraq the result will almost certainly be a regional maelstrom. If the coalition succeeds, then the West will regain the initiative against radical Islam in Iran and throughout the Muslim world.

The current trajectory in Iraq is poor: rising sectarian violence threatens to rend Iraqi society and destroy America’s will to continue the struggle.

The choices are bleak: nobody has yet developed a convincing plan to resolve this conflict through diplomacy, politics or any other form of soft power. Hopes for success now rest on the coalition’s willingness to adopt a strategy of bringing security to the Iraqi population and confronting the sectarian violence directly as the prerequisite for subsequent political, economic and social development.

Embracing such a strategy would mark a dramatic change from the approach that the US military has pursued since April 2003. Since the beginning of the counter-insurgency effort US central command has focused on training Iraqi soldiers and police to establish and maintain security on their own. America’s own military efforts to establish security have been reactive, sporadic, under-resourced and ephemeral….

In the past, central command generated surges in security in parts of Iraq by drawing forces from elsewhere. This approach created opportunities for the insurgents in the denuded areas. It would be wiser instead to couple a surge in Baghdad with an increase of troops in the other key hotbed of the insurgency, Anbar province….

The increase in US troops cannot be short-term. Clearing and holding the critical areas of Baghdad will require all of 2007. Expanding the secured areas into Anbar, up the Diyala River valley, north to Mosul and beyond will take part of 2008….

Defeat will break the American army and marines more surely and more disastrously than extending combat tours. And the price of defeat for Iraq, the region and the world in any case is far too high to bear.

Email the article Kagan v. Kerry on Iraq to a friend:

Send this article to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


 
Contributors
Editor:
Michael Goldfarb

Contributors:
Dean Barnett
Jennifer Chou
Brian Faughnan
Ulf Gartzke
Reuben F. Johnson
Thomas Joscelyn
Stuart Koehl
John Noonan
Bill Roggio
Samantha Sault
Search
Archives
Contact
wws@weeklystandard.com
Categories
Feeds: Atom | RSS
[What is this?]
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2