Rich Lowry wrong 1,460 times and counting
Shorter Rich Lowry: it's the military's fault.
Apparently Rich Lowry has one such job.
It doesn't matter which treatise Lowry cites extolling the virtues of counterinsurgency, whatever slim chance there was to build a "stable, democratic Iraq" is long gone, buried under the incompetence and corruption of the CPA. To now try to shift blame to the uniformed military is pretty sleazy. But then, conservatives are never wrong and never held accountable for their actions in this country by the media.
Lowry's pap is frequently printed in The Oregonian, which I suppose in journalamism world is justified by "hearing all voices." But the big problem this country faces, one best exemplified by the shallow and careless analysis of Lowry, is that we simply must stop believing what we want to believe, no matter how many times writers like Lowry offer up a salve.
The ridiculous term "surge" is another obvious tip-off that there is nothing more in the offing than talking points.
Remember how the righties were always pontificating about how Iraq was Normandy, Little Round Top and the Blitz all rolled into one? (Never mind who was doing the Blitzing, of course.)
Did we "surge" the beaches at Normandy? Yeah, didn't think so. That's because nobody had ever heard the idiotic term until a few weeks ago, and odds are Frank Luntz thought it up.
It's a troop increase; people can argue whether it represents an "escalation" all they want; the insurgents will decide whether the conflict escalates. That's not "taking their side," it's stating the obvious: the U.S. has lost all initiative in Iraq.
The media can start loving America again by pointing out the obvious: conservatives don't know what they are doing in regards to Iraq, and continuing to take their advice is lethal. Especially for the brave men and women who have volunteered to serve in the armed forces. Do we really have to do this for another 1,460 days in row?
In Iraq, Bush has been deferring to generals of widely varying quality. Some deserved deference, others didn’t. The question of troop levels might seem a mere tactical issue, but it has vast strategic implications — without enough troops, it is impossible to provide the security to the population that is one of the foundations of a sound counterinsurgency strategy. As it became clear that the military strategy in Iraq wasn’t working, Bush stuck with it, partly on grounds that he didn’t want to gainsay his generals, when he should have been firing them.I'm trying to think of how many jobs exist where one could be wrong every day for say, 1,460 days in a row, and still be employed.
Now that he might order a surge, Bush will have to backtrack on his conviction that generals are best left alone. As he does, he should go back and understand the source of his mistake — a misinterpretation of Vietnam.
Apparently Rich Lowry has one such job.
It doesn't matter which treatise Lowry cites extolling the virtues of counterinsurgency, whatever slim chance there was to build a "stable, democratic Iraq" is long gone, buried under the incompetence and corruption of the CPA. To now try to shift blame to the uniformed military is pretty sleazy. But then, conservatives are never wrong and never held accountable for their actions in this country by the media.
Lowry's pap is frequently printed in The Oregonian, which I suppose in journalamism world is justified by "hearing all voices." But the big problem this country faces, one best exemplified by the shallow and careless analysis of Lowry, is that we simply must stop believing what we want to believe, no matter how many times writers like Lowry offer up a salve.
The ridiculous term "surge" is another obvious tip-off that there is nothing more in the offing than talking points.
Remember how the righties were always pontificating about how Iraq was Normandy, Little Round Top and the Blitz all rolled into one? (Never mind who was doing the Blitzing, of course.)
Did we "surge" the beaches at Normandy? Yeah, didn't think so. That's because nobody had ever heard the idiotic term until a few weeks ago, and odds are Frank Luntz thought it up.
It's a troop increase; people can argue whether it represents an "escalation" all they want; the insurgents will decide whether the conflict escalates. That's not "taking their side," it's stating the obvious: the U.S. has lost all initiative in Iraq.
The media can start loving America again by pointing out the obvious: conservatives don't know what they are doing in regards to Iraq, and continuing to take their advice is lethal. Especially for the brave men and women who have volunteered to serve in the armed forces. Do we really have to do this for another 1,460 days in row?
