home

Lawrence Korb Eviscerates A Surge Supporter

Lawrence Korb slices Reuel Gerecht into little pieces at TNR:

I applaud your work on the consequences of failure in Iraq. It is good that, after four years, conservatives have finally started thinking about the implications of failure in Iraq. But critics of the war don't need to be lectured on the consequences of failure. We have understood the consequences of failure from the beginning, and many of us opposed the invasion on these very grounds. We were aware that, as Ray Takeyh and Nikolas Gvosdev note, Iraq was "an incongruous collection of sectarian groups cobbled together by the British Empire and then sustained by Sunni terror"--and that an American invasion "has irrevocably unraveled that arrangement." As a result, the empowered Shia, the embittered Sunnis, and the secessionist Kurds would have little incentive or desire to cede power to their foes.

It's ironic that, when you describe the consequences of failure, you are describing the present, not the future. We are witnessing the consequences of failure right now in Iraq. Today, Iraq is immersed in a deep sectarian civil war (sorry, Reuel, it is what it is), where 7 percent of the country has fled (Jordan estimates that there are more than 750,000 Iraqis now in Amman and that about one million have fled to Damascus), millions more have been internally displaced, sectarian militias and death squads roam the streets, more than 100 Americans and many thousands of Iraqis are being killed each month, and our ground forces are being degraded to the point where we lack a realistic deterrent against countries like North Korea and Iran.

Ouch. More.

On the surge specifically, Korb calls out Gerecht for saying, more or less, that even though he thinks the surge won't work, it is better than leaving. Korb jumps on this:

In light of the reality on the ground, I fail to see how staying on the current course does anything to change this. You could argue that the situation would become worse if we pull out immediately. But few, and certainly not I, are suggesting we do that--you are arguing against a straw man. We at the Center for American Progress have never argued that there is a "win-win" situation, as you describe. Because of why we invaded (bogus reasons), and how we invaded (too few troops), there are no good options and no guarantees. But we believe that a strategic redeployment of American forces along with diplomatic initiatives is the best and only way forward.

. . . The cold truth is that the only ones who can solve the problems of Iraq are the Iraqis themselves. The United States should try to facilitate a reconciliation, but, ultimately, if the Shia and Sunnis cannot agree on what the new Iraq should look like, there is little the U.S. government can do, no matter how long we stay. This is tragic, but it is true. And I acknowledge there is a good chance that even this effort will fail.

That is why it is also necessary for the United States to engage in a simultaneous "diplomatic surge" in the region in an effort to mitigate the fallout. In addition, our plan calls for thousands of U.S. troops to remain in the region in order to deter other countries from invading or setting up terrorist camps in Iraq, because we will have the capability to strike targets inside of Iraq quickly.

Those on the right often scoff at the efficacy of diplomacy and statecraft (this may be because this administration has shown itself to be incompetent at it), but it is the only real tool left in our arsenal. Instead of blaming the generals for failing to achieve the unachievable and crossing your fingers that another general will simply be able to solve Iraq's problems, you should start thinking about what we do if this surge doesn't work? Are you going to insist on sending even more troops? Impose the draft? Please offer us more than just apocalyptic visions.

The whole thing is great. If you are asubscriber, I highly recommend it.

< Iraq Troop Caps: Good Policy? Politics? Law? | Who Got Immunity in Scooter Libby Trial? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What's the name (none / 0) (#1)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 06:08:43 PM EST
    of that river in Egypt?

    And mow these war mongers are asking us "What would YOU do now?"? Don't ask. You caan't haandle the truth.

    Now, not mow (none / 0) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 06:09:30 PM EST


    Korb (none / 0) (#3)
    by Fredo on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 09:17:47 PM EST
    This man has been a public fool for more than two decades.  Anyone who relies on him as a spokesman is in deep trouble.

    So you say (none / 0) (#4)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 12:01:20 AM EST
    Why don't you give us examples and critques of his opinions, rather than just calling him names?

    Is there any evidence to support your statement?

    Wait.  It's Fredo.

    Never mind.

    Parent