William M. Arkin in the Washington Post writes an article called Bush's Victory is Defeat. In he describes a variety of things but here's a key paragraph:
Look, it is the President who insists on labeling Iraq as "the central front in the global war on terror," as "an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism." He says that "the fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance." I don't buy either of these assumptions, but if the administration is serious in its rhetoric, isn't it strange that they are now saying that they are willing to leave Iraq before the insurgency is "defeated," that they are willing to entrust the security of THE UNITED STATES to a brand new, unknown, unproven, untested Iraqi military and police force?
I'm not sure if this is really catching them in a logical inconsistency or a bit of Arkin's own rhetoric. But I do think it's an interesting point.
No comments:
Post a Comment