Interesting Article

George Packer has an interesting article in the New Yorker, where he describes the current strategy in Iraq as:

As a strategy, this amounts to muddling through the rest of the Bush Presidency,
without being forced to admit defeat, until January of 2009, when the war will
become a new President’s problem.

This is in response to the hope that now that Iraq has a Prime Minister, violence will star to subside.

I do take issue with this thing he says in regards to a Kerry speech demanding a timetable:

Having found his voice, Kerry abruptly concluded the speech with a new war policy: immediate withdrawal if Iraq doesn’t form “an effective unity
government” by May 15th; withdrawal by the end of the year if it does. But
abandoning Iraq in an exasperated rush will leave ordinary Iraqis far more
vulnerable to the murderous conduct of the militias and the insurgents than they
are now.
...
The choice in Iraq should not be between the Administration’s failed eschatology and the growing eagerness of most politicians to be rid of the problem.

This is something of a misrepresentation of what Kerry was saying. While I would agree that Kerry is basically saying let's get rid of this problem. His discussion of a timetable for withdrawl was not to get rid of the problem in that fashion, i.e. "abandoning Iraq in an exasperated rush", but rather as a warning to Iraqis to start working on compromise and find a Prime Minister.

Kerry wasn't the only one who said that, there was also a delegation with McCain, Feingold and others who told the Iraqis they better get moving or the US would lose interest. Kerry's was more pointed, but the effect was the same.

I believe it was this demand on the part of Kerry, or similar demands of other Congress critters which is responsible for the move forward on selecting a Prime Minister.

The next step is another time table. Either do this or we leave. The Iraqis understand what Packer says, that if the US forces leave there will be a great deal of bloodshed, unless they have control of the situation themselves already. But Iraqis can't gain control if they are relying upon the US troops, and they won't try to gain control if they assume the US troops will always be there.

It's the same argument as Welfare Reform, and frankly I'm surprised that it is the Democrats who have put forward the argument and it is the Republicans who are clueless. That shows to me that Republicans don't care about what they claim to care about.

Other than that, it's a good article.