Micheal Leeden from NRO, commenting on Iraq:
The clear strategic conclusion remains what it should have been long before Coalition troops entered Saddam's evil domain: No matter how strongly we wish it to be otherwise, we are engaged in a regional war, of which Iraq is but a single battlefield. The war cannot be won in Iraq alone, because the enemy is based throughout the region and his bases and headquarters are located beyond our current reach. His power is directly proportional to our unwillingness to see the true nature of the war, and our decision to limit the scope of our campaign.It doesn't matter that I've thought this since before the war started, it still creeps me out. But I don't see an alternative. The issue reminds me of Nixon in Vietnam, when he was faced with enemy troops resting and re-supplying in Cambodia, which was beyond the border and the jurisdiction of the American war effort. Nixon did a few raids if I recall, but it was too little too late. You can't fight a war half assed. You can't give the enemy civilized graces if he won't return them. If he insists on hiding in churches and hospitals, blow up the churches and hospitals. If a country claims it is neutral but is aiding one side, it is not neutral. To say so is not belligerence, it is a just assessment of reality, and it must be responded to.
Comments