This looks like a critically important piece just out from Michael Hirsh in Newsweek. The quick summary: the implications of the 'surge' policy aren't at all understood at all in the US political conversation. The 'surge' isn't a ramped up effort to get a hold of the security situation in Iraq so that American troops can come home. The whole policy is based on the assumption that Iraqis can't police or stabilize Iraq, that the American military will have to do it for them and that we'll be there for five or more likely ten or more years more before we have any hope of leaving.a position that is hip and trendy amongst various pro-war factions, some of whom have been talking about needing to be there for a decade or few.... Then we have this, and on the Lighter Side Comedic Moment
[ cf TPM - the surge problem ]
Andrew Sullivan: "What's more telling is how unpopular the war is in Britain, and how an entire generation of Brits have now grown up thinking of the United States as a bullying, torturing force for instability in the world. That's not the America I love - but it is the image of America that Bush and Cheney have built for the largest generation of human beings ever to grow up on the planet. In Italy, the government has fallen because there is no longer support for even a minimal presence in Afghanistan, let alone Iraq."WOW....
[ cf TPM - the Andrew Sullivan problem ]
So why does Andrew Sullivan HATE AMERICA????
Why can't folks understand that we have to do a little sectarian cleansing in Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, because, well, some times the President Gets These Little Urges, and heaven knows a Blow Job Just WILL NOT DO....
Wouldn't be prudent...