WH Internal Debate

A large cast of Washington Post writers has a must-read story on the internal debate about "the surge" this morning. It has a good picture of the points of contention, apparently from the perspective of some of the minor figures involved. Cheney is all but invisible in the story, but I did notice my forehead scar hurting at some points.

Central Command Chief Admiral William J. Fallon seems to be a principal sceptic:

Fallon was also derisive of Iraqi leaders' intentions and competence, and dubious about the surge. "He's been saying from Day One, 'This isn't working,' " said a senior administration official. And Fallon signaled his departure from Bush by ordering subordinates to avoid the term "long war" -- a phrase the president used to describe the fight against terrorism.


Iraqi leaders' intentions are the real point, aren't they? What reason is their to think that Maliki, or any other plausible Iraqi leader is interested in what we could call success?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

Uneasy Lies The Head

We Call it Soccer