Surging to Nowhere

According to Thomas Sowell, we'd be winning in Iraq if it weren't for the Democrats and the liberal media. Simply put, it's Vietnam all over again.

Deep down Sowell knows that the surge is likely to fail - how else to explain the fact that he doesn't bother to explain how it will make things better. What's more, he knows that American forces will eventually withdraw without having been able to prevent a blood bath. Like most of his comrades on the Right, Sowell is attempting to lay the groudwork for the "Who Lost Iraq Debate" that will inevitably follow our retreat. If only the defeatist media had presented a less biased account of events. If only excessively restrictive "rules of engagement" hadn't prevented us from wiping out Sunni insurgents and the Shia militias. If only we could have imposed our iron will by disregarding the wishes of Iraq's elected government. Or something like that.

Instead of making ridiculous assertions about how great Iraq would be if it weren't for Nancy Pelosi, defenders of the surge need to be making arguments that actually comport (or at least somewhat comport) with the reality on the ground. Does the bulk of the evidence suggest that escalating the war is going to make things better? How is the surge going to prevent the transformation of the Iraqi government into an Iran-backed Shia theocracy (think Sadr) bent on annhilating the Sunnis? And what if the surge fails? Is Sowell prepared to send even more troops? Why are so many on the Right unwilling to answer these questions?

Posted by Kingston