Frank Rich has a thoughtful, and well reasoned analysis of the current situation in tomorrow's
"Dying to Save the G.O.P. Congress." Rich looks at how
the war is a calamity by [Bush's] definitions as well. The American command's call for a mere 3,000 more Iraqi troops to help defend Baghdad has gone unanswered... When Iraqis do stand up, violence goes up. And when American and British troops stand down, murderous sectarian militias, some of them allied with that "unity" government, fill the vacuum, taking over entire cities like Amara and Balad in broad daylight. As for those "difficult decisions"
"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
Frank Rich, as always, delves into a great deal of depth, combining several issues, especially Maliki's failures, the inevitability of disengagement and the costs borne by our troops. He also undercuts
Friedman's TET analogy.
The issue of Maliki is two-fold. He "mocked the very idea of an America-imposed timetable. "I am positive that this is not the official policy of the American government, but rather a result of the ongoing election campaign," he said, adding dismissively, "And that does not concern us much."" He is also, it seems to me, picking up some elements of American Democracy: "killing so many Iraqi civilians that Mr. Maliki this month ordered his health ministry to stop releasing any figures." Finally, he isn't stopping the violence:
Mr. Maliki is not cracking down on rampaging militias but running interference for their kingpin, Moktada al-Sadr. Mr. Maliki treats this radical anti-American Shiite cleric, his political ally, with far more deference than he shows the American president.
Meanwhile, our troops are paying the price.
Our troops are held hostage by the White House's political imperatives as much as they are by the violence. Desperate to maintain the election-year P.R. ruse that an undefined "victory" is still within reach, Mr. Bush went so far at Wednesday's press conference as to say that "absolutely, we're winning" in Iraq."
Finally, the TET issue. Rich doesn't mention Friedman but looks at the differences:
That sloppy Vietnam analogy ... first made by Mr. Rumsfeld in June 2004 ... made a little more sense then, since both the administration and the American public were still being startled by the persistence of the Iraq insurgency... Where we are in Iraq today is not 1968 but 1971, after the bottom had fallen out, Johnson had abdicated and America had completely turned on Vietnam. At that point, approval of Richard Nixon's handling of the war was at 34 percent, comparable to Mr. Bush's current 30. The percentage of Americans who thought the Vietnam War was "morally wrong" stood at 51, comparable to the 58 percent who now think the Iraq war was a mistake. Many other Vietnam developments in 1971 have their counterparts in 2006: the leaking of classified Pentagon reports revealing inept and duplicitous war policy, White House demonization of the press, the joining of moderate Republican senators with Democrats to press for a specific date for American withdrawal.
I find Rich's sober and in-depth analysis a shocking comparison with Friedman's breezy banter about Barney. Even when Friedman gets something right (Iraq is a mess), he cannot hope for the gravity and acumen of Rich (or Krugman.)