Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
GREAT MINDS ALL SOUND ALIKE.
Bill Kristol likes the Surge. That's the sort of forward-looking, fresh commentary you can only find on the New York Times op-ed page! Meanwhile, from the William Kristol reading list files comes the correction at the bottom of today's column:
In last week’s column, I mistakenly attributed a quotation from Michael Medved to Michelle Malkin. I regret the error.
I empathize with Kristol. It's hard to tell such great thinkers apart.
Update: It's worth zeroing in for a moment on the sort of wisdom we're getting from the Times op-ed page:
The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second-lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003. And according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq, last month’s overall number of deaths, which includes Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties as well as U.S. and coalition losses, may well have been the lowest since the war began.
Imagine you have a failing business. And I promise to turn it around and make you a profit. And the way I do that is begin selling all your products for less money. And so people begin buying more. A year later, I come to you, and tell you that my plan worked perfectly, sales are way up! And you reply that you're not only still losing money, you're losing even more money, and wasn't the point of this to make a profit? And then I say, again, but don't you see how much sales have gone up?
That's what Kristol is doing with the Surge. No one doubted that the additions of tens of thousands American troops would cut down on violence, particularly when paired with the results of ongoing ethnic displacement and cleansing, and the inevitable Sunni rejection of jihadist interlopers. But the promise of the Surge was not a reduction in violence, it was an acceleration in reconciliation. Bush was very clear about this. “When [security improves], daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.” As Thomas Ricks, author of Fiasco, put it, "the purpose of the surge was to operate tactically in such a way as to create a breathing space for Iraqi political movement -- that was the strategic goal. That has not happened." Kristol is changing the definition of success, and in doing, rewriting history and misinforming the New York Times' readers.
COMMENTS (10)
So negative! It isn't as though 2007 was the bloodiest year for the US, or the most expensive! And it isn't as though it isn't sustainable -- Surge Forever!
Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 | January 14, 2008 9:52 AM
Per E&P, the Times' Public Editor has now come out and openly stated that hiring Kristol was a mistake. That's both appropriate and amusing, but in his comments he made another statement that absolutely blew my mind:
I agree with their effort to address an Op-Ed lineup that, until Kristol came aboard, was at least six liberals against one conservative who isn’t always all that conservative.
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around that one.
Link to E&P story: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003695900
Posted by: Midwest Product | January 14, 2008 10:00 AM
what happened to Daily Op-Edding?
Posted by: David | January 14, 2008 10:22 AM
The good news is that Kristol's contract is up in a year.
Posted by: Henderstock | January 14, 2008 10:56 AM
That's not really fair. Plenty of people doubted that the surge would cut down on the overall level of violence, and given this administration's abysmal execution of every policy having to do with Iraq, they had good reason to doubt. It's still a matter of debate how much of the (significant but not all that enormous) reduction in violent deaths is a result of the thousands of additional troops on the street in Baghdad.
And then you get to the question of whether that reduction in violence has had any substantial effect on the longterm prognosis.
Posted by: paul | January 14, 2008 12:36 PM
Surge, Schmurge...if we weren't in this god forsaken military action(certainly not a war; we won that) we wouldn't wouldn't be arguing about this. Let's not lose sight of the executive manipulations that got us here.
Posted by: Ken Woodbury | January 14, 2008 12:52 PM
Of course the real point of the surge was to buy time. If it worked by doing what the administration claimed it woud, i.e. encouraging reconciliation, then great. If not, though, it provides enough political cover in the US that we can keep troops there for another year. Everything Iraq-related has to be seen through the perspective that the overall goal is to establish permanent American basing there. If civil war between Sunni and Shia is inevitable, then the US needs to find ways of justifying waiting around until the civil war is over. The beauty of the Surge is that is sets us up to take credit for reductions in violence that are actually arising because the ethnic cleansing is nearing completion.
Posted by: Galen | January 14, 2008 2:19 PM
Why are we measuring success by Bush's criteria? I think there's a serious argument to be made that such a massive reduction in violence in Baghdad is worth it in and of itself. Even if it's not sustainable in the long run, this short-term expenditure of resources has saved thousands of real people's lives. Why doesn't that count for a lot? I'm not saying that political progress isn't important, but I haven't heard anyone argue that the surge has HURT that and it seems to have helped a lot in other ways.
Posted by: Taren | January 14, 2008 3:53 PM
what's really astounding about the piece is that kristol's repeated complaint is that dems who oppose the surge don't like to admit that they were wrong. coming from him, this is seriously pathological stuff!
Posted by: logicat | January 16, 2008 12:26 PM
Taren: "this short-term expenditure of resources has saved thousands of real people's lives ... I haven't heard anyone argue that the surge has HURT"
Which part of "ethnic cleansing" doesn't completely invalidate both of those false assumptions?
Posted by: Tim B | January 16, 2008 1:20 PM