Was the surge a set-up?

ARTICLE: Help Wanted: Peacemaker, By Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, July 18, 2007, Pg. 19

Understand the frustration here and agree. I was willing to support the surge from the start, as I often noted, but only if--as Friedman now puts it--there would have been an accompanying diplomatic surge. Otherwise, it just struck me that everyone would simply wait us out, which they are doing.

You look at that dynamic, then, cynically, and you listen to the build-up from various sources about how war with Iran is "inevitable," and you begin to think the whole surge thing was a complete set-up.

And that gets me very mad indeed, much like Friedman.

Comments

[Steve Pampinella]

Something about high crimes and misdemeanors...

[J Canepa]

The flow of funds explains all

[mark moran]

I do not see substantive discussion of the consequences of failure in Iraq. Most of what is discussed is narrowly us-centric (e.g. our casualties) and/or pandering to the specter of a humanitarian crisis that will result from civil or regional war. (We do not have forces in Darfur mitigating the humanitarian crisis because humanitarian crisis's are not vital US interests.)

One of the principle reasons we remain in Iraq, buffering the civil war, is to minimize the negative impact on the global economy through a step-function increase in the price of oil. The mere threat of regional war will increase oil production and shipment risks, reduce supply, and drive the price through the roof. Western economies will suffer enormously and our global leadership will be at risk.

We need clear and cold public discussion of these points. Where is the analysis? How to we stimulate effective debate?

Thank you.