In light of yesterday’s post regarding the way out of Iraq, here are two more views. First, William S. Lind presents a more “traditional” conservative view on how to withdraw (Link via Andrew Sullivan). Here’s a taste:
The Bush administration, consistent with its record of military incompetence, continues to pursue the folly of maximalist objectives. It still defines victory as it did at the war’s outset: an Iraq that is an American satellite, friendly to Israel, happy to provide the U.S. with a limitless supply of oil and vast military bases from which American forces can dominate the region. None of these objectives are now attainable. None were ever attainable, no matter what our troops did. And as long as those objectives define victory, we are doomed to defeat.
Fortunately, another objective, the one that actually matters most, may, with luck and skill, still be achieved. That objective—restoring a state in what is now the stateless region of Mesopotamia—must become our new definition of victory.
Lind goes on to suggest that we must re-engage Iran to accomplish this goal. It’s an interesting theory. I am not quite sure what to make of it.
Gregory Djerejian makes a similar case here.