Bush's shifting rationale for war implies even longer stay for U.S.

by JFH

In today’s LA Times, Ronald Brownstein and Kathleen Hennessey examine the Administration’s shifting rationale for war in Iraq, and include a useful list of quotes at the end. I guess potential Bush voters can select the ones they like the best.

But the Administration’s latest principal rationale for going into Iraq seems to be to bring democracy to the country in the hope that a democratic Iraq will tilt the region away from extremism by encouraging the spread of freedom.

That would seem to require a plan!

And not just a plan for the next few months, but a long-term plan, because no one thinks Iraq will become a functional democracy any time soon, and especially not if the U.S. hands over security quickly and high-tails it out of there. Yet the Administration’s current “plan” appears to be to somehow secure the country in time for January elections and, at the same time, “train” enough Iraqi forces to hand over security relatively soon thereafter.

How exactly is that going to work? It isn’t.

This from Knight-Ridder’s excellent series on the morass that Iraq has become:

After nearly 19 months of combat, more than 1,000 American soldiers dead and $119 billion spent, the central question about Iraq isn't whether it will become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East but whether the United States can prevent it from becoming a black hole of instability. The answer may depend on whether Americans are willing to stomach what many military analysts believe will be a guerrilla war for years to come.