The Invisible Hand

The Times Policy on Iraq

A typical Sunday morning in November. Up at a civilized hour. A mug of coffee and a crackling fire to warm me in my favorite chair as I survey the raw autumn day out my picture window and review the events of the week with the Sunday New York Times while Bunny Berrigan gently tickles the ivories in the background.

Actually it’s more like lock myself in the bathroom to escape the howls of children and/or dog and read whatever soggy section of the Times that hasn’t been chewed up or spat upon by beast or infant . . . or both!

So it was with excitement that I read the lead editorial in the Times . . . the one that promised at last to reveal the official policy of the Enlightened with regard to Iraq. After years of criticism of Chimpy McHitlerburton and his evil croneys, the Times is finally putting its cards on the table.

Let’s see what we have here:

“Unless America’s exit plans are coupled with a more serious effort to build up
Iraq’s security forces and mediate its sectarian divisions, a phased withdrawal
will only hasten Iraq’s descent into civil war.”

Umm, where have I heard that before? Why yes, it’s the policy of the United States of America. President Bush has on a number of occasions expressed U.S. policy in Iraq as building up Iraqi security forces, mediating Sunni, Shiite and Kurd divisions, and then withdrawing forces. And he’s been downright vocal about the foolishness of cutting and running before the mission is complete.

“We also fear that Iraqis will have no interest in anything but retribution,
until they see that security and rebuilding are possible.”

Wait a second. This too is American policy, is it not? Establish order and rebuild the nation while giving citizens a stake in the future. Didn’t we depose a ruthless dictator at one point, restore electrical power and oil production and then offering ordinary Iraqis a chance to vote for the first time in generations? I’m pretty sure that is in fact the mission defined.

“For that reason we have suggested one last push to stabilize Baghdad. That
would require at least a temporary increase in American and Iraqi troops on
Baghdad streets."

Hey, that’s the Bush policy too. Use armed soldiers, lots of them, to impose peace on the capital and then expand the zone of stability outward. That’s a great idea. Some might even say bold and visionary. The Times policy on Iraq is the Bush policy on Iraq except without all the self determination nonsense.

So what exactly was the fundamental difference of opinion with Bush on Iraq? I mean, he’s the worst president in human history, right? How many forests has the Times clear cut to inform us that Bush is wrong on a molecular level?

And yet, I can’t see any daylight between the Bush policy and the Times policy. What’s with that?

And what if the “Times” policy succeeds; what would be the result? A peaceful, multiethnic democracy taking root in the heart of the medieval Islamist fascist bone yard posing no threat to the United States and serving as a beacon of hope to a region mired in gloom.

But wait, isn’t that . . . no, it couldn’t be . . . didn’t he once say . . . I’m sure this can’t be true . . . but, could it be . . . that Bush is right??!!

Now you tell us!