Granted, the enemies that Iraq faces aren't as formidable as the enemies that West Germany faced for so many decades, but Al Qaeda, Iran, and its various proxies are dangerous enough, and Iraq isn't nearly as strong as West Germany was.
No doubt Boot was looking for a fight when he entitled his post, "Klein and Sullivan." Sure enough, Andrew Sullivan and Joe Klein have responded, arguing that Boot is comparing "apples helium balloons," by measuring Iraq against post WWII Germany. That's certainly a legitimate line of criticism, but isn't it also a bit shortsighted to assume that any American presence in Iraq will be rejected by its populace and manifested in the form of continued insurgent attacks?
While all three men are well-versed in Middle East politics, none know exactly what is going to happen. But from an outside point of view, it seems to me equally unlikely that any U.S. presence in Iraq will result in permanent war, as does the assumption that a longterm presence in the country will be warmly received. What I'm guessing John McCain, and even to a less extent, Barack Obama, are aiming for is that point at which a drop in troops levels and a corresponding drop in violence intersect.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Post A Comment