Literally. For the life of me I'll never understand why this doesn't get discussed more in the media's discussion of what victory entails, or whether the US can "win".
Posted by armand at August 11, 2007 06:21 PM | TrackBack | Posted to International Affairs | IraqA jarring imagine, I suppose, but what else would we have him do? Assuming Iran is behind a lot of the sectarian violence in Iraq, which sames safe enough, and acknowledging that Iraq itself does and probably will always lack the resources to wage outright war against its neighbor, and conceding that neither we nor the UN is going to get the job done, it's the part of a responsible leader to do what he can to bring peace, with whatever concessions that entails.
I agree that the complexities of the relationship are entirely lost on the MSM, and that this is irresponsible with respect to informing the electorate, but . . . well, I suppose I don't know exactly what your point is, so I'll not batter strawmen. :-)
Posted by: moon at August 11, 2007 06:55 PM | PERMALINKThat's all true, and important from the Iraqi perspective. My point was that if the MSM didn't simply say that Americans were expending thousands of lives and 1.5 trillion dollars for "stability" or "victory" but instead said we were doing it for the stability and/or victory of a government that's Iran's Best Friend Forever ... support for the war might plummet even further.
Posted by: Armand at August 12, 2007 08:24 AM | PERMALINK