After a bloody weekend for American forces in Iraq, the major papers are taking a look at what it all means:
The Los Angeles Times sees Frank Talk About Iraq.
The New York Times worries about "resolve": As Caualties in Iraq Mount, Will Resolve Falter?
The Washington Post finds that New Attacks Intensify Pressure on Bush. And they say Rummy thinks we have enough American troops there already: Rumsfeld: No Need for More U.S. Troops.
The Munich Süddeutsche Zeitung sees the US mission in Iraq being Shot Down in Baghdad.
The London Guardian sees the situation in Iraq Spinning Out of Control.
The Christian Science Monitor looks at A deadly day and a US strategy shift.
Especially in the American coverage, there seems to be an assumption that the US can find some decent way out. Escalate the number of troops. Get more Iraqis involved. Have better White House PR to hold up American "will" and "resolve."
The US doesn't have the troops right now to put many more in. There's no significant troop contribution coming from other countries in the immediate future. Putting more Iraqi security forces in place is good counterinsurgency strategy. But Viceroy Jerry Bremer dismissed the whole Iraqi armed forces soon after he took over. Rebuilding it is not going to happen overnight.
Maybe it's time for Congress to insist on the serious look at US goals in Iraq that both parties should have insisted upon last year when they voted the war resolution.
Oh, and what happened to all those "weapons of mass destruction" we went in to find?
No comments:
Post a Comment