« | »

NYT Now Blames Bush For Delaying Surge

From where else but the New York Times:

The image “http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0710/iraq_surge_1031.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Troop ‘Surge’ Took Place Amid Doubt and Debate

August 31, 2008
By MICHAEL R. GORDON

WASHINGTON — When President Bush speaks to the Republican convention on Monday, he is expected to tout the “surge” of forces in Iraq as one of his proudest achievements. But that decision, one of his most consequential as commander in chief, was made only after months of tumultuous debate within the administration, according to still-secret memorandums and interviews with a broad range of current and former officials.

In January 2007, at a time when the situation in Iraq appeared the bleakest, Mr. Bush chose a bold option that was at odds with what many of his civilian and military advisers, including his field commander, initially recommended. Mr. Bush’s plan to send more than 20,000 troops to carry out a new counterinsurgency strategy has helped to reverse the spiral of sectarian killings in Iraq.

But Mr. Bush’s penchant to defer to commanders in the field and to a powerful defense secretary delayed the development of a new approach until conditions in Iraq, in the words of a November 2006 analysis by the Central Intelligence Agency, resembled anarchy and “civil war.”

When the White House began its formal review of Iraq strategy that month, the Pentagon favored a stepped-up effort to transfer responsibility to Iraqi forces that would have facilitated American troop cuts.

The State Department promoted an alternative that would have focused on fighting terrorists belonging to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, containing the violence in Baghdad and intervening to quell sectarian violence only when it reached the proportions of “mass killing.” …

Members of the National Security Council staff made an initial effort to explore a possible troop increase by October, drafting a paper that raised the prospect that the United States might “double down” in Iraq by sending more troops there….

The rest of the typically opaque article goes on to describe the debate within the administration, Pentagon and State Department. But the article has already made its point.

Leave it to the treasonous New York Times to argue that Mr. Bush’s finest hour was one of his worst.

And that his foot dragging on the surge — which The Times excoriated with all of its womanly wrath — was responsible for Iraq’s “anarchy and civil war.”

(Though, we are told the surge only “helped to reverse the spiral of sectarian killings in Iraq.”)

What media bias?

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, August 31st, 2008. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “NYT Now Blames Bush For Delaying Surge”

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »