The Mirage (or The Oasis is Right Over the Next Hill)

Today, Fred Hiatt's editorial page gave free space to the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol & the National Review's Rich Lowry to post a disingenuous piece of bullshit that can only be read as an effort by the two to obtain future ass coverage.

The solution to all things wrong in Iraq, they claim, is MORE TROOPS.

Matt Yglesias has chewed up Kristol for his historical shortcomings on this issue while Glenn Greenwald takes Lowry to the shed for hiws outright duplicity.

But most disingenuous, in my opinion, is that Kristol and Lowry don't have the balls to say exactly from where these troops are to come. You certainly aren't going to see Lowry signing up or Kristol going door-to-door to his friends urging that they or their kids join up.

Nor was the word-that-dare-not-be-mentioned mentioned. Let's see if you can guess it by filling in the following sentence: "Reggie Bush was the No. 2 selection in this year's NFL _____."

They simply provide a proposal for which they offer no viable specifics. The cavalry is just expected to appear magically on the bluff above and save the day.

Yet, these two, better than anybody, know that neither Republicans running for reelection nor a president trying to retain control of Congress can demand more troops right now regardless of source. So given that this is a call with no backbone, what gives?

Both Kristol and Lowry see the writing on the wall. The war in Iraq is a failure and the American public isn't going to tolerate a never ending engagement. They are betting, probably correctly, that the situation will disintegrate further and they want to be able to distance themselves from that failure. But calling for redeloyment or withdrawal is anathema to their followers and they don't want to be known as sell-outs. On the other hand, being on record as supporting Bush's doomed policy (one that really includes no plan) is also not appetizing. So, instead, they pimp a hawkish position that their readers will lap up and they can then lay future claim to the line that if we would've just kicked a lil more ass, it would not have turned out the way it did. By then, they hope the viability issue of their proposal has long spiraled down the memory hole. And they do this knowing all the while that there is no chance that their proposal will be followed.

This isn't a serious proposal but mere ass coverage by those who want to indefinitely preserve keeping their collective snouts deep in the rightwing media trough.

As a secondary matter, notice how careful constructed this paragraph - the paragraph which really forms the evidentiary basis for their argument - is:

There is no mystery as to what can make the crucial difference in the battle of Baghdad: American troops. A few thousand U.S. troops have already been transferred to Baghdad from elsewhere in Iraq. Where more U.S. troops have been deployed, the situation has gotten better. Those neighborhoods intensively patrolled by Americans are safer and more secure. But it is by no means clear that overall troop numbers in Baghdad are enough to do the job. And it is clear that stripping troops from other fronts risks progress elsewhere in the country.

Of course, we've learned that the Baghdad redeployment has not necessarily worked in decreasing the violence in Baghdad. That's why the paragraph has built-in deniability all through out it. It really is meaningless upon a close read.

These are two truly pathetic creatures and the Washington Post should be ashamed of allowing them to print such self-serving garbage without demanding that they give some specifics as to viability.