Nothing I've seen or read lately has made me more pessimistic about the Iraq War than this article in The Washington Post. It's by William Kristol and Rich Lowry, two of the most outspoken "neo-con" voices in favor of that invasion. They have quietly, however, shifted their argument. The old version was that our cause was so right and our power so grand that we could achieve everything we wanted to in Iraq with Donald Rumsfeld's "leaner, meaner" U.S. fighting force. Now, they're saying we can triumph if only George W. Bush and his boys will send in more troops.
Nowhere in the piece do Kristol and Lowry address the fact that many generals have stated we simply don't have more troops, or that to send more into Iraq will cripple our efforts elsewhere. That is not a small detail, easy to skip over. In fact, my cynical side wonders if maybe the authors know full well that no significant reinforcement of troops can or will be sent in; that they're just laying the groundwork for the Official Excuse as to why their precious Iraq War didn't end the way they told us it would.
Not so long ago, Lowry was one of the leading non-administration voices telling us America was undeniably succeeding in its every goal there. He doesn't seem to be saying that now. He seems to be getting ready to write a lot of sentences that begin with, "Well, we could have won if…"