The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq

I was strongly against this war to begin with. I still think it to be the biggest wish-upon-a-star-while-you-shoot-yourself-repeatedly-in-the-foot geo-political strategic blunder it was ever given to me to witness. The proper fight was always in Afghanistan and it wasn't over (it still isn't)... I still have trouble understanding how folks who are obviously smart enough to climb to the highest peaks of influence in the world's most powerful nation really believed (as it appears they did) that all they had to do was "topple the regime" with as little troops as that took and then things would just ...take care of themselves. That and the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of innocent civilian deaths that resulted from such tragically blind hubris is, on some level, quite simply unforgivable... no matter how much sympathy I have for the inherent tragic nature of the situation that those who hold power inevitably find themselves in.

But more and more, I find the it's-time-to-get-out-now-and-if-you're-still-supporting-this-war-you're-crazy narrative to be suffering from the same sin of pie-in-the-sky shortsightedness (a common sin with our neighbors to the south it seems) as the we-must-invade-Iraq-because-of-9/11-and-if-you-don't-get-that-you're-a-moonbat drumbeat did in the lead-up to this war.

Hopefully voices of reason like this are being heard in the right places.

This man, Anthony H. Cordesman, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies injects some much needed wisdom (in my opinion) in the debate and makes the case for a (very) slow, patient withdrawal that isn't just blindly focused on getting troops out but also doesn't ignore or squander what progress might emerge on the ground in the way of long-term stability.

Which, I believe, is in everyone's interest... at least more than just letting the place fall into (worse) chaos (than it already is).

Here he is on the Charlie Rose show
(no, that's not him on the thumbnail)