Well of course they are, they have to. But they are really discussing strategies to hang on, while the NYT is trying to make it sound like they are ready to throw in the towel.
One thing it broadcasts loudly and clearly to the Iraqis is that, unless they step up and defend their existence as a nation, we're leaving.
I can't remember where I read it (I think it was one of Michael Yon's excellent reports), but it was reported that Iraqis (especially Sunnis) are coming to the realization that the US is not there to take their oil and, in fact, realizes that their best best for security is to work with the US forces and Iraqi government.
And this has caused many of them to come around to a different perspective of the US presence in their country and recognition that they need our assistance.
But one of the lessons of Vietnam THAT DOES APPLY TO IRAQ is that we cannot bear the burden of defending a nation by ourselves. The government of that nation must CONSTANTLY feel the pressure of knowing that if they don't perform, we'll leave them to their own devices and pick up the pieces.
Of course, Iraq is far too critical to the security of the region for us to just "cut and run". Our departure would create far more problems than it solves. But in the "gamesmanship" that is going on between the Iraqi government and the US, there must always be the implicit "threat" that if this is a two-way street and if they don't hold up their end of the bargain, we'll arrange for a new contract to be written with someone who will.
Hawk |
