Heard this analogy, loosely paraphrased here, by Tim Russert in his teaser interview on this morning's local CBS new radio statio...
- Republicans are trying to make the case to the public that the war in Iraq is central to the GWOT. Parallel to Berlin/Moscow in the Cold War.
- Democrats are trying to make the argument that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the GWOT, sort of like Vietnam in the Cold War.
Forget the political parties for a second and consider from the warfighter's perspective -- which do you think? What would GWOT look like if we weren't in Iraq? Would we be better off? Take it from now going forward...should Iraq be the GWOT Main Effort, or shift to a Supporting Effort, in which case where would the Main Effort be?
I believe Iraq may have started as a distraction but has grown to the point where it is now central. Some folks have attributed a certain Machiavellian wisdom to it all, like that was the plan all along. I think imperial hubris is at least as likely. But that was then, this is now, and it is as core to GWOT as core gets. Main effort.
Bookmarks