This probably won't make any impression on the peace camp, but just in case there are any open minds over there, the Weekly Standard re-dissects some of the more popular anti-invasion arguments.
And in an editorial, William Kristol and Robert Kagan lay out, once again, the reasons not to cut and run:
In 1946, George Orwell remarked that "the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory." Victory is in fact possible, though it will require a longer war than anyone would like, but not so long a war as to be intolerable. What would be intolerable would be to lose to the terrorists in Iraq. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a prescription for catastrophe. Far from extricating ourselves from a crisis, we would have driven ourselves into an even deeper crisis. It is no favor to the members of the armed forces who have served or are serving in Iraq to declare now that all their efforts and sacrifices are in vain. The way to honor their sacrifices is by winning.
Meanwhile, Oxblog's David Adesnik has problems with James Fallows' much-publicised Atlantic article on the prospects in Iraq. I had much the same reaction when I read it.
Comments