Finally, we have a strategy for success in Iraq from the blogosphere's "stab-in-the-back" right. Yes, it had to come during a fisking of a NYT editorial, but at least we now have an actual agenda for Iraq, a rare and valuable glimpse into what the Instapundit crowd actually thinks is going on in Iraq, and what we should actually do about it. Here's Jules Crittenden's Instapundit-approved summary of the war aims that we're fighting for right now in Iraq:
[C]ontinuing the path of progress toward eliminating al-Qaeda, exposing and hopefully acting against Iran's influence, training increasingly effective Iraqi troops, working with a nascent democratically elected government in its fits and starts.
Yes, I know these are not exactly what you were told the war was for in the first place. But, come on. We all know by now that the WMD argument was just game. The WMD evidence was not "slam-dunk" as Tenet has now explained. We misunderstood him. What was "slam dunk" was the challenge of persuading the American people in the wake of 9/11 that Iraq had active WMDs and was able to hand them over to terrorists. And, boy, was Tenet right about that one. We all trusted them to be honest with us, suckers that we were, because we didn't think that after a tragedy like 9/11, the president would scam us. oh well. He nearly got away with it. Can't we just move on now? Scooter Libby has. Let us rather unite in
"continuing the path of progress toward eliminating al Qaeda."
Notice the lovely premise: continuing. You're no doubt unaware of the slowly building triumph against al Qaeda that the Iraq war has helped accelerate.
Close Open your eyes. Read more Instapundit links.
Don't read the papers. Ignore the boom in Qaeda-franchise terrorism since the Iraq invasion, terror that has now gone directly from anti-Shiite anger in Iraq to the attempted murder of Westerners in London and Glasgow. Ignore the two new bases for Islamist terror the Bush administration has handed al Qaeda in Anbar and Waziristan. Ignore the Bush decisions not to take out Zarqawi in 2002 or Zawahiri in 2005, when we had both Jihadists in our gun-sites. Just focus on "continuing the path of progress," which I think means helping the Anbar tribes fight back against the Qaeda invaders Bush's literally invited in for years ago last week. Yes, we should absolutely do what we can there. But grownups recognize that the national potential is limited. Or is John Burns also now a quisling leftist terror-sympathizer, another demented victim of Bush Derangement Sydrome? Along with, at last count, around half the voters in the US.