February 6, 2007 -- 11:07 AM EST // //
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL BOARD: LET'S STAY IN IRAQ FOR "YEARS TO COME."
There was a funny little moment today on the Washington Post's editorial page. Its editorial on the Senate debate over Iraq says:
The most overtly political posture may be that of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who petulantly called on President Bush and Congress to "end this war" -- whatever that means -- before the next president takes office, presumably so that it will not trouble the administration she hopes to lead.
Having established that the phrase "end this war" has no meaning, the Post then proceeds to say that even though we're probably not going to succeed in Iraq, and indeed things may get worse, we should nonetheless stay there for "years," anyway:
What all this suggests is that, however much Ms. Clinton or other senators might wish it, the war in Iraq will not end before the next president takes office. Mr. Bush's surge is unlikely to produce a breakthrough toward peace; in fact the violence may continue to worsen. All the same, the United States may not be able to withdraw from Iraq without triggering worse consequences than those that might arise from remaining. In short, the country needs a strategy for defending its interests in Iraq for years to come.
There you have it: Staying in Iraq for an indefinite period -- for "years to come" -- without any sense of how or whether our objectives can be accomplished, and even though we'll probably have less and less success, is somehow a meaningful suggestion. But the suggestion that we "end this war" -- which in reality is a clearer policy statement than whatever it is the Post is advocating here -- is simply said to have no meaning, so there's no need to even discuss it.
In other words, we're just staying, and that's all there is to it, so we'd better come up with a strategy. How's that for serious opinionmaking?