Tom Friedman Sets New Deadline For Withdrawal If "Surge" Fails: Late Summer
March 21, 2007 -- 12:22 PM EST // //
Apologies for hitting on this again, but this is key. I think we've gotten as close as we're gonna get to an endorsement of an actual policy on Iraq from Tom Friedman. Such an endorsement shouldn't be that hard to come by from a man who enjoys the distinction of being one of the principal interpreters of the Middle East for American audiences, but so be it.
In today's column, Friedman makes a bunch of fair points about how the new Dem Congressional leadership's pressure on Bush is acting as leverage over the Iraqi government. But he also appears to set a deadline for the "surge" to work, writing:
As for General Petraeus, I have no idea whether his military strategy is right, but at least he has one — and he has stated that by “late summer” we should know if it’s working. As General Petraeus told the BBC last week, “I have an obligation to the young men and women in uniform out here, that if I think it’s not going to happen, to tell them that it’s not going to happen, and there needs to be a change.”We need to root for General Petraeus to succeed, and hold him to those words if he doesn’t — not only for the sake of the soldiers on the ground, but also so that Mr. Bush is not allowed to drag the war out until the end of his term, and then leave it for his successor to unwind.
Look, in all seriousness, what the hell do I know -- I don't know a scintilla about the Middle East compared to what Friedman does, obviously. He's our lantern in a very dark cave, he's the sherpa, he's our guide to a very strange land. That's why I really want to hear, in clear and simple English, what he thinks we should do about the situation we find ourselves in.
So what's he saying here? If the "surge isn't working by "late summer," we need to hold Petraeus to his promise of a "change," Friedman says. But what kind of change? Friedman doesn't say so directly, but if this change would prevent Bush from dragging out the war "until the end of his term," that can mean only one thing: Withdrawal. Right? Of course, Friedman also says it's gonna be tough to judge whether escalation is "working" -- giving himself yet more wiggle room -- but in fairness, he also adds that the question of whether it's working is a judgment "we may soon have to make."
Back in November, Friedman laid out what he saw as our choices very clearly: He said we either had to add 150,000 new troops or initiate a "phased withdrawal over 10 months." After Bush subsequently announced he was sending to Iraq approximately one-seventh that amount of troops, Friedman did a lot of equivocating and mumbling about possibly supporting escalation if this and if that. But now Friedman's back with a deadline again -- if escalation fails by "late summer," it'll be time to pull out, he seems to be saying. That's roughly one Friedman Unit, or six months.
Friedman says we need to hold Petraeus to his words. The question now, however, is this: Will Friedman ever hold himself to his own words?
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.