To surge or to surrender
Jules Crittenden weighs two alternatives in our war in Iraq (via Instapundit):
We are sharply divided as a nation. There will be no governing by consensus. Only by hardnosed leadership. This week, we'll find out what it is going to be. Neither of our options is attractive. But that's war.
Option One: Pull out. Achieve short-term gratification for those who believe our absence from Iraq will solve our problems. Watch Iraq descend into further violence. Watch a nuclear-armed Iran come to dominate Iraq and the world's richest oil fields....
...Option Two: Fight now. Fight harder. Expend our precious blood and money now, so we don't have to spend more blood and more money later. Fight now, while we can.
It's a sober evaluation of a troubling crossroads. But as Jules reminds us:
Does that sound at all medieval or apocalyptic? It is. Don't think we can't go back to that.
Does it sound overly melodramatic and alarmist? If so, you're a fool with no understanding of history. I have bad news for you. The fight against evil in this world is business as usual. It never ends.
Read the whole thing. I wonder how many Americans really do think about these matters.
Meanwhile, good news from Iraq: Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki announces the new policy of hunting down all outlaws regardless of affiliation (via Intstapundit again). Could this be the beginning commitment to a rule of law in that country?
Personally, I still can't understand how anyone could declare the war in Iraq "over," "finished," or "lost" yet--besides some (not all) Democrats and leftist peaceniks and some (not all) in the media, whose partisianship is pretty transparent. Especially when you remember we still have troops in Germany, sixty-some years after THAT war. That little bit of altruistic and self-interested nation-building didn't turn out so badly.
UPDATE: Betsy looks at General David Patraeus' recommendations.