The media focus toward Iraq has seemingly shifted from "we have to stay the course" and "we have to get it right" to "how can we get out - and how soon?" This weekend, the Washington Post provided a perspective on possible "exit strategies", none of which are ideal (and some of which seem a bit loopy). Other editorials, such as this one, endorse a particular exit strategy with a zeal that is, perhaps, excessive. (Think of how well the "Articles of Confederation" worked, even given the similarities between the early U.S. colonies, and....)
Whatever "exit strategy" is chosen, the media seems increasingly convinced that Bush and Blair want out, ASAP. If true, political reality (i.e., their futures at the polling booths of their respective nations) is getting in the way of the notion of reinventing Iraq as a stable, progressive democracy.
Do you think these stories are correct, incorrect, or that they represent the Bush and Blair Administration's manner of testing the water - of gauging public reaction to a rapid exit in advance of announcing an official strategy? I'm guessing #3.
I think they represent the fact that the media always has to be presenting something new, and if that means one paper says we at now at war with Eastasia so that most other news sources stampedes toward the anti-Eastasia viewpoint like cattle, so be it.
ReplyDeleteWell, the world has seemed Orwellian lately.
ReplyDeleteI think that if the Bush Administration weren't interested in the public reaction to "early withdrawal, even if it means chaos", they would have reverted to their earlier mantra about "sticking it out" and "staying until the job's done". Are we hearing those cliches any more?