<< CALL OF THE WILD ~ MAIN ~ BUYER'S MARKET >>

REASONS FOR REDUCTIONS

Mark Steyn on the massive British withdrawal:

Howard, as the most rhetorically surefooted of the Anglosphere’s three musketeers, had a good comeback to the suggestion that the Bush surge and the Blair drawdown are mutually incompatible: “Anybody who studies Iraq for five minutes,” he said, “knows that controlling Baghdad is infinitely more challenging than controlling Basra in the south. That is the reason why the Americans are increasing their numbers and the reason why, because of the relative improvement in Basra, the British are reducing their numbers.”

That would appear to make sense.

Yes. So too would Andrew Sullivan’s strategic step-away:

I don’t mean to get into a fight with my new Atlantic colleague, Mr Steyn.

Posted by Tim B. on 02/23/2007 at 12:21 PM
  1. Hey, that’s not fair.  Steyn and Howard are using logic, reason, and facts.

    Posted by rbj1 on 2007 02 23 at 01:02 PM • permalink

  2. The changing situation seems to indicate that they just aren’t as needed.  We aren’t really doing much to replace the Brits other than adding some economic development teams, we’re doing a lot more in al Anbar instead.

    And it looks like the effort is evolving in way that is very fitting to the evolving environment.

    It’s obviously not just about more troops.

    Posted by aaron_ on 2007 02 23 at 01:14 PM • permalink

  3. Donchya hate it when reason, facts and context get in the way of a good political jibe?

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 02 23 at 01:14 PM • permalink

  4. But the situation in Basra isn’t all that good. The Brits are leaving because of politics, not because it’s a good idea.

    Posted by Don't Bogart that Midget, Comrade! on 2007 02 23 at 01:52 PM • permalink

  5. Andrew Sullivan imputes desires and “relish” to Mark Steyn’s writings that don’t seem justified by actual said writings.  And yet he squeals like a girl when others do this to him.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 02 23 at 02:06 PM • permalink

  6. That would be “SLOP”

    Standard Lefty Operating Procedure.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2007 02 23 at 02:21 PM • permalink

  7. Some have studied the situation in Iraq for more than 5 minutes and their conclusion on the relative improvement in Basra is not so rosy, unfortunately.

    summary:“for retreat to be tolerable it must be called victory.”

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/02/one-step-closer.html

    http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2007/02/on-road-to-disaster.html

    Posted by danS on 2007 02 23 at 02:31 PM • permalink

  8. I thought “victory” could only be gained by diplomatic solution.

    Brits leave-place falls apart.
    Yanks leave-peace and understanding breaks out mucho quicko.

    I’m confused.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2007 02 23 at 02:55 PM • permalink

  9. OK-the Brits are no longer able to supply the kind of force in Iraq that they have up to this point.  I can accept that.  How about in exchange they relieve us in Kosovo (where there is still almost a brigade sized force in place) or move more force to Afghanistan so that we can move some of our forces there to Iraq.

    Also, I am grateful to Australia for the support they have given us and I realize that there are pressing concerns that Canberra has of its own that require attention.  But another battalion sent from down under to replace the British is probably doable and would definitely help.

    None of that seems to be asking too much for a war that is worth winning.  I know that there is a political price to pay for any politician who supports the Iraq mission today, but President Bush is doing what needs to be done to win the fight.  I say this with respect and friendship, but frankly I do think there is more that our allies could do to help.

    Posted by 68W40 on 2007 02 23 at 03:44 PM • permalink

  10. I thought the Brits were puting 1,000 more troops in Afghanistan?

    And I was referring to lefty double-speak in #8 and not serious logistical considerations.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2007 02 23 at 03:59 PM • permalink

  11. Puting! aw geez!

    Posted by yojimbo on 2007 02 23 at 04:00 PM • permalink

  12. Yojimbo-OK, I hadn’t heard that.  Do you have a link?

    Posted by 68W40 on 2007 02 23 at 04:02 PM • permalink

  13. But of course-but real men don’t linky.

    It is from John Tammes via Instapundit(today).  British Defence Sec has confirmed more troops to Afghan.  ITV news says up to 1,000.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2007 02 23 at 04:14 PM • permalink

  14. I went back to the site and was going to type in the URL but holy bunch of beaucoup numbers Batman.  Here is part of the money quote from ITV:  “Reports have claimed more than 1,000 extra troops could be used to head off…”

    <the Yojimbo must learn how to do this linky stuff someday!>

    Posted by yojimbo on 2007 02 23 at 04:20 PM • permalink

  15. #5 RebeccaH - 

    Andrew Sullivan ... squeals like a girl when others do this to him.

    Oh, that’s too easy.  Rebecca must be laying a trap for me.

    Posted by wronwright on 2007 02 23 at 04:27 PM • permalink

  16. And yet [Andrew Sullivan] squeals like a girl when others do this to him.

    Do tell.

    Posted by R C Dean on 2007 02 23 at 04:40 PM • permalink

  17. Dammit!  wronwright posts while I ponder.

    Posted by R C Dean on 2007 02 23 at 04:41 PM • permalink

  18. 13 - that’s mine alright.  There were a few others…

    This

    This too.

    Posted by Major John on 2007 02 23 at 04:56 PM • permalink

  19. Does that mean that Sullivan is Daily Kos SLOPpy seconds, yojimbo? (And I’ve seen the 1,000 more Brit troops for Afghanistan items, too, wronwright.)

    Posted by andycanuck on 2007 02 23 at 05:24 PM • permalink

  20. Britain leaving Basra after Victory is exactly like Nixon leaving Vietnam after Victory.

    Notice that Steyn doesn’t even mention his own country Canada in all this.
    Call it the Francophone Invisibility Effect..

    Posted by Barrie on 2007 02 23 at 05:52 PM • permalink

  21. The first time I heard of Andrew Sullivan was in a Mark Steyn column back in July 2001:

    You also cease to be gay. A decade ago Andrew Sullivan left Britain and wound up in Washington as the first gay, Catholic, Thatcherite editor of the liberal New Republic. He wasn’t much of an editor, and his departure coincided with his announcement that he was HIV-positive. I’ve met him just once and thought he was an arrogant tosser, which I gather isn’t an unusual judgment. That said, I agree with pretty much all of what he writes, aside from the gay thing. But those of us right-wing loonies tagged as hateful and ugly can only marvel at the incessant barrage Sullivan is under daily.

    Arrogant tosser remains the most succinct description of Sullivan I have heard to this day.

    Posted by Ross on 2007 02 23 at 08:10 PM • permalink

  22. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.