Just another disallusioned liberal?
9/12/2006 1:36 PM
Today in a Washington Post Op-Ed, National Review Editor, "General" Rich Lowrey (with co-author Bill Krystol, Neocon CumLaude) wrote:
"We are at a crucial moment in Iraq. Supporters of the war, like us, have in the past differed over tactics. But at this urgent pass, there can be no doubt that we need to stop the downward slide in Iraq by securing Baghdad.
There is no mystery as to what can make the crucial difference in the battle of Baghdad: American troops. . .. The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment. This means the ability to succeed in Iraq is, to some significant degree, within our control. The president should therefore order a substantial surge in overall troop levels in Iraq, with the additional forces focused on securing Baghdad."
Wow! That's amazing and it's amazing because this is the same General Rich Lowrey who only 5 months ago (April 14, 2006) wrote this:
"You hardly qualify as a retired general these days unless you have written an op-ed piece demanding Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. One of Rummy's alleged sins was not providing enough troops to secure postwar Iraq. The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is both characteristically American and somewhat beside the point.
Obviously, if we had it to do over again, we would send more troops in the hopes that sheer numbers would head off our problems. But to think that higher troop levels would have been a magic bullet is to indulge a very American faith in the power of mass to overcome anything. In Iraq, we have faced a delicate political and cultural problem that requires finesse above all — finesse dependent on a fine-tuned understanding of an alien society."
Of course, this is the same foreign policy expert that on May 29, 2005 announced to the world through his article in National Review:
"It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq"
complete with a cover photo (my avatar) which will rival DEWEY WINS! in the anals of journalistic honors so I guess that explains it.
Is General Rich Lowrey now a traitor, a terrorist, a disallusioned liberal.....or is it Bill Krystol's fault?