The Conflation Continues

Last Sunday I noted that Fallujah wasn't, in and of itself, Iraq. It was a mere week ago that the entire Iraq policy was allegedly falling apart because of Fallujah, Najaf and Sadr and those were the only three words that critics of the conflict in Iraq needed to know. Now the only words of consequence appear to be "Abu Ghraib". So it seems incumbent upon me to note that as serious as the Abu Ghraib situation is, it isn't all that there is to know about about Iraq---and whatever comes about as a result of these events will not be the final word on the success or failure of the policy.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the opponents of the conflict in Iraq walk around with the conclusion in their heads that the policy is a failure (and always has been) and that it is due, in large part to ineptitude at the upper levels of the administration. Then, whatever is happening badly in a given week (the worse the better), then they haul out the conclusions which they think have now been confirmed.

Some evidence to this end is that the words "Fallujah, Najaf and Sadr" have left the lexicon of criticism--and not because those issues are settled, but because a new and better line of attack has emerged.

Further, the conflation of the latest crisis with the entirety of the policy is simply an incorrect way to evaluate policy.

This is not to say that there aren't real problems with all of these situations; there are. And it may well be the case that they sum to failure. However, I tire of overly simplistic arguments which are clearly borne out of a desire to score political points rather than to actually evaluate the overall situation.

Further, I would note that there have been successes in the rebuilding process, and that there are large parts of the country in which there are no major problems. An honest evaluation has to take the whole picture into account--not just the best or the worst.

Posted by Steven Taylor at May 9, 2024 02:05 PM | TrackBack