<!-- Begin meta tags generated by ORblogs --> </meta name="keywords" content="progressive, liberal, politics, government, edit, language, grammar, accuracy, honesty, clarity, world, news, media" /> </> <!-- End meta tags generated by ORblogs -->> Editor at Large: How many more "six to nine months" do we need?

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

How many more "six to nine months" do we need?

Back on March 1, Michael O'Hanlon, one of the authors of the controversial NY Times op-ed, "A War We Just Might Win," said, "There are good reasons to give the war effort, now almost four years old, another six to nine months before concluding that the current strategy should be discarded."

Let's see...six months past March 1 would be October 1, and nine months would be January 1. Hmmm...that's a long wait and a lot more dead bodies to count before assessing whether the "current strategy" is a colossal failure. But OK - we'll hold out till January 1, if we must, to give Bush more time to figure out a way to declare victory.

But wait...and wait some more! Now O'Hanlon says we need ANOTHER six to nine more months: "And I think, therefore, this is an interim report from us on the surge, and it's basically saying nothing more dramatic than give it six more months or so, maybe nine more months" (August 5, 2007).

So according to O'Hanlon, we might win the war in Iraq, as long as we're willing to wait another six to nine more months...in perpetuity.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home