Why Civil War in Iraq gets front page coverage for months and elections get back page coverage...well, I'm just pointing out the obvious...good news isn't news. In the words of Alec Baldwin, "if I wanted to be told something I already know, I'd read the Huffington Post."
From Sullivan:
From the perspective of now - and this may change in the rear-view mirror of history - the surge was a security success which now can claim some political progress as well. I was therefore wrong about it at the time, believing it was insufficient to the task and that the divides were too deep to be patched over. I don't apologize for this assessment, the way I did about the war in the first place, because it was an honest attempt to understand some grim options. But that doesn't take away from the fact that President Bush was right - and that the US military did something quite remarkable.
Why is being wrong about the surge "honest," but being "wrong" about the war "dishonest." Sullivan - in his own eyes - is basically 0 for 2 when it comes to the big strategic question of the day: how best to fight the WOT. He initially understood the strategic threat posed by Iraq - the "black swan" possibility of WMDs finding their way into the hands of terrorists and how poisonous autocracies in the Arab world were pushing young men into the hands of Islamic Fascist recruiters. Sullivan is informed and passionate about the issues - but he is by his own admission - bad at making the call. Which is probably why he's a writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment