Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Martingale much?

Last month I explained why it was so massively, cosmically stupid. Today, William Kristol and Rich Lowry adopt it as their hail Mary.
There is no mystery as to what can make the crucial difference in the battle of Baghdad: American troops. A few thousand U.S. troops have already been transferred to Baghdad from elsewhere in Iraq. Where more U.S. troops have been deployed, the situation has gotten better. Those neighborhoods intensively patrolled by Americans are safer and more secure. But it is by no means clear that overall troop numbers in Baghdad are enough to do the job. And it is clear that stripping troops from other fronts risks progress elsewhere in the country.

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.


Blogger Eric Soderstrom said...

When I read that article, I thought about your Martingale posts as well. But with their focus on Baghdad, it looks like they are beyond Martingale and on to the next dumb move before slinking home from Vegas - A last trip to the ATM and a stagger to the roulette table to put all of their money on Baghdad.

Meanwhile - and here I am sure I am stretching the metaphor to the braking point - a large plurality of the bachellor party has decided, "This casino sucks, let's take a cab over to Iran."

9:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

see web stats