Just because everyone else in the world has done it so far, I think I’ll add my two cents by quoting the opening paragraph of Robert Kagan’s Sunday column in the Post:
A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn’t work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does.
What the hell is this about? The newspaper will presumably do its best to report whatever is going on at the time.
Why the Post lets one of its own columnists so casually attack the paper is beyond me. Would Kagan be happy if I showed those defeatists at the Washington Post a lesson and cancelled my (nonexistent) subscription? I would think he might have more regard for his employer than that. Then again, if the Post is willing to publish stuff like this, it’s evident it has little self-respect to begin with.
On the substantive issue, I’m far from a military tactician, but I imagine it’s important to make all sorts of contingency plans based on how things may or may not work out. It’s perfectly valid for the Post to report on the lack of a plan that addresses what to do if the surge isn’t a success. Somehow Kagan turns this bit of standard reporting into an insult against US efforts in Iraq.
And today comes news that the US military actually is considering options in case the surge doesn’t work out as hoped. Oops.