Нью-Йорк Таймс изменила позицию по выводу войск из Ирака

Is it just me, or did the New York Times just drop a bombshell? By the headline of its editorial this morning, Wrong Way Out of Iraq , and its introductory paragraphs -- about how the British model of withdrawing to bases in Basra hasn't worked, I was sure we were headed for a demand for total, rapid withdrawal. When suddenly came this conclusion: The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq. Whoah! Whether in connivance with the campaigns of the Dem candidates, or on its own initiative, the Times has clearly provided cover on the left for Hillary, Obama et al. to back away from their defeatist positions. There is some ambiguity in the Times position. Is it saying that the U.S. should pull all forces out but stage them over the horizon -- the good old Murtha Okinawa Gambit? Does the Times really care about fighting terrorists, or has it realized that the Dem candidate can't win in '08 by running on a platform of unconditional surrender? Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at [email protected] By the headline of its editorial this morning, Wrong Way Out of Iraq , and its introductory paragraphs -- about how the British model of withdrawing to bases in Basra hasn't worked, I was sure we were headed for a demand for total, rapid withdrawal. When suddenly came this conclusion: The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq. Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at [email protected]