A NYT WAR WHORE OFFERS ADVICE

Michael Gordon joined Judith Miller in pushing the criminal Bush regime's lies about Iraq and now he is writing as if he were the voice of reason and morality about the Iraq War. In "War, Meet the 2008 Campaign" he writes as if he were working for AEI instead of being an honest reporter. He argues that we will and should stay in Iraq for years to come because that's the nature of counter-insurgency: "a long and difficult job still lies ahead .."

As usual with war whores, he is factually wrong about the situation in Iraq. The improvement in security was due primarily to the Anbar Awakening and Al Sadr's order to his militiamen to stand down. Teh Surge is a 3rd component and not the dominant one.

Gordon then turns moralist:

But that raises the question of whether American forces could really stay within the security of their bases if thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed outside the gates. It would probably not be long before the media and perhaps the troops themselves asked whether the nation that had taken the lid off Pandora’s box by invading Iraq had a responsibility to protect the defenseless.

The use of the word "defenseless" is a cheap rhetorical trick. Iraqis of all flavors are swimming in arms, ammunition and explosives and it's impossible to find a truly defenseless major group.

Gordon goes on to ask:

But if the Iraqis know that American forces are on their way out regardless of what they do, would they be more likely to respond by overcoming their differences or by preparing for the sectarian blood bath that might follow?

The August 2007 NIE and a July article by Gordon found that they would be more likely to create self-defense forces and we have helped arm the Sunnis who have decided to fit Al Qaeda.

Glenn Greenwald has more on Gordon.