Kagan

I read through several pages of reader comments in response to a recent editorial by Kagan on Bush's proposed 20K troop increase in Iraq. On the second page, there was one post which could have been read to either say "I disagree with Kagan" or "I agree with Kagan." I couldn't quite tell. All of the others were from very angry readers who wanted to see Kagan's fat lips wrapped around an apple while he roasts on a spit.

The basic gist of Kagan's article, if you don't feel like reading it, is that the Dems are wrong to criticize the surge/escalation because they don't have a better plan for winning in Iraq. Implied in Kagan's editorial, but deftly unsaid, was that the surge would accomplish what Bush has promised: stability in Bagdahd. Many of the responders noted that we had been trying for stability in Bagdahd for some time and that little has changed to suggest that this year we'll get it.

It's funny to me: Kagan criticized Hillary for proposing a cap at the current level of 137K troops because he sees that number as arbitrary and lacking a justification. Kagan doesn't take up the responsibility, however, of justifying an expansion by 20K troops that to me seems just as arbitrary and without justification. Does that feel intellectually dishonest to anyone else?

The other thing that bothers me is that Kagan acts as if an anti-escalation stance is somehow just Politics with a capital P because its evil. Dems feel like they can gain power by pressing the Iraq issue. But wait. That's exactly what happened. They gained office because the public voted on the Iraq issue! The current congress better reflects the will of the American public. Who the fuck is Kagan to suggest that their anti-war agenda is impure? Its called Democracy.

It's fitting that he included the word "Delusion" in his title.