Marching With "General" Reynolds

While researching a post that may or may not happen (not sure at the moment), I came across today’s column by editorial (supposed) genius Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post which seems to do mainly with how that maverick John McCain is “bucking the odds again” by declaring that more troops are needed for the Iraq war, a claim which, as far as I'm concerned, requires no courage whatsoever.

I guess this is something like a “political potpourri” column from Kurtz (any minute now I’m sure I’ll be sued by former Jesuit Dr. McLaughlin for using that phrase), though I wouldn’t know for sure since I’ve learned not to pay too much attention to what Kurtz and his fellow travelers tell us (though it is perversely amusing to read Kurtz say that he isn't taking sides in one paragraph, then endorses more troops in the next paragraph).

Well anyway, buried in Kurtz’s column (bottom of page 2) is this nugget from Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds (commenting on the Senate testimony from Generals Anthony Zinni and John Abizaid that seems to advocate the status quo of sending no more troops but keeping the ones already there – I give McCain some credit, though, for actually pointing out to Abizaid that, based on last week’s election, the majority of the people of this country said loud and clear that that isn’t acceptable any more)...

"So we had these hearings on Iraq, and generals Abizaid and Zinni are arguing against timetables for withdrawal, which has been the Democrats' main policy proposal.

"Did the Democrats know beforehand that this is what the generals thought? If so, were they dishonest in not taking it into account? Maybe they were relying on this sort of thing to keep from having to do what the MoveOn crowd wants, but what they know is wrong?

"Or did they not know, making them clueless? Neither one's impressive. But since the big criticism of Rumsfeld, which led to his defenestration, was that he 'didn't listen to the generals,' what are the Democrats to do now that the generals have spoken?"

I realize it’s Reynolds’ job to create straw men for no good reason, helped by throwing around big words no one understands in a manner emblematic of most academics, so I’ll avoid the absurdity of his notion that the new Democratic congress is somehow beholden to “the MoveOn crowd,” as well as his criticism of Democrats for apparently lacking clairvoyance regarding Abizaid and Zinni’s testimony.

I only wish to point out the following statement from General Zinni (noted here)…

In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence, and corruption.

Based on this quote from General Zinni, it doesn’t sound like he’s arguing for troop reductions, I’ll admit. It sounds instead like he’s arguing that our troops should never have gotten stuck in this unholy mess in Iraq to begin with.

And as far as General Abizaid is concerned, he has spoken these wise words: "More U.S. troops will lead to less consent for our presence among the Iraqis."

General Abizaid has also said, by the way (as noted in this article) that the roots of terrorism "certainly don’t lend themselves easily to military solutions."

I believe what Reynolds is looking for here are cheerleaders for his chickenhawk policy of continuing to slog it out in this mess in Iraq, and tar the Democrats as beholden to “the MoveOn crowd” at the same time. If he’s looking for generals to help him with this pointless exercise, he’d do better to try this with Peter Pace or George Casey than men such as Generals Zinni and Abizaid.

And by the way, do you really have to ask whether or not Reynolds served in the military?