Kevin posted a thoughtful entry about an L.A. Times article that quoted an unnamed senior administration official involved in strategic planning as saying that the Bush Administration was delaying major attacks on insurgent-held towns so as to keep casualty counts low before the Presidential election -- a charge that, if true, would unquestionably support Kevin's contention that "If there was ever any doubt that political expediency is Bush's most sacred value, this should put those doubts to rest once and for all."
Just to offer a different view, I received an e-mail from a friend of mine working in an official capacity in Iraq right now. He/she writes that the L.A. Times story is wrong. Based on his/her personal observations and opinion, which do not necessarily represent the U.S. government, "we are most definitely not pushing away ops because of U.S. elections. We're accelerating them because of Iraqi elections. Plus, it's the Iraqis that make the final call; the transfer of sovereignty was a real transfer."
I should add that my friend is not involved in planning the military attacks, so this is not a situation of conflicting views from high-level senior officials. However, it is ground-eye view of how things look to an American in Iraq, and I thought it worth passing along. (With his/her permission, of course.)
Comments