Pipes or Krauthammer?

Submitted by Zentrist (United States), Dec 7, 2008 at 21:03

Which thinker is closer to the truth about Iraq? Krauthammer's most recent article paints a much more optimistic picture than the one by Pipes we read on this site. Krauthammer admits the ongoing fragility of the regime there. Yet, pehaps partly and unconsciously under the spell of Obama, K lays out something approaching a happy ending. He makes his customary strong case. One is uplifted and hopeful. Wait a minute. This is Charles Krauthammer, the neocon. The top dog or darned near. Admitting the difficulties, K nevertheless argues that on balance Iraq now promises to be a success story. The original vision of a Mideast gradually transforming itself into a modicum of republicanism--this paradigm, thanks to Petraeus and the Surge, now seems to be taking shape. Well, I'm getting carried away. but K is more sanguine about the future than Pipes.

So, who is right, K or Pipes? The truth may be somewhere in the middle: we're looking at a tragi-comedy, both short term and long term.

I hope Krauthammer is right, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Pipes is right on with his realistic analysis of where we are at this point. Having said that, it occurs to me that we have an extraordinary new President on the way. You see, I too am a little under the magic spell of Obama. Actually, it is no magic spell. It is an observation. Obama is so superior to Bush in so many different ways that one is at a loss where to begin. Obama reads the Weekly Standard. He may also read Daniel Pipes. We now have a voracious reader as our new (soon) commander-in-chief. A careful reader and student who goes deeply into it before making a decision. His forte is foreign policy. Things are looking up.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".