Well, now, John, ones opinion should certainly be flexible, especially as the facts on the ground change. I submit for you approval that, yes, indeed, the facts on the ground have changed in the last two years.
And the temptation of the “80% solution” is not so much that it allows a way out, an opportunity to flee, but an opportunity to claim victory! And that is the object of desire, that is what he wants: victory. And he appears to believe that it is still attainable, despite massive evidence otherwise.
And keep in mind: the “80% solution” would not even have to be expressly stated as such, it can be perfectly implemented by simple neglect, benign or otherwise. All that would be required is to depend solely on the (elected and legitimate) government of Iraq to define who or what is an insurgent target. After all, what independent sources of intelligence are we likely to have?
For instance, the current fighting in Baghdad. al-Maliki assures us that his intent is even handed and non-partisan, he is intent on suppressing Shia militia with as much vigor as Sunni, despite the fact that his most secure political base is precisely those Shia.
Do you find such a claim credible? What proofs might you demand? And where might you get them? Who will you rely on for your intel to make such a decision? al-Maliki? Bush?
The al-Maliki government could hardly have been more explicit in their “fuck you” to the Sunni, which I believe, as I’ve stated, was a deliberate provocation. It could hardly be otherwise. And shortly thereafter, we are assured that an utterly non-partisan suppression of violence is what is taking place, that the al-Maliki government is intent on protecting Sunnis from Shia militia, that he is intent on repudiating and emasculating his power base in the name of reconciliation.
I find that hard to believe.