<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[NATTERING NABOBS]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>There are plenty of reasons to worry about Iraq. There are also many valid criticisms of the occupation. But I have yet to read any cogent criticism that offers any better future plan than the one president Bush outlined Monday night. John Kerry&#8217;s plaintive cries to &#8220;internationalize&#8221; the transition are so vacuous they barely merit attention. The transition is already being run by the U.N.; very few countries have the military capacity to cooperate fully with the coalition, and few want to; quicker elections would be great, but very difficult to pull off on a national level before the end of the year. So what are Bush&#8217;s opponents proposing? More troops now? But wouldn&#8217;t that undercut the message of transferring sovereignty to the Iraqis? A sudden exit of all troops? But no one &#8211; apart from right-wing and leftwing extremists &#8211; thinks that&#8217;s a wise move. Giving a future Iraqi government a veto power over troop activities? Done, according to Blair. The truth is: Bush&#8217;s plan is about as good as we&#8217;re likely to get. And deposing a dictator after decades of brutal rule could never have led immediately to insta-democracy. Do I wish we had had more troops at the start to maintain more order? You bet. Do I wish incompetence had not allowed Abu Gjraib to happen? Of course. But none of that would have prevented the Baathists and Jihadists from wreaking havoc. Do I wish the original war had been bloodier so that the real battle with Saddam&#8217;s henchmen could have been joined all at once rather than over a long year of low-level conflict? Er, no. Remember what our anti-war friends predicted at the outset? That the battle for Baghdad could cost up to 10,000 Coalition casualties? I&#8217;m quite happy that didn&#8217;t happen. 800 deaths is bad enough. What I&#8217;m saying, I guess, is that as long as the anti-war critics continue relentless negativism without any constructive alternative, they will soon lose the debate. Americans want to know how to move this war forward, not why we shouldn&#8217;t have started it in the first place. Right now, the president has the best plan for making this work. What does anyone else have?</p>
<p><span style="color:#7c7ca6;font-weight:bold;">EMAIL OF THE DAY: </span>&#8220;OK damn you and your infernal blog suggestions &#8211; I&#8217;ve taken to riding my bike to work everyday. It&#8217;s a 26 mile round trip journey. You&#8217;re to blame for my weight loss, increased libido, extra energy at work and a reduction in petrol expenditures. You bastard. Gas Tax? Go for it &#8211; I rarely use the stuff any more.&#8221; &#8211; More feedback on the <a href="letters.php" target="_blank">Letters Page</a>.</p>
]]></html></oembed>