The Washington Post asks 3 questions:
In the latest editorial
which asserts that
Both President Bush and Congress need to adjust to the mixed results of the 'surge.'
The editorial asks:
- Should American fighting units remain in Iraq to continue the offensive against al-Qaeda and other remaining insurgents in Sunni areas?
- Should the U.S. partnership with Iraqi forces continue, given the commission's judgment that those forces will not be able to secure Iraq on their own in the next 12 to 18 months but could see "increasing improvement" with U.S. backing?
- Is the greater security in Baghdad worth sustaining with a continuing, if declining, commitment of troops?
Here's the answer: No. No.   No.
Also, what's with the Post
putting 'surge' in quotes? Is the surge not a surge?