When It Comes to Iraq, Six Months Can Last for Years
Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker couldn't be pinned down when asked how long it would be before the U.S. could possibly leave Iraq during their Senate testimony on Tuesday. They did, however, say that support for the surge until next spring — in about six months — is crucial.
When it comes to Iraq, it seems the next six months are always the most important. Almost from the moment the invasion was launched in March 2003, lawmakers, military commanders and pundits have said the fate of Iraq will be determined in "the next six months." Democrats, Republicans, independents ... all have used the six-month time frame as a kind of magic number.
For instance, The Guardian reported in February that an "elite team of officers" had told Petraeus that the U.S. had six months to turn around the situation in Iraq or it could face a Vietnam-style collapse that could force the military into a "hasty retreat."
Back in June 2006, Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the German magazine Der Spiegel that the next six months would be crucial to stabilizing Iraq.
A month later, Defense and the National Interest, a conservative Web site dedicated to fostering debate about role of the armed forces after the Cold War, started a list of these "next six months" statements. By my count, it has found at least 27 examples.
Those on the list include Sen. John McCain, Sen. Hillary Clinton, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Sen. Chuck Hagel and New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, who has used the six-months figure as a marker several times. Friedman's use of the phrase even prompted liberal blogger Atrios to start measuring a six-month unit as a "Friedman" in May 2006.
12:07 PM ET | 09-12-2007 | permalink


