[skippy the wonder dog]

The point that he's making and you're missing, Esthete, is that "stabilizing" Iraq by showering weapons and money on various factions is not likely to have the long-term effect that Krauthammer suggests.
...
The Iraqi factions accepting those arms and money are not necessarily going to remain friendly. They are not stupid. They understand that the US will soon withdraw. It makes sense for them to play nice for a while, and then pursue their domestic agenda when the American forces have gone home.

You're being just as speculative as you accuse Krauthammer of being.

No, I'm not. Or to put it another way, I'm being openly speculative, while he pretends that only one outcome is possible.

Skippy: "not likely to," "not necessarily"

Krauthammer: ....

That's right: no caution, no qualification. The only qualified statements are made by the guy he quotes.

That one qualification is pretty telling, though: "If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government...."

There isn't one politician in the United States who intends to do that. The only reason for the troop surge is political -- to calm Iraq before the election, so that the Democrats don't get a freebie with which to hammer the Republicans. And right on cue, we have a right-wing mouthpiece proclaiming that victory is at hand, Bush is vindicated, etc.

The US does not have the military strength to sustain the push for the long term. This is not a game of months, but a game of years. No American politician will propose sustaining this surge for a period of several years, instituting the draft if necessary to provide the necessary bodies.

No, the game here is very simple: ramp up, declare victory, and bug out.

Krauthammer knows that. He's being disingenuous.