Yesterday, we posted the Ignatius column announcing an impending change of strategy in Iraq. You can find it below under "Two interesting articles."
Today on the front page of the Post (same newspaper) we find this article by Tyson which lays out a process by which a new "campaign plan" is being written in Baghdad by a team made up of thinktankers (CFR, Chatham House, etc.), advisers to Petraeus, State Department types.
Problem: In many ways the two "plans" described seem to me to be mutually exclusive. I invite the reader to inspect the two and give an opinion as to points of similarity and conflict.
The difference in what is described in these two documents leads me to ask if the two visions of possible futures for America in Iraq are the result of significant disagreements over policy within the executive branch. If that is so, are the contending parties waging proxy-warfare in the press?
If it is not the case that these articles represent some kind of struggle, then the incoherence of substance and unreality of many of the arguments and positions in these papers may indicate a disintegration of thought that would be alarming. pl