Containment?

In Newsweek, Michael Hirsch reports that the US is -- sort of -- cutting its losses and no longer aiming for "victory" in Iraq, but rather hoping to prevent Iraq from sliding to the darkside, becoming a haven for terrorists.

Notwithstanding the fact that there's a compelling case to be made that this has already happened, what's remarkable is how this new strategy of a revived "containment" policy is allegedly being pursued. According to Hirsch,

The U.S. military...is consolidating to several “superbases” in hopes that its continued presence will prevent Iraq from succumbing to full-flown civil war and turning into a failed state. Pentagon strategists admit they have not figured out how to move to superbases, as a way of reducing the pressure—and casualties—inflicted on the U.S. Army, while at the same time remaining embedded with Iraqi police and military units. It is a circle no one has squared. But consolidation plans are moving ahead as a default position, and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has talked frankly about containing the spillover from Iraq’s chaos in the region.

A "default position." Cue the giggles. This is one of the best post-hoc rationales I've seen lately.

Thank heavens Pentagon planners had the foresight to build those "enduring bases," which they now finally have a use for. I was a afraid the US was going to abandon them, perhaps turning them into themeparks for the Iraqis. Gosh, that would have been such a waste.