Posted on 09/29/2004 9:05:29 AM PDT by Cicero
Rick Ackerman Sep 29, 2004
Excerpt from the current Rick's Picks (website). You can subscribe here.
Will the U.S. simply declare victory and pull out of Iraq after the election? My colleague Gary North thinks so, and he's in good company, since conservative columnist Robert Novak also thinks so. "Novak says that plans are now being made at the highest level to pull out of Iraq next year," notes North in his latest letter." Here's how Novak himself sees things playing out:
"Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.
Three Alternatives
"Could he be correct? He has looked at the three alternatives, and he says the third is most likely. Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.
"Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials."
But Here's a Fourth
I think North and Novak have both failed to consider a very plausible fourth possibility - that U.S. forces will pull back to secure encampments within Iraq and let the Iraqis beat themselves bloody in a civil war; then, when it ends, we'll make a deal with the winner. I credit my New Jersey friend Glenn K. with persuading me that this is how things are likely to go down. Glenn, a libertarian and childhood friend whose politics are to the left of mine, ran a bar in one of Atlantic City's toughest neighborhoods, so he comes to realpolitik organically:
"I'm not so sure that Bush intends to pull out," Glenn writes. "Here's another possibility he might have in mind: withdraw into our 14 semi-permanent camps and let the rest of the country collapse into a civil war. Then, like Lebanon, wait to see who wins and make a deal with them.
Muslim vs. Muslim
"Our only reason for staying, as we all know, is to secure the oil," Glenn notes. "So we do that and we keep Iran, Syria and Turkey out. The Kurds are not really involved, so this will be largely a four-way fight --secular Sunni and Shia against the religious fundies. We should stand aside and let them slaughter each other, since it would be no sweat off us. They all hate us anyway. In the end, whoever wins still has to make a deal with us, since they can't defeat us.
"Bush is too arrogant to withdraw, and the oil crowd won't allow it. Novak and North are wrong. As to Kerry, it's moot since the chances of his winning are now down below 30 percent. If by some miracle he does win, yes, he'll pull out, since he has no political or financial obligation to fulfill to the Texas oil gangs. In that event he'll still end up being blamed for the defeat and will be a one-termer. It's a no win situation for anyone.. Except the Terrorist"
If all of this sounds quite cynical, it may seem less so by the time Iraq's election rolls around in January. Colin Powell has warned us that the violence there is likely to grow even worse between now and then. The question is whether the election campaign here in the U.S. will get uglier as well, with Kerry tacking in the direction outlined above. We shall see.
Rick Ackerman
***
I'm sure there ARE forces in the administration who would like to pull out of Iraq next year and are so advising Bush.
The last part of the column is, as Ackerman says, cynically formulated, but it's a real possibility. Much the same view can, in fact, be put in kinder and less cynical terms. Bush would LIKE to democratize Iraq, but his primary duty is to maintain the national security of the United States and of the civilized world (even if much of the civilized world doesn't see it that way). That means disrupting support for terrorism and securing the oil supplies. Not because Bush is a Texan or a servant of the oil companies, but because the U.S. and the west need the oil supply to prevent an economic collapse. That's just realistic, and again much more in the interests of our country than kerry's stupid defeatism.
With Iraq occupied and its oil secured, Bush will be in a stronger position to deal with the next problems in the WOT after the election--namely, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
So, I post this column as food for thought.
Hell, I plan my week this way. The flat tire on Monday ruined my "Plan A". An extra trip to a job ruined "Plan B" and my addiction to FR is delaying "Plan C".
In other words, "No blood for oil". Personally, I think there is more involved than that.
"We should stand aside and let them slaughter each other, since it would be no sweat off us."
Good humanitarian attitude. The best part is what would follow the slaughter: the most vicious, blood-thirsty, fanatical faction gets control of the Iraqi oil. Then they start looking around for someone to terrorize ... but ... no sweat off us -- I'm sure they'll blame France for all their troubles.
Wow. There is a guy with a GREAT track record. Not.
I didn't read any further.
A_R
Plan A should not be ruled out. Increased troop strength justified by security needs in Iraq could preceed invasion of IRAN, following (or instead of) Israel's attack on nuclear facilities. W may have come to the idea of spreading democracy as an afterthought, but I think he now sees that as his destiny. I don't think he will pull out and let civil war ensue; not a suitable legacy . . .
We will stay in Iraq until Iran changes regimes. We have won our way, at great cost, to a strategic position on the flanks of what will be the world's first radical Islamist nuclear power. We will not give up the high-ground until the situation in Iran stabilizes. We would be fools to do so.
I stopped reading at this point. Anyone classifying Novak as a "conservative" is obviously so far whacked-out to the left that there's no point reading their tripe.
The only interesting part is at the end. Yes, he's naive, but the last scenario is worth considering.
I agree that we would be foolish to lie back entirely and let the worst man win. But we can let them fight it out to a degree, and intervene selectively, rather than take on everyone who wants to point a weapon at us. In fact that's somewhat what we are doing now. Intervening selectively rather than on a wholesale basis, letting the various factions expose themselves and going in if the wrong guys seem to be doing too well.
Baloney!!!
I don't think the President will cut and run. I've always thought the fourth option was the best choice.
... U.S. forces will pull back to secure encampments within Iraq and let the Iraqis beat themselves bloody in a civil war; then, when it ends, we'll make a deal with the winner.
We have a base of military operations in Iraq and we've fought hard sacrificing 1000+ military personnel so far. I don't believe the President will withdraw. That would be an immoral decision to make.
These are about as likely to happen as Ralph Nader is to get elected President...
The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war.
We aren't waging a "war" in Iraq anymore and we have resources in theater that are more than sufficient to accomplish any legitimate military objective desired - flattening Fallujah, for example (oh still my beating heart...). Tripling our troop commitments will accomplish nothing but providing three times the targets unless the rules of engagement are fundamentally changed.
We will, at some point, declare victory in Iraq and begin troop pullouts, and it is as inevitable as the day that our enemies, both foreign and domestic, will proclaim that a defeat. That word and three bucks will buy them a cup of coffee. There will still be people with bombs who will try to harm the Iraqi people, against whom military occupation, American style, will never be effective for the very best of reasons. The Iraqis will have to learn to get along in a tough neighborhood - they've done it before under much worse circumstances.
This isn't a change in policy, it is the policy. We may very well need to take military actions prior to that event to ensure its success, such as finding ways to minimize the covert warfare currently being conducted by Syria and Iran. But the end game will be a withdrawal that is a victory, not a defeat.
The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war.
We aren't waging a "war" in Iraq anymore and we have resources in theater that are more than sufficient to accomplish any legitimate military objective desired - flattening Fallujah, for example (oh still my beating heart...). Tripling our troop commitments will accomplish nothing but providing three times the targets unless the rules of engagement are fundamentally changed.
We will, at some point, declare victory in Iraq and begin troop pullouts, and it is as inevitable as the day that our enemies, both foreign and domestic, will proclaim that a defeat. That word and three bucks will buy them a cup of coffee. There will still be people with bombs who will try to harm the Iraqi people, against whom military occupation, American style, will never be effective for the very best of reasons. The Iraqis will have to learn to get along in a tough neighborhood - they've done it before under much worse circumstances.
This isn't a change in policy, it is the policy. We may very well need to take military actions prior to that event to ensure its success, such as finding ways to minimize the covert warfare currently being conducted by Syria and Iran. But the end game will be a withdrawal that is a victory, not a defeat.
Sorry for the double post.
No, hang Saddam (televised), complete the Iraqi elections, then Declare Victory, Then Exit Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.