Burns of NY Times on 'Today': 'No Limit to this Violence' if US Troops Removed

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Far be it from me to put in a plug for "Today," but I do hope Nancy Pelosi & Friends were watching this morning. Congressional Dems might be quick to dismiss what President Bush predicts would be the upshot of a date-certain pull-out from Iraq. But perhaps they would not so blithely disregard the observations of one of the most experienced and respected reporters on Iraqi matters . . . a New York Times staffer, no less.

During this morning's first half-hour, "Today" aired a segment devoted to answering the question "What if US Troops Withdraw?" In the first part, narrated by David Gregory, dueling experts painted alternatively gloomy and not-so-glum pictures of what things would be like if the US withdrew. Those on the "things wouldn't-be-so-bad" side seemed to receive more than their fair share of air time.

But then, Matt Lauer interviewed John Burns. As Matt observed, "few Western journalists have as a good a perspective on this war in Iraq as New york Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns."

View video here.

LAUER: What do you think happens if there's a date certain set for that withdrawal?

BURNS: If United States troops stay, there will be mounting casualties and costs for the American taxpayer. If they leave, I think from the perspective of watching this war for four years or more in Baghdad, there's no doubt that the conflict could get a great deal worse very quickly, and we'd see levels of suffering and of casualties amongst Iraqis that potentially could dwarf the ones we've seen to this point."

And later: "Most would agree there is a civil war, but a countervaling force exercised principally by Americans but also other coalition troops is a very significant factor that leaves the potential for a considerable worsening once you remove that countervaling force. . . Remove that countervaling force and there will be no limit to this violence."

LAUER: What about this idea that if we leave, we leave behind a vacuum that other states in that region will rush to fill?

BURNS: Very difficult to tell what they would do, but of course this could come as a wake-up call to them, once they were convinced that American troops were going to withdraw and that they might get drawn in, perhaps they would get serious amongst themselves about drawing up some sort of compact to avoid that possibility, but that's purely in the realm of speculation. We really don't know what their intentions would be, but there's certainly a potential for regional conflict.

LAUER: And scenario number three, John, is if we leave a terrorist haven in Iraq, as the president has warned a number of times over the years, that we're going to have to fight those terrorists again here at home. What's the likelihood of that, in your opinion?

BURNS: Well, it's very difficult for me, for anyone, to predict what would happen, but you only have to look at Afghanistan for what happens when you have a failed state and an Islamic militant component of some size, not necessarily controlling the state. But certainly in Anbar province, to the west of Baghdad, they probably would have effective control and that's a province that abuts, as you know, to the west, key Sunni Arab states. Who knows what could happen? But certainly, yes, there's a potential for an external threat arising from that.

LAUER: From what you've seen, from what you've heard, is the surge working?

BURNS: When I left Baghdad it was just beginning, but from what I see and hear, from here in England at the moment [he's scheduled to return to Iraq soon], the American military command is reporting a 25% decrease in overall levels of violence in Baghdad. That was predictable. The question is, overall, how long can you sustain it, and is the American public prepared to pay the costs of sustaining it, not over six months, or twelve months, but more likely over a much longer period than that?

Burns was duly modest about his powers of prognostication. But on sum, he clearly seems to believe that the kind of withdrawal being proposed by the congressional Dems could have disastrous consequences both for Iraq itself as well as for U.S. national security interests. Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid -- are you listening?

Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Burns-speaks-truth-to-Today ping to Today show list.

[3AngelaD]

And I am sure this had Matt and the Today show producers peeing their pants, last thing they expected to hear from the NYT.

[syriacus]

Thanks for posting this, governsleastgovernsbest.

[SquirrelKing]

Expected. This vote is to solidify the nutroots and the Left. They KNOW it will be vetoed. IMHO.

[maryz]

Did Lauer forget the old trial attorneys' maxim, "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to!"? :)

[NickatNite2003]

I forsee a pink slip in this mans future...no doubt signed by Sulzburger himself.

[From The Deer Stand]

I saw this interview and was totally surprised. I couldn't help but think that maybe, just maybe, Mr. Burns' words would "wake up" the Lauers of the world, and maybe Lauer himself.

[RckyRaCoCo]

If the libs and their cohorts in the media get their way and the troops are removed, trust me, you will either never hear about Iraq again(unless Oprah builds a school for girls there) or they will make it sound like it is now Disneyland, The Happiest Place In The World.

[Liberty Valance]

bump. Burns is a confirmed Bush hater but he also knows what will happen if we leave before the job is done. This will be a great victory for Iraq and America.

[theBuckwheat]

Many of the same crowd that is financing tearful ads on television in an attempt to get the public to demand that Bush stop all the bloodshed in Darfur are also demanding that Bush redeploy our soldiers out of Iraq. I guess they want him to deploy some of them to Darfur.

This is yet more proof that Lenin was correct in calling the western left, "useful idiots", for even as our troops would be getting on planes to depart, the jihadist violence would crank up full steam in Iraq and the bloodshed would be ten times as bad.

How would our useful idiots react in that case? When Jane Fonda was recently asked if she was sorry that when the US walked out on the South Vietnamese, that hundreds of thousands were murdered and an estimated 1 million died in the reeducation camps. She said that was not her concern, the US should have never entered that war to begin with.

That is as good an answer as any we would get from the left should the US seek to "solve" Iraq by walking away from the battle.

[scratcher]

bttt

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Not sure about that; Burns is a pretty known quantity in terms of his views. And Matt was definitely not trying to counter or second guess him.

[holden]

One wonders what the effect would be if Burns were free from the countervailing force his liberal mind places on all this information. I sense he was clearly trying hard not to say things that would hurt the dims.

Remove that countervailing force, and there may no limit to the violence done (to the Democrat Leadership position).

HF

[oh8eleven]

I believe one of Bill O'Reilly's guests on last night's show said there would be one million deaths and five million displaced persons if we withdrew from Iraq today.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Good analogy! But he was clearly trying to get the message across, even if he might have been restraining himself a bit.

[holden]

That is as good an answer as any we would get from the left

I agree that it's about as clear as the Left gets, except perhaps Hillary saying she'll take from those who have and give to those who don't.

Fonda's answers shows her loyalty to any fully altruistic cause, such as saving lives, to be a complete sham. The left has proven again and again that they truly will nonchalantly snuff out lives by the millions--any who oppose, nay, resist (e.g., re-education camp victims) their Communist ways.

The South Vietnamese opposed the Northern Communists long before President Kennedy (D) put the first US advisers in to help the South, thus her unabashed, unrepentant willingness to reflect, even in hindsight on South Vietnamese actually being slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, bares her filthy soul and those of her comrades, e.g., JFnK.

HF

[eyedigress]

It almost sounds to me like the left is capitulating and starting to swing back to what the President has been saying all along. They have got alot of their power back, so why not go ahead and tell the truth.

[meema]

Thanks for posting this, governs/Mark.

[Cheburashka]

hey have got alot of their power back, so why not go ahead and tell the truth.
---
Because they'll lose the support of the Nuto-American community.