Posted on 09/08/2007 4:35:18 PM PDT by Clive
U.S. President George W. Bush dropped by Iraq this week to offer what news reports call "the tantalizing prospect" of some troop withdrawals. Many voices in the media worry that the President doesn't mean it. I worry that he does.
I worry, not because I think there should be U.S. troops stationed in Iraq today, but because I think they should have been withdrawn long ago. Withdrawing them today is doing the right thing at the wrong time -- and doing the right thing at the wrong time is doing the wrong thing.
Bush ought to have offered the first "tantalizing prospect" of gradual troop reduction in May, 2003, when he landed on an aircraft carrier to announce -- talk about famous last words -- "mission accomplished." Coalition troops should have been on their way home, at the latest, the week after Saddam Hussein was pulled from his "spider hole" in the boondocks. That day, Dec. 13, 2003, was the last day the Western alliance had any business in Iraq.
I've lost count of how many times I've been saying this, in print or on the air. The mistake wasn't to go into Iraq; the mistake was to stay. The mistake wasn't to depose a mad-dog tyrant; the mistake was to stick around afterwards.
As a candidate, Bush knew this. He campaigned on the platform of "no nation building." Bush's error was not to listen to himself.
After assuming office, the President let some genius from the State Department persuade him that pulling out after dethroning Saddam would leave behind a "power vacuum" with a potential for a civil war. The analysis wasn't necessarily wrong; it just failed to consider the likely consequences. Power vacuums in countries that don't want to be countries, like Iraq, often result in civil wars, no matter what. If, after removing Saddam, America pulled out and a civil war ensued, America would be out of it. If America stayed and a civil war ensued, America would be in the middle of it. Which is precisely what happened.
"This is a civil war, and we shouldn't be in the midst of it," said Democratic Senator Joe Biden on CBS-TV on Monday. Yes, except Sen. Biden is the type who would have found it "irresponsible" to abandon Iraq after scattering Saddam's regime. Well, let me break this to the Senator gently: If you hang around a dysfunctional country to prevent something you don't want to be in the middle of, you will be in the middle of whatever you can't prevent.
If you foresee a civil war of which you want no part, the solution is to get the hell out. Why didn't President Bush do it?
Possibly Bush missed school the day his history teacher recounted a remark Napoleon's foreign minister, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, made to the French emperor: "One can do anything with bayonets, Sire, except sit on them."
Having missed class, Bush did what Talleyrand warned against 200 years ago. After pulverizing Saddam's murderous regime in 21 days, the U.S.-led coalition, instead of declaring victory and sailing into the sunset, proceeded to sit on its bayonets. The Bush administration fell into the trap of using the armed forces for nation building. It was a mistake.
Bayonets are highly effective in winning over the enemy, but they're not very useful for winning the enemy over. Would there have been a civil war if Bush had pulled out after capturing Saddam? Probably. So? There is one now. Would Bush have been criticized? Probably. So? He is being criticized now. Except, had he pulled out at the end of 2003, he would have been criticized as a victorious commander-in-chief. As it is, he is being criticized as a beaten adventurer, whose choice is between fleeing or reenacting Custer's Last Stand.
Perhaps, instead of quoting Talleyrand, one should have tried explaining matters to a former Texas governor in rodeo language: "You get points for riding a bull. Hang on like hell, but when the buzzer sounds in eight seconds, let go. The ride is over. Getting entangled in the rope will not raise your score."
By now it's too late. The reason I worry that Bush will do what he should have done four years ago is because by now it would be the wrong thing. Doing the wrong thing fits the dynamics of a loser, which may describe the 43rd President of the United States. In gaming the first rule is, don't push your luck. If you don't quit while you're ahead, you'll quit when you're behind. It applies to any game of hazard, including war. If you don't go while the going is good, you'll go when the going is bad. Like Bush in Iraq. It's really that simple.
-
-
You just can't win with liberals. If Bush were to go ahead and withdraw the troops now, it will be "doing the wrong thing".
1) This isn't a game.
2) The columnist is sitting on his own brain.
Bush never said “Mission Accomplished”. The aircraft carrier had accomplished its mission and was steaming back to home port. sheesh, and these people all know better too
The story as I recall it was that Napoleon asked Marshall Ney why the French weren’t doing better against the guerillas in Spain, and Marshall Ney replied something like, “Sire, you can do many things with a bayonet, except sit on it.”
That would be a closer parallel with the US situation in Iraq.
“Sitting on his bayonet”
Whew!
I thought this was another Larry Craig article...
What garbage. Obviously this author likes to read his own words and listen to himself talk. Absolute rubbish. What an as*h*ole.
Try as I may, I can't help but agree with this premise.
Read the article again.
Bush does not need to do ANYTHING regarding Iraq. Leave it to the military. Let the military decide what they need to do. Micromanaging the the war is what created the Viet Nam Quagmire.
A good manager (President) surrounds themselves with people capable of taking care of what they are in charge of. We have military minds that are more capable of deciding what they need. Not GWB. And Yes I voted for GWB yet he is not in Iraq, does not know the situation, and does not need to micromanage the war. Let the Military minds who are over there decide what they need.
Yes, after I read further I can see that. I assumed it was yet another liberal who would complain if Bush did A or B.
Geeze,... George Jonas is a dork!
Just his head, Liberals don’t have brains.
I worry, not because I think there should be U.S. troops stationed in Iraq today, but because I think they should have been withdrawn long ago.
No, you worry because you're affraid it will help the GOP's election prospects.
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.