www.suntimes.com
Posted on 09/20/2004 10:47:56 AM PDT by COURAGE
September 20, 2004 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
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.
This prospective policy is based on Iraq's national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction.
The reality of hard decisions ahead is obscured by blather on both sides in a presidential campaign. Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal. Sen. John Kerry's political aides, still languishing in fantastic speculation about European troops to the rescue, do not even ponder a quick exit. But Kerry supporters with foreign policy experience speculate that if elected, their candidate would take the same escape route.
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. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.
Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.
The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries -- especially Turkey -- that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations.
This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam's police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation building after the dictator was deposed.
Abandonment of building democracy in Iraq would be a terrible blow to the neoconservative dream. The Bush administration's drift from that idea is shown in restrained reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin's seizure of power. While Bush officials would prefer a democratic Russia, they appreciate that Putin is determined to prevent his country from disintegrating as the Soviet Union did before it. A fragmented Russia, prey to terrorists, is not in the U.S. interest.
The Kerry campaign, realizing that its only hope is to attack Bush for his Iraq policy, is not equipped to make sober evaluations of Iraq. When I asked a Kerry political aide what his candidate would do in Iraq, he could do no better than repeat the old saw that help is on the way from European troops. Kerry's foreign policy advisers know there will be no release from that quarter.
In the Aug. 29 New York Times Magazine, columnist David Brooks wrote an article (''How to Reinvent the GOP'') that is regarded as a neo-con manifesto and not popular with other conservatives.
''We need to strengthen nation states,'' Brooks wrote, calling for ''a multilateral nation-building apparatus.'' To chastened Bush officials, that sounds like an invitation to repeat Iraq instead of making sure it never happens again.
Quick exit from Iraq is likely
<font size=1 face=helvet
By the way, why are these threads on Novak's article (and don't forget George Will's article) being pulled?
The Republican Party is all about debate. The greatness of the conservative movement is that we have neo-cons, classic cons, paleocons, etc. We need to have a debate on how this administration should proceed on Iraq.
The hard truth that the "fight to victory" types refuse to recognize is that the "coalition of the willing" is going to disintegrate next year. Democracies cannot keep their sons in battle without the support of the boys at home and thanks to Iraq, Berlusconi, Blair, and Howard are in trouble. Aznar is already gone.
I'm not buying any of this - Bush wins re-election, then he pulls out of iraq? Iran would be the big winner, they would control even more oil supplies.
I've seen this one elsewhere today.
Good story line, though.
We should leave Iraq and go pound of Iran for a bit. Makes more sense. Let them rebuild themselves.
No. The "fight to victory" types are unwilling to give up our fight because other countries are doing so. We must win this war.
...also classic to leak a trial balloon to the press.If the Kerry camp comes out for leaving soon then Bush just points to another in a long line of Kerry Flip Flops. If Kerry says he would stay ,Bush just states that he had every intention of staying and Kerry has just another Me Too Moment in his 15 minutes....Classic Rope a Dope...
Lemme make sure I have this right...
The Bush administration, after winning the election, is going to remove it's presence from the centerpiece of it's entire mid-east strategy?
This is certainly something a RAT would do but not a principled Republican....and Bush is a principled Republican.
The debate is over .. the Senators all signed a piece of paper saying the President could proceed.
Now .. they're not happy how he's proceeding .. TOOOOOO LATE.
The American public has accepted that the neoconservative vision of a pro-American, democratic Iraq where cheering crowds welcome American troops with flowers was delusional. They are not willing to pour blood and treasure seeking a delusional definition of "victory".
Of course. We are willing to make every sacrifice needed to win a real victory. Just because some paleos can't imagine the U.S. winning doesn't mean it won't happen.
Novak’s source for this story is trying to confuse Kerry/Edwards on there “secret plan theory” There is no way W is pulling out without Victory but if this story gets into the mainstream then the Kerry message of W’s secret plan is muddled even if it is probably true. If Bush gets a mandate I bet he will add an extra 100,000 troops to clear out Falluhja, Ramadi…..ect and protect the polling stations in January.
The Paleo-Arab faction weighs in. Novak conveys his OWN point of view; its the NEO-Cons fault!
Am I wrong or has Novak's administrative sources been consistantly wrong lately?
Has it ever dawned on the "fight to win" crowd that Israel has spent 40 years seeking "victory" over the Palestinians ? And now they are abandoning Gaza and will abandon the cities of the West Bank and hunker down behind a fortress wall ? Please explain to me what you will do that Israel did not.
Israel has accepted that it can win battlefield victories but it cannot rule large hostile Arab populations at any acceptable cost. Neither can we.
And where exactly would those 100,000 troops come from ? You never addressed that question. Do you seriously believe that the American people will wish to pour more blood and treasure into Iraq if they see the Europeans pulling out ? No they will not. In the run up to war Bush needed Blair's political support. If the American people see the British bailing do you think they will wish to stick around ?
No. The American people do not wish to cut and run but that most assuredly does not mean that they are willing to lose 10 Americans a week stretching forever. That does not mean they are willing to pour endless amounts of money into the pursuit of a pipedream. There is a point at which you cut your losses.
But, that is sort of meaningless. Israel's fight against the PA and our rebuilding efforts in Iraq are extremely different. Leaving Iraq in its current state would just bring about another threat to the US. We cannot "leave" yet.
In this war, that is the point where we admit defeat. And subsequently die.
LBJ and Nixon got out of Vietnam not because of the protestors, but because the cost of the war was sending inflation through the roof.
Can we afford the cost of neoconservative land wars across the Mid East ? No we can't.
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.