Posted on 09/25/2003 7:54:01 PM PDT by Burkeman1
George, here's what to do in Iraq: Declare victory and bring the troops home.
A senator from Vermont once suggested such a policy during the Vietnam War. It would have meant a defeat. In this case, it might mean chaos, at least for a while, unless you can get more international help.
You asked for help from the U.N. That was good. Get back to them and say, "We're serious. We're on a fast track to leave."
To America's soldiers, you can say: "You're fighters, not social workers. The fighting's done, excellent work, and you can start going home."
Thousands of American families will thank you.
To the American people, you can say: "We've changed our minds about the occupation of Iraq. We'll need only part of that $87 billion I asked for. The rest you can keep."
Watch your poll numbers go up.
The warrior intellectuals — the neoconservatives — will bellow. Let them. They don't have any electoral votes. The American people never bought their "neo-Wilsonian" fantasies of empire. Asserting American dominance was never your argument for war. You said Americans had to depose Saddam Hussein in order to protect themselves.
That's done.
Our occupation of Iraq is not yet six months old and already Iraqis are making sure that we tire of it. This will not tend to get better. An antiwar feeling has arisen in the United States, and Howard Dean, a nobody from a small state, has ridden it to the head of the pack. Dean says he wouldn't have gone to war in the first place. Few notice that Dean also says we ought to stay in Iraq to do nation-building.
"Well, Howard," you can say, "I'm bringing the troops home. If you're elected, you can send them back."
Would America be giving up if we did that? We would be giving up the right to reconstruct Iraq our way. We would not be giving up anything the average American cares about.
Certainly, the American people would accept a change in policy. They have accepted the official story from the start — the weapons of mass destruction, the "link" between Saddam and bin Laden, the "Woman Warrior" story about Pvt. Jessica Lynch. They are not paying much attention to Iraq. They will accept a pullout.
Consider the alternative: Five years of occupation. Maybe 10. Bombs, demonstrations, dead Americans.
Think of the Democrats. In 2002 you beat them by offering to save America from a foreign threat. If you do that in 2004, you're going to be in trouble. Americans get tired of wars that drag on and on, and tend to toss out the political party that does the dragging. Look up the election of 1952. Also 1968. Ask your dad about the political shelf-life of military victory. It is less than one year.
Think of the economy. Business has been terrible since you became president. The people have been pretty forgiving about that. They know the dot-com bust was not your doing (nor Clinton's, really). You have given the people a tax cut, and Alan Greenspan has given them rock-bottom interest rates. In normal times, these would produce a snapping recovery. But war sits on business confidence like a fat man on a dog.
Your war, a Republican war, of which the politically profitable part is over. We are now in the losing part. The occupation of Iraq could drag on well past November 2004.
But you can forestall that. Lean on the U.N. for troops. Lean on the Egyptians; they owe us a favor or two for the billions we've doled out to them. Speed up the creation of an Iraqi government. You don't need to wait for elections. That's Iraq's business.
Then you can announce that most of the troops will be home by Christmas and you will not be needing all of that $87 billion.
Watch Wall Street jump. The dollar, too.
Nobody expects you to do this. It will shock your friends, but what's more, it will confound your enemies. It will also steer the Republican Party back toward that nationalistic but "humble" foreign policy you described three years ago, which best suits the interests, and the patience, of those who might vote for you in 2004.
Bruce Ramsey's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is bramsey@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company
>i support the troops and would not say no to being drafted
Since you feel so strongly why wait for the draft hotshot?
>TALK THE TALK..WALK TH WALK!!!
That's right enlist today - for the duration. Show the world how much you support the war.
As for the draft conscription is antithesis of liberty and a free society. Our government was formed as the servant of people and it is not their master. It has no right to coerce freemen into service.
Is that more conservative than a "True" conservative, or is that less conservative than a "Constitutionalist" conservative?
There are so many classes of conservatives anymore, I am disenfranchised.
So do you advocate getting rid of government armed forces, and just have independant militia groups? Doesn't sound like a Patriot at all to me, bub.
As for the draft conscription is antithesis of liberty and a free society.
Under the Constitution, the only troops allowed to be called up to defend the nation were those already serving in the militias of the various states.
The Constitution says no such thing.
If I truly vent my rage at that statement, I will surely be banned.
Much different from happy little blind flag waving statists like yourself eh? Put an R beside someone's name and verbally questioning them is akin to treason with the likes of you.
And for the record, I have never agreed with the reasons given for the war, and it's quite evident contrary to your incessant hoping for David Kay to pull a rabbit out of the hat, that the main reasons given were never there. As for the troops, I will not comment on what my good friend as said, as that is his opinion and one he has a right to say no matter how much your lockstep self may disagree with it. But I fully support the troops, and have come to a working agreement with friends and family of those serving on my position. They are not to blame, they are following orders and doing what they feel is serving their country in the best way possible. Neocons started this war, not the troops.
And contrary to your belief, the First Amendment did not disappear immediately after 9/11, although from a Republican it wouldn't be the first time one has ignored major parts of the Bill of Rights in a time of war to quell rightful dissention now would it?
exit time for Germany?
exit time for Korea?
exit time for Haiti?
exit time for Bosnia?
We are waiting for your responses.
I have no clue as to what your point might be. What was FDR's and Truman's "exit strategy" while fighting Hitler and Tojo?
We'll leave Germany, et. al. when it is in our national interests. Germany is a good example. We are their because the U.S. learned after the first World War that we need to be there to prevent a third World War from occurring. Though it is appropriately being revisited in light of political changes in Germany, and worldwide strategic changes, that policy worked for over 60 years.
I have served my country in uniform over 15 years for the specific purpose of keeping potential harm to my country and family at least 5,000 miles off shore. I'd rather serve overseas and keep my family safe in the U.S., than wait for aggressors to hit them at home.
Any other choice is false. For the U.S.A. to become an isolationist nation is to invite aggression at the time and location of the aggressors' choosing. My job in the U.S. Navy has been to keep the "sea-lanes-of communication" open to all, because if they are closed to any, they will be closed to the U.S.A.. That situation favors those who would harm our nation, and our national interests. That is why U.S. servicemen and women deploy in times of peace and war, and that is why they will always continue to do so. We fight for freedom even if no one else does, and we protect and defend the freedom and lives of other nationals, as a means to defending our own citizens lives.
Get a grip.... you're question is trite.
SFS
Crap! Refer to my last post; it applies here to.
I'm not blind, and that flag will be on my casket when I die, be it sooner in service to my country, or later at a time of the Lord's choosing. I fly that flag. My kids fly that flag. My son will serve under that flag, and I will be proud.
Like I did, he will serve those would not bother themselves to protect themselves. Like I did, he will protect the lives and secure the freedom of other nationals as a cost of securing the freedom and safety of our own citizens. Enjoy the protection, you selfish, thoughtless, and arrogant *#%(@#*()@#@.
SFS
Apparently, I should not expect even the most basic level of patriotism.
Seriously, I think the leftist, and possibly overseas disruptors are just having fun pulling our chain. American's support this country and the war effort.
SFS
Thank you, sir, for your service.
I don't know what these punk nitwits have.
It just goes to show that so-called "conservatives" can take leftist positions when their skin is at stake. Anyone can be a coward..it's an equal opportunity political position.
Welfare state lover??? Naw..sorry, you're confusing me with one of your buddies or relatives.
I worked and paid my own way though college, THEN I gave up the big bucks others made in the 80's, joined the Navy for pennies on my college-investment-dollar, paid my school loans off with my Lieutenant's pay, served as a Reservist afterwards, putting more money into the program in travel and related expenses than the government paid me, and I pay for my own kids tuition, I "donate" to the Democrats socialist-state California.... Naw.. I think you must be having an off day, and your head isn't working right.
FReegards, SFS
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.