Let the neo-cons bellow, just bring the troops home

The Seattle Times ^ | 9/24/03 | Bruce Ramsey

[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

[Burkeman1]

The Ghosts of real conservatives like Taft and Coolidge are spinning in their graves right now at what has become of the GOP.

[Burkeman1]

I don't want to be. Our military protects nothing. Did our billon dollar CIA and NSA prevent 9/11? Has there been even one reisgnatioin over 9/11?

[MEG33]

Thank you for serving our country.Stay safe and ,LC,stay warm!

[JohnGalt]

"Pro-life" , anti-immigration--legal and otherwise, Old Europe Christian, so strike two on attempts to pin me down. Click on the screen name you'll see I put Galt in context with Randall McMurphy and Cool Hand Luke of similiar time period (1955-65) American anti-heros; I went with the screen name more closely associated with the Right rather that two characters who were in trouble with the man.


Babs was going on about how the Republicans wanted to abolish all government services (which while a grand idea, sounded just like your earliers post.)

I think you would have blushed.

Republicans also once advocated abolishing the Department of Education, GW had it removed--I sure do miss those days.

Secession as a political solution for what ails us; all conservative patriots must be willing to consider every option available too us.

Most posters who have engaged me attempt to do ideological trench warfare which fails because they quickly realize that their contemporary conservative dogma (see Fox News) does not apply. That is why statist-anti-statist is such a revalant distinction right now, and the anger statists display when called to the mat on it, rather than defend their position, illustrates that there is a contradiction in thought-- which perhaps means one day it will be corrected.

[paul51]

It's a silly proposal

That's too kind. It's a dumb a** proposal and anyone that believes we should do this is either a moron or a enemy sympathizer

[winker]

I am the one for sticking it out on "their" turff! I want peace as bad as the next guy but it is apparent many just don't have a stomach for disposing of the bad guys! This bunch will never quit coming after us and your unwillingness to see it through will only hasten the NWO Martial Law plan here at home because of the chaos you yourself know this type of action will generate. Given the current state of chaos here in America;and the high numbers of U.N. foreign troops that currently reside here in America it would take very little to push things over the edge. Our TRAITORS & PACIFICTS in the State Department cain't wait to go after the Christians in this country; they are the only thing standing in their way currently, and you are playing directly into their bloody hands!

[Burkeman1]

Actually yes- A country that won't defend itself through unpaid volunteers is just another coercive state. A country that must pay it's troops and then extend lifelong benefits to them even if they just sat on a base for 4 years in New Jersey or Colorado playing cards, drinking, and burying gasoline because the quota wasn't used up for that month- is not the hallmark of free people.

[Burkeman1]

None- It was just a fact- My father had trained to analyze aerial photos. As a "spcecialist" he held the rank of Seargent. The guys under his command that he trained were almost all black. And if they were sent to Viet Nam those are the guys he would have served with.

[TexKat]

A country that won't defend itself through unpaid volunteers is just another coercive state. A country that must pay it's troops and then extend lifelong benefits to them even if they just sat on a base for 4 years in New Jersey or Colorado playing cards, drinking, and burying gasoline because the quota wasn't used up for that month- is not the hallmark of free people.

How and where did you come up with this info? Have you ever served in the military yourself?

[Burkeman1]

No and never will unless my state (Massachusetts) is invaded by a foreign power.

I have too many relatives who "served" in draftee wars who told me the reality of military service both in combat and out of combat.

[MEG33]

ping

[sheltonmac]

what if there are not enough "patriots"??

If there aren't enough "patriots"--people willing to sacrifice for the sake of being free--then that is a nation that doesn't deserve liberty. I just don't see how we can call ourselves free if we force young men to kill and die--especially when the cause is political and has virtually nothing to do with the actual defense of the United States (e.g., Korea and Vietnam).

[ConservativeStandUP]

The only thing that Anti-War Conservatives and Liberals love more than Dead American Men and Women coming home in wooden boxes is this:

Victorious Men and Women coming home pre-maturely so that their sacrifices can be dismissed as being in vain.

Why? Because it furthers their agenda of Isolationism. Clowns like you and this author have forgotten 911 and have forgotten that we didn't seek this war. This war sought us. Sure it stinks, but what's the alternative? Its defeat--which happens to take us back to my original point.

Sorry dude, you can't pull up the drawbridge and keep us safe from the meanies out there. They want to kill us, if you are too gutless to see it, get out of the way, because America has a war to win.

Oh yeah, and by the way, EVERY AMERICAN service person over in IRAQ Volunteered, they knew the risks going in. Stop trying to make them look like victims and pu%^ys. It does them no honor.

[sheltonmac]

Clowns like you and this author have forgotten 911 and have forgotten that we didn't seek this war.

Are you referring to the war in Iraq or the war on terror? Contrary to what you may think, they are not one in the same. The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by a terrorist organization with no ties to Iraq. We went after them in Afghanistan (while ignoring their direct link to Saudi Arabia, but that's another issue). The fact is that this administration was gunning for Iraq from day one, and it has exploited the 9/11 tragedy ad nauseum to further its agenda.

[1rudeboy]

Please don't ever respond to me again as you have no pain in war deaths among your family or long lasting injuries that you have had to deal with that they don't make movies about.

You were injured as a welfare-recipient?

[ConservativeStandUP]

"Are you referring to the war in Iraq or the war on terror? Contrary to what you may think, they are not one in the same."

Clearly you are not dealing in the currency of reality.

[sheltonmac]

Clearly you are not dealing in the currency of reality.

Apparently not. I guess must have been in a coma when Fox News reported that Iraq had attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

You certainly seem to be informed about what's going on in the world. Perhaps you can tell me why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia in response to 9/11, and why there seems to be a cover-up of key facts regarding Saudi involvement.

[sheltonmac]

Even if the war in Iraq could be justified, what about the author's point? Saddam is no longer in power, the threat from Iraqi WMDs has been eliminated and the Iraqi people clearly don't want us there. Why can't we simply declare victory and bring the troops home? Do you perhaps agree with Bush's insistence on using U.S. troops in nation-building exercises (something he vehemently opposed during the 2000 campaign)?

[Burkeman1]

Reservists did not sign up to fight wars 10'000 miles away from these United States. They signed up to defend this Country. On 9/11 we were attacked by 19 men who walked through our front door and killed 3000 Americans and several hundred foreigners by hijacking planes with box cutters. How the lessons of 9/11 lead you to think we should be in Iraq is something you should think about. And considering we will spend more on border security in Iraq this year than we do on our own borders should make even you blink.

I had a conversation the other day with a wise man. He said that if one hates America that person would wish us to be in Iraq.

May I suggest you read Chronicles Magazine and the American Conservative if just to get an idea of why other conservatives disagree with you?

And PS- The term "isolationism" is a made up term by those who seek an intrusive American foreign policy and a big government at home. America has never been "isolationist".