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

[wimpycat]

Pro-military ping...

[Centurion2000]

Reservists did not sign up to fight wars 10'000 miles away from these United States.

Funny, but when I signed up for the Marine Corps Reserve I expected to be called to go to war. A year and a half later ... we did, and I got called up as expected.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Now you know why I don't subscribe to the Seattle Times.

[wimpycat]

When you took your oath, did your oath contain any provisos putting a limit on how far away you could be sent from home to exercise your oath? Did the oath you took allow you to pick and choose to serve in only those conflicts you personally deemed worthy of your blood, sweat and tears?

"I, Centurion2000, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.''

No, I didn't think so.

[Centurion2000]

When you took your oath, did your oath contain any provisos putting a limit on how far away you could be sent from home to exercise your oath?

Nope .... actually I would have been tickled pink to be one of the first Space Marines.

Legionnes Astartes BUMP !!

[NYCop]

OUTSTANDING POST LC... Godspeed to you and our brothers in the service!

[NYCop]

God Bless you and your family Sir

[NYCop]

Thank you Sarge

[NYCop]

Thank you for your service HiJinx Sir

[NYCop]

Thanks for your service

[Valin]

Bruce Ramsey's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. And soon he's going to be able to cross the street w/o his mommy.

Declare victory and bring them home, I wonder if he means like we did after the soviet Afgan war...that worked out REAL GOOD.
What a moron!

[Valin]

Maybe Burkeman1 had a special oath made up just for him.

In 68 we got a bunch of Nevada fangs sent to Osan to augment us. They were (to say the least) not happy, "We didn't sign up for this" To parapharse my flight chief 'Don't care.. life is full of disappointments, and this is one of them deal with it'.

[Centurion2000]

Thanks for your service

No problem. Thanks for being there on 9/11 for those people in NY.

[Burkeman1]

Your brother is no doubt protecting his own butt and those of whom he serves alongside with in Iraq right now but he is not protecting this country, my state, my city, or myself in the slightest serving in Iraq.

[BlackVeil]

You are right. Not only are they not in a position to protect the US, they have been sent on a fool's errand - first it is WMDs, and now it is "nation building" - and all this will lead to more real threats in the future.

I hate it, every time I see the casualty figures. Three US soldiers died in Iraq today.

[Burkeman1]

There are so many Johnny come latelys to what they think is conservatism it is heartbreaking. They have no concept of what the historical conservative movement was in this country. They have given ground to the most idiotic of spokespeople like the insanely popular Jonah Goldberg of National Review. This is a man who calls himself conservative and yet says things like:

"The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense."

and

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."

News to all the blood mongers on this site- Jonah Goldberg and these Archie Bunker dime store positions DO NOT represnt any strain of conservatism and never did.

[Burkeman1]

And PS- I do hope your brother comes back safely with all his men.

[Burkeman1]

Every casualty is tragic. But even though I am oppossed to our engagement in Iraq- the casualty figures are not that bad. From what I have read on this site and other places- the casualties we are suffering now are not that much higher than what would be experienced in peace time training if the troops were home and just on exercises. Iraq is not a military quagmire (though it does tie down over a 100,000 troops.) I think Iraq is more of a financial, political, and diplomatic quagmire. Iraq is not Viet Nam in which we experienced 250 dead soldiers or marines (times three wounded) every week for years. We lose maybe 3 to 6 men in Iraq every week and maybe half of those are due to accidents and non hostile action and about 40 wounded a week. For the number of troops we have serving in Iraq- that is not bad- and it makes it safer than say- Washington DC.

And before I get slammed again- I am not saying that the troops there are not under stress. They are. But Iraq is no Viet Nam.

[StarCMC]

It is foolish to think that borders drawn on some arbitrary map will keep terrorists in their own countries. If going into Iraq draws those terrorists to one place for a showdown, then it is the wisest move that can be made. Wouldn't you prefer them to fight us there, where we are prepared to defend ourselves WITHOUT our American civilians being put in danger? Or would you prefer to hunker down here and hope they don't come back? If we just sit around and wait, I'm sure they will. They came back after their first attempt to bring down the WTC failed. I believe there ARE WMD. They will be found. But even if there aren't and I'm wrong, taking the war to the terrorists is better than them bringing it here. So to me, my brother IS protecting the U.S. -- that's how I see it. And thank you for your well-wishes. I just hate to see his efforts denegrated by some who believe that they are pointless. You're right, Iraq is not Viet Nam -- thank God! Thank God that there are people like those here on FR who will make sure that it isn't -- especially for the tired, brave heroes who come home after risking everything. Thank God (not ALGORE) that there is an internet to keep us in touch with the real men and women fighting in this war so that a war will not be fought and lost by the lying media like it was in Viet Nam.

[Burkeman1]

During the Soviet experience in Afghanistan- many Muslem Jihadists were drawn to Afghanistan from all over the Arab world because an "infidel" power had invaded a Muslem land. Many of those who answered that call to arms (encouraged by us at the time)- were not called terrorists but rebels. And yet all throughout the 80's in which we helped Muslems fight in Afghanistan against Russia we were still attacked by Muslems and our citizens held hostage by terrorists. The same is happening to us day. Muslems from all over the Muslem world are attempting to go into Iraq to defeat the American "infidels" just as they did against the Russians (except our military is a little more professional than the Red Army and better equiped and trained). No matter how many we kill in Iraq- there will always be more terrorists to try and kill American civilians. Terrorism can't be defeated. Might as well wage a war against sin or evil. But it can be lessoned, contained, and brought to a minimum. Our actions in Iraq- though they may be from the most noble of reasons and designed- in the long run- to protect America- will only result in the creation of ten fold more terrorists and ten fold more attacks on our Country and people. They are not like us and can't be made into our image no matter how much treasure or blood we sink into this doomed endevour.

Your brother just follows orders as he swore an oath to do no matter who is President. If Clinton sent him on some Bullchip war to cover up his latest domestic scandal he would have done it even if he didn't like it or agree with it. Because that is what he swore to do- serve the Executive and this Countries CNC no matter the reason. Pride in a relative who serves does not reside in the rightness or wrongness of the war in which he is engaged but by the fact that he upholds his oath and does serve regardless. But citizens of this land- if they think the war or cause is not a right course for this nation and think it may even bring it more harm than good- they have the duty and obligation to speak out.

The only trouble is that it is sometimes difficult to seperate those who truly love their country and think we are on the wrong course in a war to those who have always hated their country and wish it's destruction.