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]

Really? Call Jim Rob? He will side with me. I have broke no law or rule.

[MEG33]

You demanded I not post to you and I responded that you could hit abuse if you object to my posts.I am not going to call JR on you...why would I?

[11B3]

Your desire for the draft is based upon your lack of military experience.

I spent ten years in the infantry ('82-91). The last thing on earth we wanted was draftees. In order to maintain combat skills the soldiers have to WANT TO BE THERE. The duty is demanding. The duty is way above the level of discomfort that soft untrained civilians can endure. The level of patriotism is very high among soldiers. The discipline involved is difficult for those who first join to understand - much less enjoy (although it saves lives once the lead starts to fly). Draftees who don't want to be where they are don't give a damn about the training that they must go through prior to assignment to regular units. Draft era units don't allow the freedoms that volunteer units can - such as having to get a pass to leave base. (Volunteer military units know that the soldiers are going to come to work tomorrow, draftees tend to run.) Burkeman1 is lacking any military experience, and that in turn disqualifies him from speaking authoritatively on military subjects. You will never hear him state anything positive about the military, but take that with a grain of salt. It's a dangerous profession that is not meant for the weak.

Reinstating the draft would destroy the finest military on earth. Why fix something that isn't broken? If you want to join, please do - and wlcome to the club. But don't try to dilute our military strength with quantity versus quality.

[11B3]

"I don't accept the draft nor should any conservative! A foreign danger that is real would be meet by patriots- not by some standing army. Our standing army paid for by you and me are not patriots but welfare recipients. And when we hear about them whining in Iraq I find it telling that you all are the first to condemn our troops and their families."

I can't type what I'd like to in response to that comment, as I value being able to post here. (Something about threats of physical violence not being allowed.)

BTTT!!!!

[Burkeman1]

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.

If you want- in between "praying" for Bush- say a prayer for my Grandfather and for, Great Uncle Father Jim, and Great Uncle Frank who all served their country but wish they didn't.

[MEG33]

Ah Oh! He may tell you never to post to him again as he did me...;)

[boris]

We need to get out--if only because there are numerous other targets requiring attention and we can ill afford to spend $87 billion building a cell-phone network for terrorists, or for flea-bitten camel jockeys.

--Boris

[11B3]

I notice that all of your relatives who served are at least two generations in the past. Weak. REALLY WEAK.

Every male member of my family has served since the Civil War. Some died in action. Others wounded. So what? I didn't join because of them, and I didn't avoid service because of their experiences. I joined because I wanted to serve my country. It's called patriotism. What you espouse is parasitic enjoyment of the American system without giving anything in return.

There's a big difference between excuses and reasons. You only use excuses.

If I see you posting on military issues in the future, I'll be on you like white on rice. You're not qualified to have any input on the subject.

[MEG33]

You need to inform yourself on where the money goes.

[11B3]

Yeah, that's a real threat, isn't it? Keep up the good fight MEG33 - I've never seen you on the wrong side of an issue since I've been here. We both know where he stands on military issues - since before Afghanistan - with the no war, no way types. (How far left can a "conservative" be?)

[boris]

"You need to inform yourself on where the money goes."

Wherever it goes, it should not be going.

--Boris

[MEG33]

Your opinion carries a lot of weight,I am just a civilian.I will never let a post like the "welfare recipients" one stand..NEVER!!Thank you for the support.

[Burkeman1]

Your right. My Great Uncle held his silver star in disdain. My Grandfather- being the oldest- thought WWI was a BS war and he was right. My Uncle Frank was basically a loonie after Iwo Jima even though he married and had a kid.

My father joined the military in 65 as a reservist at my grandfather's advice since he knew a war was coming and a reservist was better off to be state side. Regardless- my father got called up in 67 and he was sent to Colorado to prepare for deployment in Viet Nam. He was never sent- Thank God- but if he was he would have sat in an air conditioned van with the 8 black guys he had trained with to look at aerial photos.

[WillowyDame]

"There's a big difference between excuses and reasons. You only use excuses."

thanks to your logical explaination, i'm against DRAFT now!

unless there is a huge shotage of "patriots"

^^^^^5!!

real man!!! walking the talk!!!

curtsy!

[ChemistCat]

Look at what Burkeman1 said here. I am quoting his whole post so I can't be said to be taking anything out of context.

To: WillowyDame

I don't accept the draft nor should any conservative! A foreign danger that is real would be meet by patriots- not by some standing army. Our standing army paid for by you and me are not patriots but welfare recipients. And when we hear about them whining in Iraq I find it telling that you all are the first to condemn our troops and their families.

32 posted on 09/25/2003 11:25 PM CDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.)) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Burkeman1]

ANd you disagre with that how?

[ChemistCat]

I would vote for Al Gore and Hillary '04 before I'd get you a drink of water, if you were dying in the desert and offered me a billion dollars per sip.

And I wish you'd go join the remnants of the Taliban or something, because our country doesn't need your presence here any longer.

That is all I have to say to you.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Look up the election of 1952. Also 1968

How about the election of 1860? A litle closer the the current instance... an important war was on, and the Democrats wanted to grab their crying towel and quit. They found a few fellow travellers among nominal Republicans... people like this Patsie isolationist who are weak as water and clueless about world events.

Quitting the war over there won't make it go away. It will bring it here, instead. The day is gone when a strongman like Pat Buchanan's lifelong hero, the odious Francisco Franco, could isolate a nation from the world.

The purpose of this opinion piece is obviously not to encourage George Bush to change his mind. It's in the Seattle Times for crying out loud, an insignificant paper from a cultural backwater; it's a dead certainty that no one at policy-making levels will ever read it. Instead, this is targeted squarely at the Times's usual fans, Birkenstock-shod 60s burnouts. And the purpose of the piece is to encourage them in the fantasy that their ostrich-approach is "bipartisan." Yeah, both the John Walker Lindh fan club and the Franco adulators love it.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Billthedrill]

Our standing army paid for by you and me are not patriots but welfare recipients.

I would gently urge you to reconsider these words. It may be that in the heat of argument you couched things in terms you did not intend.

Welfare recipients do not work for the money the government gives them. Our army works very hard for very little money, and seldom is that money the reason they're out there. It is for that reason that they are entirely deserving of the term "patriots." Not mercenaries. And certainly not welfare recipients.

[Burkeman1]

Citzen soldiers sevre without expectation of reward. Is that case today?