Novak: US to cut & run next year

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-20 02:57pm

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cs ... vak20.html

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.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-09-20 03:13pm

Wow, it takes talent to fuck up three nations including your own on a four year watch.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-20 03:16pm

Of course, the Bush Administration has no intention of announcing this before the Election Day.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-09-20 03:28pm

Bush is STRONG ON TERROR! HE HAS THE PERSEVERANCE TO CARRY US TO HOLY VICTORY.

I've lost all faith in the American electorate.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2004-09-20 05:26pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Bush is STRONG ON TERROR! HE HAS THE PERSEVERANCE TO CARRY US TO HOLY VICTORY.

I've lost all faith in the American electorate.

What, now? What did you like about them before?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-20 05:28pm

You know, for the pronouncements being made here this is pretty think evidence. There's been damn little indication that the US is going to pull out, if anything it seems like we're digging in for the long haul.

I might be wrong but from talking with my friends in the military (including one set to be deployed over there next year) I find it hard to believe we're giving up.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-20 05:57pm

And you would be correct. This is Bob Novak ferchrisssakes, I figured you people would take this with a grain of salt.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2004-09-20 06:44pm

Doesn't the Daily Show call Novak the Douchebag for Freedom or something like that?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-20 08:09pm

Back when he used to co-write his columns with the late Roland Evans, they were known as Evans and No Facts.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-09-20 09:33pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Bush is STRONG ON TERROR! HE HAS THE PERSEVERANCE TO CARRY US TO HOLY VICTORY.

I've lost all faith in the American electorate.

Why not the "Loyal Opposition"?

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-09-20 11:31pm

Doesn't the Daily Show call Novak the Douchebag for Freedom or something like that?

"Robert Novak: Douchebag of Liberty"

Jon was calling them this for a very long time now (ever since he released the name of that CIA spy). But, now they actually have a "douchebag of liberty" segment where they show a clip of Novak saying something douchey.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-21 04:10am

If Bush did pull out and left behind a Iraq worse then we found it, it would be sudice for the Republician Party. Millions will begin screaming for his head, even if it's only 1 American out of a 1000 it will be enough to start problems.

Meanwhile the Republicians will be remembered by the military has the party that sent them into war, pissed away lives for a poll points in a moronic occuipation and then ran away so that all the sarifices were for nothing, NOTHING!

No that won't cause any volience, but troops tend to vote in blocks at times and NCOs pass down more than the best way to clean a rifle.

With such a blow to the party why would moderates stay? Why would anyone but the most blinded fanatic Bush supportor stay? This isn't some terrorist or terrorist sym being roughed up in Cuba, this isn't an attack on a currently unpopular minority (sorry Ein and Aly, I'm not speaking for my myself). This is betrayl of the Armed Forces and Cowardice, something the American Poeple are not inclinced to forgive for long peroids of time...

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2004-09-21 04:59am

Did the Bush administration forgot about Afghanistan?

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-21 05:12am

wautd wrote:Did the Bush administration forgot about Afghanistan?

They've been treating as a mere afterthought ever since they began really ramping up the Saddam-WMD-Iraq-AQ rhetoric to get their little invasion. Unsurprisingly, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated badly and the place is as bad or wrose a mess than Iraq right now.

Edi

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2004-09-21 05:20am

Edi wrote:
wautd wrote:Did the Bush administration forgot about Afghanistan?
They've been treating as a mere afterthought ever since they began really ramping up the Saddam-WMD-Iraq-AQ rhetoric to get their little invasion. Unsurprisingly, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated badly and the place is as bad or wrose a mess than Iraq right now.

Edi

Thats what i mean. They attacked 2 countries, promised a lot but left them in a mess. Created more terrorists then killed in the process

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2004-09-21 05:36am

Edi wrote:
wautd wrote:Did the Bush administration forgot about Afghanistan?
They've been treating as a mere afterthought ever since they began really ramping up the Saddam-WMD-Iraq-AQ rhetoric to get their little invasion. Unsurprisingly, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated badly and the place is as bad or wrose a mess than Iraq right now.

Edi

Even in Kabul, where majority of the international peacekeeping force is located, the situation is unstable and the upcoming presidential election is hardly going to reduce tensions. Thousands of more soldiers would be required to pacify the country, but everyone is reluctant to increase their presence.

@ wautd

Keep in mind that military action against Taliban was more or less perfectly justified and fully supported by the international community. Afganistan was already a mess before 2001.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2004-09-21 06:59am

Oberleutnant wrote:
Edi wrote:
wautd wrote:Did the Bush administration forgot about Afghanistan?

@ wautd

Keep in mind that military action against Taliban was more or less perfectly justified and fully supported by the international community. Afganistan was already a mess before 2001.

True, true and true