Exit Plan Or Victory Strategy? (Kristol is calling the Pentagon wimps)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/10/opinion/main582721.shtml

The front page of the November 7 "Washington Post" says it all. The first headline, in large type: "Bush Urges Commitment to Transform Mideast." Below, in slightly smaller type: "Pentagon to Shrink Iraq Force." And below that: "Iraqi Security Crews Getting Less Training." It's a jarring juxtaposition. The president eloquently makes the case for a necessarily and admirably ambitious foreign policy. Yet his own administration's deeds threaten the achievement of his goals.

In his fine speech to the National Endowment for Democracy last Thursday, the president made the case for "a forward strategy of freedom" in the Middle East. He put the Iraq conflict in its proper context: "the establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event," but "the failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region." Or, as the president said earlier in the week: "The enemy in Iraq believes America will run. That's why they're willing to kill innocent civilians, relief workers, coalition troops. America will never run. America will do what is necessary … "

Except, apparently, increase American troop strength or take the time properly to train Iraqi security forces. On the Sunday talk shows at the beginning of last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld didn't exactly say that we were going to run, but he certainly sounded as if he were eyeing the exits. He emphasized that "you've got to get the security responsibility transferred to the Iraqi people. … It's their country. … We're not going to provide security in their country over a sustained period of time." And then on the same day as the president's speech, the Defense Department announced plans to reduce U.S. forces by about 20 percent in the next few months. The secretary of defense claimed that the rapid growth of Iraqi security forces made this drawdown possible -- even though that growth has come at the cost of levels of training previously thought necessary to enable them to do their job.

In other words: The president wants to win, and the Pentagon wants to get out. It's of course possible we can do both at once. And it's also true that on the political side, there's a strong case for a faster transfer of power to the Iraqis. But the fact remains that over the short term we have a policy in contradiction with itself. Is it to be a victory strategy or an exit strategy? The president has, since 9/11, prevailed (on key matters) over the status quo foreign policy favored by his State Department. Will he now prevail over his Defense Department as well? After all, speeches are good; troops are better.

[wtmusic]

1. Prediction:

Iraq will continue to degenerate as * withdraws troops to reduce casualties in anticipation of the election...a hastily set up Iraqi representative government falters under attacks by Iraqi citizens...turmoil and lawlessness grow until who steps back into power? None other than Saddam himself, with a vengeance.

[RamboLiberal]

2. I don't think Saddam will be back in power

I think it's going to be the religious fundamentalist or there will be a civil war. Now I could see Saddam in the shadows ala Cheney with a puppet at the helm.

[wtmusic]

3. Under any other circumstances

but a large segment of the Iraqi population views Saddam as a hero simply for defying the US. He represents national pride, something Iraq is sorely lacking.

[kalazh]

4. The reason they reduce

troops is that simply there are no troops aval. unless they start the draft.