Constructive gadfly
Published on May 24, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

There are no easy answers to an exit strategy in Iraq. As Colin Powell implied, you break it, you own it. Bush has no alternative but to “stay the course” pretty much alone; anything else would be an admission of defeat. Kerry, too, has no other alternative until such time he actually possesses the tools of the Presidency with which he can set a completely new approach.

Of course, Bush’s staying the course has changed dramatically from its original intent of setting up a permanent strategic land base, together with democratization, and being in control of oil reserves not only to help pay for reconstruction but to loosen OPEC’s hold on production. Now under pressure from shortcomings, he must settle for a UN interim fix until there is total Iraqi independence while the occupation is entrenched as a reserve unit on call. Not even think tanks have clear crystal balls as to how this will develop. Thanks to his bull-headed rush to war, Bush is alienated — and completely without contrition — obviating hope in soliciting serious aid from major nations.

This is why the presidential campaign is no longer “jobs, stupid” but “foreign policy, stupid” that is so vital to our national defense against terrorism. What once was Middle East hatred for America because of our unquestioned faith in Israel has morphed into a neo-con domino theory to democratize all Arab and Iranian Muslims. The only way to change this perception is to start over with a new president, free of baggage, who can deal as a Dutch uncle with Israel and Palestine, both of which for too long have disrupted the prospect for peace in the Arab world; Kerry must also get tough with the neighboring nations in persuading them to join in peaceful dialogue and in concrete assistance in the reconstruction of a new Palestinian identity free of terrorism. On the Iraqi front, Kerry should reconcile with the UN and the Western nations by proposing an exit strategy that would work in tandem with NATO garrisons and UN peacekeeping forces until Iraq is reasonably stabilized.

If, however, as he takes the oath, Iraq is out of control — hopefully unlikely — owing to insurrectionists intent on civil war, he must either strategically withdraw US troops or forge a real coalition of major proportions and with “overwhelming force” terminate the opposition once and for all in order to return to things that matter most — homeland security and reshaping the thrust of the economy.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: May 24, 2004.

 


Comments
on May 24, 2004

Whatever you're using to write your blogs is evil. It makes the font too large and uses a weird font. Your access should give you access to the WYSWYG editor, you could just copy and paste your stuff from text into that.

You are an outstanding writer, I'd love to feature more of your stuff but I always end up having to edit the HTML before I do so.

on May 24, 2004
(just edited the HTML to feature)
on May 25, 2004
forge a real coalition of major proportions and with “overwhelming force” terminate the opposition once and for all

i realize this is lookback predicting and it would still the wrong approach at the wrong time, but otherwise the result would likely been so different if rumsfeld had been overruled in favor of zinni's plan to send in 300,000 troops

great article..once again
on May 25, 2004
One of the main steps needed for a "new Palestinian identity" is for Arafat to step down. The Bush administration has called for a new Palestinian leader. I think the main problem isn't a lack of diplomacy, but the simple fact that Arafat does not want to give up power.

It looks like Bush is trying to reconcile with the UN as you suggested.

Part of the reason why the economy is no longer as big of an issue is that it has been doing well, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are being created.
on May 25, 2004
The Bush administration has called for a new Palestinian leader. I think the main problem isn't a lack of diplomacy, but the simple fact that Arafat does not want to give up power.

i have no love for arafat nor do i find anything admirable about him (with the possible exception of his tenacity in the face of insurmountable odds). so please dont construe the rest of this as an indication of support.

you dont see any a disparity between the two statements i quoted? while the administration is at liberty to call for any damn thing they want, id suggest their time and effort would be more appropriately focused on the last place they decided to install a new leader. doing so anyway is a clear lack of diplomacy. realistically, arafat hardly has much power to give up.

in any event, arafat is no more reluctant to cede power than sharon. the recent carnage in rafeh is clear evidence of that

.

but he is no more an obstacle at this point than sharon and likkud.
on May 26, 2004
Brad, you're right; the type looks anemic. I better stick to Times Roman. By the way, last week I lost 150 user points; now I've lost an additional 100--what's going on? I really think you should remove trolling and insightful from the site--it's really frustrating.
on Jul 15, 2004
Kingbee, installing a new leader is what our country needs, except, and not unlike Aarfat among his people, Bush is a likable feller.
on Jul 15, 2004
Why have an exit strategy at all? In purely geopolitical terms, and ignoring WMDs, regime change and the ilk, the US needed a new location for bases in the region. Saudi Arabia is falling apart, Kuwait is too small and putting bases in Israel is asking for trouble. Iraq is perfect. I don't expect that US troops will ever leave, whether Iraq is democratic or not. It just doesn't make any sense for them to do so.