If we “unilaterally” invaded a country, why can we not unilaterally cut and run? Why does even, Dean say that we cannot do the latter? — and by so doing joins the ilk of liberal hawks, such as Hillary and Kerry? Is it inspired begrudgingly by the adage that “you made your bed...”? But do we have to sleep in it other sleepless nights as well?
For one thing, “unilateral” was in the decision; the execution was not, for Bush was smart enough to drag along a “coalition”; despite its being window dressing. Nevertheless, some members of this coalition have in fact unilaterally cut and run — apparently without repercussions other than from critics in this country. There are even critics who object to a timetable of attrition for fear the insurgents will simply exploit it to their advantage.
To what end, then, did Bush commit the nation? Was it to insure that there be unconditional democracy, though already this has been compromised? And if we wait until Iraqi forces are up to par, what guarantee is there that they will indeed put down the insurgency once and for all in face of our own forces unable to do so? If indeed there be a true Bush commitment to this war, should he not send in another 100,000 coalition troops to wipe out resistance? Echoes of Vietnam notwithstanding, what has he got to lose as a lame duck president but the soul of his party?
The alternative, it would appear, is for Bush just as boldly unilaterally submit to a timetable come hell or high water, with or without UN blessings, and put an end to this debacle.
Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: November 7, 2005.
http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com