Various people -- Josh Marshall and Calpundit are two that come to mind -- have been speculating that the Bush team may have a contigency plan for beating a hasty retreat from Iraq, if the Coalition's current "progress" (i.e. car bombings and guerrilla attacks) continues into the 2004 election season.
This same thought was actually expressed back in the summer by someone from the Brookings Institute -- I can't remember if it was Ivo Daalder or Michael O'Hanlon. At the time, I couldn't tell if they were speaking from private knowledge or just making an educated guess about how things might turn out. But now, if Josh is right, it seems to be an inside-the-beltway meme whose time has finally come.
And there may even be fire somewhere underneath all that smoke. If I were Karl Rove, I'd sure be longing for a quick resolution of the Iraq mess, before my boss makes an even bigger fool out of himself on national TV. If the economic rebound stalls next year -- or job growth remains feeble-to-nonexistent -- the political pressure to cut and run indeed may become unbearable.
What gives this question an added frisson is the fact that it might be difficult, if not impossible, to tell if the administration has put Operation Bug Out into play -- even after the wheels were already in motion.
The administration has little choice but to start drawing down troop strength in Iraq, starting next spring. The reasons why were laid out by the CBO back in September. The Army's current plan (more of a hope, really) calls for troop levels to be reduced to perhaps 90,000 next summer, and 50,000 by mid-2005.
So, one way or another, the American military presence in Iraq is going to shrink next year. The only questions are how quickly and by how much -- and what will fill the resulting vacuum. So the difference between the Army's plan, and a hypothetical Operation Bug Out, is one of degrees, not kind.
If "progress" begins to produce unacceptably high casualty rates, or the public mood sours even more, the administration could simply speed up the withdrawal timetable -- while retaining maximum political flexibility about when and how to admit that a planned draw down has turned into a full withdrawal.
This still leaves the question of what comes afterwards. As this Washington Post article notes, the administration's policy has been set by default: Iraqification. This is supposed to be accomplished through a crash program to create a new Iraqi Army, a new police force and a Vietnam-style civil defense militia, plus the construction of a new intelligence service, using -- if possible -- the less bloodstained elements of the old Mukhabarat.
But it seems to me that trying to do all this in a rush -- before next summer, say -- vastly increases the odds that the whole effort will eventually suffer a catastrophic and very bloody failure. At that point, Operation Bug Out may become a necessity instead of a contigency.
The core of the dilemma facing the Coalition isn't so much military or even political, as historic. It is trying to do something that has never been done before: create a system of rule in Iraq that is not dominated and run by the Sunni Arab minority.
To compound the problem, the Americans also trying desperately to keep Iraq's Shi'a majority from gravitating more closely to Iran, with the goal of repressing or at least diverting popular demands for the creation of an explicitly Shi'a Islamist state.
But this the leaves very, very little to build a stable regime upon -- just a handful of exiles and a small minority of Westernized, secularized urban elites. Under the best of conditions, it would take years to build a political base strong enough for such a regime to survive in Iraq. As it is, without a ring of American steel around it, the Iraqi "Governing" Council wouldn't last a week.
The essential historical fact about Iraq -- the one that dominates all the others -- is that is the only Arab state that has always been majority Shi'a. (Lebanon is also a Shi'a majority, but that development is of relatively recent vintage. In fact Shi'ite demands for political power commensurate with their new majority status contributed to the outbreak of the country's civil war in the 1970s.)
Iraq, on the other hand, has always been the center of the Shi'a world -- both religiously and demographically. But it's also hard up against non-Arab Iran, where Shi'ism has effectively been the state religion for almost a thousand years.
As a result, the Mesopotamian lands have long been caught in a political tug-of-war between their Sunni rulers (such as the Omayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman dynasties) and their strong cultural and economic ties to Shi'a Iran.
Not surprisingly, this has been a source of much paranoia in the Iraq Sunni community, which has long regarded the Iraqi Shi'a as both religious heretics and potential traitors. This may explain why Iraqi Sunnis found the Ba'athist brand of paranoid Arab nationalism so attractive in the first place. It certainly explains why Saddam's persecution of the Shi'a was so relentless. Like Hitler, he built on fears and hatreds that were already deeply rooted in his political base.
If the Coalition is going to build a new security apparatus as a crash program, it will have little choice but to rely on the existing Sunni cadres who performed those same functions under Saddam. At the same time, however, the Shi'a are going to have to be given a strong, if not dominant, position in the new system, to keep them from moving further into the Iranian orbit or otherwise upsetting the political apple cart, as their Lebanese brethren did in 1976.
These two policies are irreconcilable. At at a minimum, they guarantee a high level of distrust between Shi'a political leaders and the security services. At worst, they could be a recipe for civil war.
The more immediate threat, though, is the risk that the new/old security establishment will be quickly and thoroughly penetrated by the Baathist underground -- indeed may incorporate elements of the Baathist underground, since there's no reason to think American intelligence will be any better at screening for double agents than it is at figuring out who is behind the suicide bombings. This could pose a real threat to an U.S. military force that is rapidly shrinking, and thus must increasingly rely on Iraqi forces for intelligence and force protection.
Given the political and historical realities of Iraq (not to mention the sheer size of the country and the porousness of its borders) it's hard to see how a policy of Iraqification can succeed, except through a slow, patient process of vetting and confidence building. But the Coalition doesn't have that kind of time -- and neither does Bush's presidential campaign.
While that doesn't mean Operation Bug Out is a lock for next year, it does suggest it would remain a serious option in a second Bush term -- unless, of course, the rate of "progress" were to slow to a more acceptable level in the meantime.
A pullback from Iraq may be fairly charterized as a victory for international terrorism. Unbelievable that with all our technical advantages that we would maneuver ourselves into such a fiasco. By characterizing a pullout as a defeat Bush will have less to gain politically by such a move;
You can just hear Saddam's henchmen, 'We have driven them from Iraq, now we will kill them in their own country'.
I'm not sure a bug-out is such a bad idea. It's clear Bush just wants to set up a pro-US dictatorship/corporate playground, and that we're going to leave Iraq in chaos sooner or later. Why not leave now instead of risking hundreds of soldiers lives for the same result?
If we truly want to leave Iraq better than we found it, we should hold local elections immediately, use our aid to put the Iraqi army to work repairing the country instead of trickling the money down thru Bechtel, and stay away from the Mukhabarat.
It's unclear how much help Saddam's spies would be anyway. They were only able to keep control thru mass executions, and they won't want to get rid of all the terrorists, or they'll lose their job security and risk finding themselves on trial for their previous crimes. Why alienate the Shia for so little benefit?
I hate to say it, especially as one of those who opposed the invasion of Iraq as a distraction from the war on terrorism, but leaving Iraq under fire from "suiciders" (as Bush call them) just won't fly. The US can't leave Iraq in chaos.
It looks like the recent attacks were homegrown, but there's no reason for Iraq not to become a focus for Al Qaeda types. To pick up on Joe's comment, I suspect the same international jihadis from across the Muslim world who fought in Afghanistan are saying to each other, "We destroyed the USSR in Afghanistan, now we'll destroy the USA in Iraq."
I agree with Badger that it's astounding that we allowed ourselves to be put in this position. What's most amazing to me is that the people who put us in this situation came of age during the Vietnam War (not that they served in it of course). They were so determined not to be deterred by the ghosts of Vietnam that they failed to learn any of the basic lessons of that conflict, i.e., tactical victories are meaningless without a strategic plan for a specific political outcome. It is evident they didn't have such a plan before the war, having devoted all of their energies since 9/11 just to making Iraq a priority and getting in there.
The neocons can't blame anyone but themselves. They got everything they asked for from the intelligence community, Congress and the people.
The neocon vision has already been exposed as a failure, as transforming the Middle East was predicated on so swift and decisive victory in Iraq that despots and Islamists would be left quivering in fear before the awesome power of the USA.
Bush is screwed. I don't think he'll pull out. The neocons never tire of telling us that it's the lesson of Beirut and Somalia that terrorists think they can defeat us by drawing some blood. Politically, of course, he'll be in a position of saying the losses to US forces are necessary, in spite of no WMD, no AL Qaeda connection to 9/11, and no end in sight to the US presence in Iraq.
The Neocons will NEVER take the blame for this disaster. Perle has already been telling anyone who will listen that the plot was lost the moment State's Jerry Bremer stopped the Pentagon boys from installing Chalabi as king. Check out yesterday's Wall Street Journal: Woolsey and Bernard Lewis were making a thinly-disguised pitch for installing a Jordanian King, who would then appoint Ahmed Chalabi Prime Minister. No matter how much it may seem to any rational observer that the Neos got everything they asked for, they will always be able to argue that SOMEbody screwed up SOMEthing, making it not their fault.
The alternative would be to abandon their elaborately-constructed parallel mental universe.
I have done a bit of thinking on this issue over at blog and I think that the risks of a rapid withdrawal outweigh the potential political benefits.
I am assuming that the withdrawal occurs next summer. At that time, you will have massive, slow convoys with mechanical problems because units will have been in the field for over a year following predictable routes through a number of chokepoints. That is a recipe for severe fighting, lots of sniping and lots of hit and run IED ambushes. So if Bush is trying to gain political points by reducing the casuality count this withdrawal plan has the potential for creating a couple VERY bad weeks right around the time of the Democratic National Convention. Not what Bush or Rove want. Therefore, I think it is unlikely to occur next summer. I would not be surprised if an immediate withdrawal commenced on 10 November, 2004 no matter who won the election, I just do not see it happening before the election.
um...the Bush Administration has a plan?
Since you've been watching Calpundit, Billmon, you've probably seen the comments describing a reasonable way the bug out could go: look at Afghanistan.
Bases would be set up in the desert and be difficult for guerillas to get at. Civil war goes on, and the Army acts only when clear targets emerge. With 20,000-30,000 troops, the U.S. thus controls Iraq -- without concern for the Iraqis, who are left to face... well, like Afghanistan, it won't get much news coverage. This will be sold as a victory, the oil and big contracts will continue to flow, and Iraq will drop out of the public mind.
I've never thought Syria had much to worry about because we have our hands full in Iraq. That would change, since logistics support for the bases, the PXs, commissaries and McDonalds, might be easier through Syria and the Med.
No matter how it's done, the bug-out is going to have to be dressed up like a victory -- and in a way this would be, because the PNAC-ers will have gotten what they wanted.
While that doesn't mean Operation Bug Out is a lock for next year, it does suggest it would remain a serious option in a second Bush term -- unless, of course, the rate of "progress" slows to a more acceptable level in the meantime.
Unless Iraq returns to its mythical Garden of Eden state in relatively rapid fashion (like by winter's end), I'd say that Bug Out is a lock. Even with $150-200 million at his disposal, it will be hard for Rove to sell "The world is safer and America is more secure" BS if American troops continue to be blown up every day. At the very least, I suspect US troop levels will not only be reduced to under 100K by next summer, but they'll also be hunkered down, taking less of those not-so-joyful rides in their hummers. Bug Out will occur, it will simply be labeled Operation Mission Accomplished II. As once suggested during the Vietnam War, victory will be declared, even while some US troops remain. I'm sure the Bush administration will make a big deal when the Iraqi "Governing Council" issues their constitution. Bremer will probably proclaim something like "The freedom-loving Iraqi people have made tremendous progress in laying the foundation for democracy . . . yadda, yadda schools, entrepreneurship, etc., that we are way ahead of schedule, and can turn over full authority"--and then with an eye toward November 2004, Bush hold one of those rare press conferences to announce the great news that the Council has scheduled their own presidential election for . . . April 1, 2005 (no foolin', I can see them scheduling an election to occur on something like the anniversary of Baghdad's "liberation").
And because you keep such a superb bar I forgive you for suggesting, even if only hypothetically, that there will be more than one term for Dubya and his band of radical absolutists.
Dave L is correct that any admission of a mistake by the Aministration/Neo-cons will not be forthcoming. I have been saying for months that Bushco will invent some means of declaring victory and pulling a majority of troops out of Iraq by early/mid-summer 04 at the latest. If the"success" continues as it stands now, Rove will have to move the troops out by election time. They do not care about anything but re-election.
Nah. They'll have to pry Iraq from their dead, cold fingers.
They're like rabid animals that'll die rather than let go of their bone.
I've said this on other blogs.
But I believe the neocon response to Bush's attempt to pull out is going to be establishing facts on the ground that forces the US to keep its military right where it is--even if it does so in different form.
Bush will be forced to pull out because of a shortage of Guard and Reservists who are trained in the day-to-day patrolling necessary in Iraq. I don't think they are short of big fast planes, pilots to fly them, and fancy missiles (the money to pay for them, perhaps, but not of the actual forces).
Further, the most important ally of the neocons--Israel--is sitting there in the neighborhood, with plenty of troops and tons of reserves.
So I suspect the Israeli army will launch some kind of attack, probably on Syria, probably in some vague terrorist with a weapon claim. Their rationale will be sufficiently broad such that the neocons will use it to provide support. As a result, we keep a bunch of warplanes flying over Iraqi airspace on the way to Syria, accidentally doing things like bombing al-Sadr's mosque. And since our ground troops will have been pulled back to bases in the desert by now, it will be fairly safe for us to do so.
From today's NYT:
The Bush administration has told the Pentagon to revamp and accelerate its plans for putting Iraqi security forces on the streets of Baghdad and other areas where American forces have come under attack, even if their training is significantly shortened, according to military and administration officials.
President Bush's desire to speed up — yet again — the rate at which Iraqis are put on the streets to supplement the 130,000 American troops in Iraq was the dominant subject at a meeting of the National Security Council in the White House Situation Room on Wednesday morning.
"He made it clear that it's not happening fast enough," said one senior official familiar with the discussion.
Is that clear enough? They don't give a shit about Iraq. They've already got their prize--they kicked Arab ass and ousted that murderous tyrant--now they just have to wash their bloody hands. The oil is a distant second priority to winning in 2004 and cementing control before Americans get much browner.
No way Rove would permit the Likudniks/Sharon to attack Syria, at least not anything more than another superficial, symbolic bombing. The two summer '04 campaign themes will be the Middle East is a safer, more free place, on the road to democracy (just don't mention that other road map); and, the economy is surging, why just look at that 7+% growth in the GDP!
We know that they will try to sell anything as a success meeting all their (ever changing) objectives.
I've got the Democratic nominee's counter attack all ready:
"If Iraq has gone so well, Mr. President, why have you to this day never set foot there?"
Short and not-so-sweet. Even Holy Joe could land that one for points.
Good points all!
Here's a scenario:
Troops withdrawn to bunker-like bases the enemy can't get near.
Ill-trained Iraqis put into the streets to "patrol" (Death Squads?) areas the US can't safely enter.
What makes ANYONE think these collaborator Iraqis will be treated ANY differently than the US has been?
The resistance is already killing Iraqi police with suicide carbombs. What makes anyone with a lick of sense think they won't take a few shots at Iraqi patrols?
This is a recipe for disaster. Iraqi/Iraqi fighting will provoke a cycle of retailiatory violence that will make the current situation look tame.
But, Americans won't be getting killed as much, which MIGHT pull Bush's bacon out of the fire. Maybe.
That's a doubtful proposition when you have AlJazeera and a lot of western journos in Iraq, reporting on the real situation.
Afghanistan is different. Hardly a peep from the place these days, despite what is going on there. No news cameras = no news.
Bush beating a retreat....will Bushie leave all those oilfield open for France, Germany, China and Russia's and their kinder, gentler - and planned-out-approach to democarcy...
Bush ain't going to let those oilfield go that easily but we have a full blown - greater Israeli and Palestinian Iraq now - they'll never stop sucide bombing us as the Muslims have been doing this type of thing for 35 years now-(or maybe longer).
UN Pulls Staff Out of Baghdad While It Reviews Security
New York Times - 40 minutes ago
The United Nations is pulling out its international staff from Baghdad while it re-evaluates the security situation, a spokeswoman for the organization said today.
UN is going bye bye and Bush is all alone without anyone but the coalition of the bought and willing or not to get farther bog down in long hard slog.
I'm sure Junior, with his Karl Roves ear to the oil industry will try to think of ways to divide Iraq are find another dicator it will fail though because Iraq is not with us - not the scholars, not anyone.
At least the press seems to be been treating "George the liar" with all the contempt he so richly deserves of late.
Are you lying to us again Georgie? Yes of course you are, you always lie George, ALWAYS.
What they might try to do is "bug out" to the north and south, partioning Iraq into three zones analogous to those that were created prior to the war by the no-fly zones. The Sunni triangle would be essentially returned to Saddam. The U.S. would guard the oil fields in Kurdish North Iraq and Shiite South Iraq, each of which would set up their own government. Complications: a) Turkey would be pissed. b) The Shiites might want to link up with Iran.
"partitioning", that is
Lupin,
Oh man, this one takes the cake.
Nah. They'll have to pry Iraq from their dead, cold fingers.
They're like rabid animals that'll die rather than let go of their bone.
Someone should print that in gold leaf because it's such an apt statement. Lets hallmark (and market it too) this quote on the pages of some illuminated manuscript from the chronicles of Bush the Liar, volume 1.
Boy that's a great marketing idea...
Maybe a series of gold leaf plates (collector’s items everyone) We could do it in biblical style. From George assumption to the throne via the 5 Supremes divine intervention to junior's banner “mission accomplished” waving in the breeze astride a his trusty GOP India style painted elephant.
Bush beating a retreat....will Bushie leave all those oilfield open for France, Germany, China and Russia's and their kinder, gentler - and planned-out-approach to democarcy...
Bush/Cheney won't be leaving the oilfields in the hands of anyone other than their lackeys in the IGC. Baring a dramatic increase in American deaths, Old Europe isn't going to be invited in, though I wonder about Bush and Puti-poot working something out.
The oil's not going anywhere. The Bushies could withdraw forces in time for the 2004 election, and then jump back in--responding to freedom-loving Iraqi pleas for help in defeating Ba'athist holdovers--after securing their stranglehold on America. [I have faith that this dark scenario will not occur, in part because I don't want to even consider such a future.]
this is a bit off topic, but ya'll have to read this!
soldier charged with cowardice
i guess our military is now in the business of making heros out of chickenhawks and soldiers who fuck up rather than soldiers who actually feel something at the sight of the ending of a human life...
Sooner or later, the US will find a way to declare victory and bail out. It may be sooner rather than later. Maybe if the next "suicider" affects a large number of US personnel (say 242) maybe that would be the event to trigger the exodus, because all hell will definitely break loose here at home.
Or, maybe if Brenner were to be seriously harmed.
One serious event could be the tipping point that brings the whole thing down.
I have no idea what the administration's real objectives are, but whatever they are they will not be successful. It is almost impossible to solidify a political victory by military means, and force and swagger are the tools of Bush & the neocons. They don't listen and they don't care.
Consequently, they are going to continue to bleed. The burning question is how many more dead American soldiers -- 300, 550, 700? -- are the American people prepared to take, before they say enough.
At some point Bush will turn the whole thing over to the UN and get the hell out.
" non-Arab Iran, where Shi'ism has effectively been the state religion for almost a thousand years."
I was under the impression the Safavids pushed Shi'ism as the Persian state religion, and they only came to power ~500 years ago, not 1K.
"It has been suggested that Ismail enacted this policy [conversion] simply to distinguish his empire from his Sunni neighbours - the Ottomans and Uzbeks. Considering the zeal with which he enforced conversion among his subjects, however, it is more likely that he was a devout Shi'ite himself, and he believed for religious, not political reasons, that his empire should embrace his faith exclusively. Unfortunately for Ismail, most of his subjects were Sunni. He thus had to enforce official Shi'ism violently, putting to death those who opposed him."
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/safavid/ismail.html
"One of Shah Ismail's most important decisions was to declare that the state religion would be the form of Islam called Shi?ism, that at the time was completely foreign to Iranian culture.
The Safavids launched a vigorous campaign to convert what was then a predominantly Sunni population by persuasion and by force. The Sunni ulama (a religious council of wise men) either left or were killed."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/safavid/safavid2.shtml
The Administration has three choices: 1) The USA muddles along as is as long as possible (the Viet Nam scenario), 2) Withdrawal and blame the Democrat’s stabs in the back for losing Iraq, or 3) Win the holy war in Iraq. This will take at least a million troops and the reinstatement of the draft.
Dana Priest has a variation on 3). The third rail: totally renegotiate with France, Germany and Russia to get their involvement
With Bush II blaming the sailors for Mission Accomplished banner, court marshaling cowards, and Rumsfeld treating the troops like dogs, iraqification doesn’t have even to March before the Iraq occupation collapses.
I just don’t believe the religious fanatics in the White House have enough of a grasp on reality to come up with any kind of reasonable plan for phased withdrawal and turn over to Iraqi’s.
I think the bug-out timing will be very carefuly set up to avoid shrub being caught out by the jobless figures.
Despite the legal requirement to hold open the reservists jobs, a lot are coming back to a pink slip. that will translate to some terrible figures, so the bug out has to be timed so that those figures do not show up too early in the election cycle.
I can even see Rummy doing something like bringing them home, but not releasking them from the active duty roster until there is no time for them to show up as jobless.
I noticed some time back, when the bushies' pet economists rewrote the rules for declaring recession to ignore jobs, that we are now focusing on progress entirely in terms of the GDP. Once we bring the troops back, the defense spending will drop and the mil-corp coffers will stop growing and GDP will drop again.
I predict it will be a touch & go decision on when to start them on the return journey. Maybe all the troop ships will leave Iraq and drive in circles to avoid being home in time for the elections. Their "boot bush" absentee ballots may be mysteriously lost at sea too.
I was under the impression the Safavids pushed Shi'ism as the Persian state religion, and they only came to power ~500 years ago, not 1K.
You're probably right -- it was about 3 am by the time I wrote that line last night, and I was too fried to go look up the details. But in any case, my impression, from the reading I've done, is that the spread of Shi'ism in Iran was more gradual, and less tied to Safavid persecuation than to the cultural differences between Arab and Persian.
Unlike Iraq (or most of the other states carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the World War I allies) Iran is a real country, and has always balanced its Islamic identity with its Persian identity. Shi'ism was a way of reconciling those two identities.
But I'm hardly the expert. Someone like Juan Cole would be able to express it better, I'm sure.
Billmon,
In your 3am defense, the Hajji date for the Safavid rule is ~906, which would produce a difference of ~1k if you didn't realize the type of date used and subtracted it from 2003.
In your 3am defense, the Hajji date for the Safavid rule is ~906, which would produce a difference of ~1k if you didn't realize the type of date used and subtracted it from 2003.
Believe me, it was nothing that fancy. I just took a wild guess and came up way long.
Another possibility is that someone is just flying the 'run and cut' meme. With the purpose of undercutting any suggestion of an actual 'run and cut'. See, every one (at least the democratic candidates) dissociates themselves from it (putting them on the record saying that troops don't leave before finishing the job, before an Iraqi constitution and elected gov). And they don't have the argument of 'reducing the troops' during the campaign. Note that when the question was asked, Bush said: "it's a trick question". So he is not committing himself. Start a rumor, have the other guys shut it down for you.
"Iraq isn't Afghanistan. It's a big, important country located close to the heart of the Arab world. Simply allowing most of the country to go to the dogs, while using a modest military contigent to keep a Karzai-style puppet regime in power in Baghdad, isn't a viable strategy."
Very true, and precisely the thing that has had me puzzled from the start about what the Administration was up to in Iraq. By now, somewhat reluctantly, I've come to the conclusion that the key players really, really believed the crap they were hearing from the INC.
But I also believe that there is a Plan B, and nobody else seems to be considering it. It doesn't solve the Administration's immediate political problems, but it would offer a brutally cynical exit strategy.
- If, as you note, Iraq is such a large and strategic country, then there are only two options that make sense from the Neocon point of view:
1. We control Iraq - currently being tried, but not looking promising.
2. We turn Iraq into a place which is NOT so large or strategic. - Hey, what's really so terrible about partition? These people are always whining about self-determination; well, this will give it to them in spades. Properly managed, we might even be able to get Iraq to fall into more than three pieces.
The Kurds will constitute a perpetually-dependent client state, and with the right incentives we can focus their ambitions on Iranian, rather than Turkish Kurdistan.
The Sunnis will get their triangle which, reassuringly, is about the only place in Iraq without oil. Jordan and Saudi Arabia can help mold its politics.
The tricky part would seem to be splitting Shia Iraq, to prevent the emergence of a single country with most of the oil and 60% of the population. However, as even the naivest Neocon has learned, there are many divisions within the Shiite community, so with a bit of luck we might find ourselves supporting one Shiite client state against an Iranian-backed rival. And ours would control most of the oil.
Let me be clear: this is only an attempt to divine Neocon strategy. I think an effort to engineer, or even encourage an outcome like this would be lunacy. The odds of success (as outlined above) would be about the same as Ahmed Chalabi's chance of winning a free and fair election as mayor of Tikrit. But - and maybe for just those reasons - it would appeal to the civilians in the Pentagon. They could argue that it avoids the need for an endless commitment of large numbers of American troops. And, while it would spell the end to the Neocon fantasy of remaking the Middle East in our image, it would at least accomplish what has arguably been their principal objective all along: the permanent elimination of a key strategic threat to Israel.
And, of course, that would also serve the useful purpose of making the threat from Iran look even MORE threatening...
the wildcard is Saddam Hussein.
if bush can drag saddam's sorry butt (dead or alive)in front of tv cameras around july 2004 (to coincide with the dem convention), it is game set and match to bush in nov 2004.
OTOH, if Operation Bug-Out succeeds and Saddam actually re-emerges in Iraq, game over for Bush.
james - I don't even see Iraq as that big of a deal -
you wouldn't...
i guess it makes perfect sense to go in an destroy an entire country without so much as a plan thereafter. well, perfect sense in crazy, fucked up, oxy-world...
Trouble is, even (God willing) if Bush is defeated, the pressure to bail, both on the Army and on the new President, is going to be ferocious unless things improve.