Kerry's retreat-from-Iraq plan: DOA
By tacitus Posted in War — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We've seen a lot about John Kerry's cut and run plan for Iraq, and even as we find that the stakes there are even higher than previously imagined -- it seems now that our Marines are in direct combat against the Iranians in Najaf -- there is no sign that he will reconsider his headlong rush into folly.
But his chosen fig leaves will. Read on.
At the heart of Kerry's plan is a proposal to "internationalize" the war by bringing in allies to bear most of the burden. (Don't tell this guy it's not yet "international.") Actually, that's not quite true -- at the heart of Kerry's plan is withdrawal from the war at any price: the internationalization mirage is merely a fig leaf to avoid the appearance of what would be, in effect, a headlong strategic retreat of an undefeated American force from an epicenter of our war on terror. The obvious question has been what Kerry would do or say once this window dressing was ripped away.
Well. We're about to find out.
The purported allies are balking. France, Germany, and Russia all now explicitly deny that they would send any troops to Iraq as a favor to President John Kerry. The British quietly demur. The Saudis can't put a force together. And the Iraqis themselves don't want a different foreign force package than the one they've got right now. (By the bye, Red State reader Smagar already nicely explained the reasons for no further European commitments.)
So Kerry's Iraq-retreat plan, such as it is, has taken a whole three days from "announcement" on NPR to getting shot down by the very agents of that plan upon whom he counted. I asked earlier whether it is "not something of a poor plan that depends wholly upon the unproven and historically untrustworthy goodwill and independent volition of other nations." And indeed it is. The question now is whether, his intended fig leaf stripped away, John Kerry intends to proceed anyway with the abandonment of Iraq and its people.
Look to his career -- look to Indochina alone -- and the question answers itself.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The disengagement, part two — Comments (58) »
Kerry's retreat-from-Iraq plan: DOA 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"I asked earlier whether it is 'not something of a poor plan that depends wholly upon the unproven and historically untrustworthy goodwill and independent volition of other nations.'"
I think it was definitely a poor plan on the part of Bush's administration to depend wholly on the unproven and historically untrustworthy ability of another nation to govern itself according to a democratic constitution. That nation is, of course, Iraq. The Bush exit strategy is to wait until Iraq has a working democratic government and a military that is capable of both imposing internal order and protecting the country's border. So Bush is depending on the nation of Iraq and Kerry is depending on our traditional allies to sacrifice blood and wealth on behalf of an effort they vehemently opposed at its start.
I'd say we're in trouble no matter who wins.
"not something of a poor plan that depends wholly upon the unproven and historically untrustworthy goodwill and independent volition of other nations." And indeed it is.
From the Parade Magazine interview with Tommy Franks. Aug 1 issue.
Franks clearly is disappointed in the Iraqis, who, in his view, initially chose looting and insurgency over "pulling themselves together to reform their country." And he faults the international community, which never committed "serious numbers of peacekeepers or funds" to help Iraq after Saddam. During the planning, Franks and his team expected that 150,000 international troops would join U.S. forces in the post-war phase. They never materialized.
Think how different things might be at this moment if Franks hadn't depended on the "wholly upon the unproven and historically untrustworthy goodwill and independent volition of other nations" when making his war plans.
Link here http://archive.parade.com/2004/0801/0801_tommy_franks.html
"Think how different things might be at this moment if Franks hadn't depended 'wholly upon the unproven and historically untrustworthy goodwill and independent volition of other nations' when making his war plans."
Good point. And if the administration hadn't depended wholly on the likes of Chalabi for an assessment of how the U.S. would be received in Iraq post-invasion.
Even Kerry can't get us out of Iraq by depending on allies (and I'm not entirely sure that they're not being coy to avoid accusations of trying to influence the election), he can hardly do worse than Bush in working out lonely exit plan.
posted at the same time dealing with the same subject, where to comment, what to do...