Belgravia, Rolling.

by von

There's a lot to criticize in Kerry's NYT Op-Ed ("The Speech the President Should Give" -- not presumptuous at all, is he?), but Greg Djerejian tags the key line:

The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections.

No.  Setting a deadline for withdrawal is sheer lunacy.  It throws a lifeline to terrorists, undercuts the nascent Iraqi regime, and discourages Iraqi moderates.  A firm deadline virtually guarantees that withdrawal will occur too soon.  It's idiotic, counterproductive, and will ultimately cost more American lives.  Treaty of Versailles, Peace of Nicias  -- choose your own overblown historical analogy and drop it in.  The shoe freakin' fits.

Djerejian expands:

It's a huge incentive to the bad guys to simply wait us out. It's simply bad policy, .... to hold a gun to their [Iraqis'] head and intimate we might cut and run if they do not meet such timeframes is just as irresponsible as providing some drop-dead exit date (yet another fictitious "deadline"). .... Moderate Iraqis must believe that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with them come what may.

Simply put, Iraqis have always needed more support from the U.S.  More troops to restore basic services and keep the civil order in the aftermath of the war.  More trainers to prepare a new Iraqi army.  More and better ways to channel rebuilding funds to the ground level.  More assurances that we will stand beside the Iraqi government until it has been fixed. The strategic sins of the Bush Administration have been of omission, not commission. 

Kerry's Op Ed notes this, of course.  But noting in passing that the aftermath of the Iraq war (and here I use Djerejian's phrase) was "something of a pretty significant cluster-f*&k" ain't enough.  Using it to score a political point ain't enough.  You gotta act on it.  You gotta fix it.  You gotta offer something other than cut and run. 

The only acceptable outcome for Iraq is success.  There are no other routes to a happy ending. The difference between from Kerry's "plan" for Iraq and the right plan for Iraq is the difference between accepting Germany in 1919 as "good enough," and taking a shot at Germany in 1945. 

We must stay in Iraq until its government is standing on its own two feet -- whether it takes two, five, or ten years.  To do otherwise would be a tragic mistake, for which our children and grandchildren will pay for years to come.  Democrats who give a damn -- Clinton, Biden -- know the foolishness of setting a withdrawal date.  Kerry doesn't, or doesn't care.   

(As always, the rest of Djerejian's analysis is well worth your time.)

Comments

[Happy Jack]

Some sober analysis here (pdf).

[Don N]

In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:
Just to calibrate the von guy...
Don N.

George W. Bush, 6/5/99

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/28/in-1999-bush-demanded-a-timetable/

[felixrayman]

The Poor Man has more relevant quotes:

“[The] President…is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

And my favorite:

“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

Never forget.

[George Turner]

Felix,

George has spelled out our exit strategy numerous time. It's called "victory", and occurs when Iraq can stand on its own. Obviously this isn't an "unobtainable" goal, because every country over there, however badly run, seems to be able to keep domestic terrorist attacks in check.

Iraq had fought Iranian sponsored insurgents for years, and it's not that difficult a task for them.

[liberal japonicus]

It's called "victory", and occurs when Iraq can stand on its own.

and doesn't have an Islamic based government and is an ally to the US. Sadly, adding those conditions strikes me as unobtainable.

Iraq had fought Iranian sponsored insurgents for years, and it's not that difficult a task for them.

Unless you mean suppression of the Shi'a majority under Saddam, I'm not sure I know what you are referring to. Was there a campaign of suicide car bombing and IEDs against Saddam that I'm unaware of? Cite?

[felixrayman]

George has spelled out our exit strategy numerous time. It's called "victory"

Haha. Orwell is laughing in his grave. Have some gin.

Obviously this isn't an "unobtainable" goal, because every country over there, however badly run, seems to be able to keep domestic terrorist attacks in check

Completely unfamiliar with the history of Saudi Arabia, obviously, aren't you?

Iraq had fought Iranian sponsored insurgents for years, and it's not that difficult a task for them.

Saddam found it quite easy. And according to the formulation von gave in the other thread (and I'm still waiting on him to correct me if I misunderstood said formulation) rule by a Saddam type dictator would be a perfectly acceptable outcome to the war in Iraq. Which makes me wonder why thousands of US soldiers needed to die in order to install a dictator capable of keeping order when Iraq had one in the first place, but hey, that part never gets explained, does it, kid? Got an answer for me?

If instead your argument is that a democratic government that respects individual rights will find it just as easy to fight Iranian sponsored insurgents as Saddam did, well, you're just being silly. Again.