Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (15514)	11/7/2003 10:30:14 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793640

By Andrew M. Greeley Bush needs Iraq exit to win in '04 All but the most intransigent radical critics of the Bush administration agree the United States must "stay the course." Even if the war was unnecessary, even if it was based on flawed (perhaps deceptive) intelligence, even if the current mess was the result of foolish, not to say nonexistent, planning, it would be wrong simply to walk way from a chaos that we ourselves created. We cannot abandon the people. We cannot risk our credibility as the only superpower in the world. We cannot make fools of ourselves. We must not become the laughingstock of the world. That previous paragraph summarizes the conventional wisdom of 1968; it was the wisdom of "the best and the brightest" around Lyndon Johnson, and it became the wisdom of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger for the next four years (while the number of American casualties doubled). No two historical situations are exactly the same. History never repeats itself exactly. Vietnam and Iraq are not the same places. The two wars are not precisely the same. Fair enough. But in both cases, the United States entered a war with the best possible intentions, monumental ignorance and no exit strategy. The government never asked how and when it might be time to leave. So the two wars slogged on, as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld would say, with no end in sight. We must stay the course, even if we don't know how long the course will be. Might one say, in all due modesty, that this is crazy? Could we not say to the Iraqis, "Hey, you don't want us as an occupying power, and we don't want to be here any more than you want us to be here. So you have six months to shape up, to get your act in order and then we're out of here." It will be said that this is a radical design for the endgame. Maybe it is, but I predict that by, let's say, April or May, it will be Republican paradigm, the final stages of the administration's "mission accomplished" in Iraq. As a senator advised Lyndon Johnson, it is time to proclaim victory and get out. Johnson didn't listen. For him, winning the 1968 election wasn't worth the humiliation of an ignominious retreat. For President Bush, winning the 2004 election will be worth such a humiliation of an ignominious retreat. Mindful of his father's loss in 1992, there is nothing more important than winning the election. I would not deplore a decision to get out several months before the election as cowardly or divisive. On the contrary, I would praise it as wise, no matter what Bush's motivations might be. It would have been surpassingly wise if Johnson had pulled the plug in 1968, however much credibility was lost. How many lives is "credibility" worth? Sometime after the new year, Karl Rove, Bush's political guru, will whisper the truth in his ear: "We won't win the election unless we are out of Iraq. We have to be out of there by Labor Day or we'll be accused of running out on our allies to win the election. "If we do it during the summer or even better at the end of spring, we can declare it a victory. That would not be a difficult promise to keep." The administration has proved that it can spin almost any decision - like disguising the tax cut as a benefit to the middle class. The leadership in France and Germany might chortle with glee at our "humiliation," but how many votes can they deliver? What about American voters? Would they be deceived by a spin that declares a defeat as a victory? Bush's "base" - Southern evangelicals - might have a hard time swallowing it. Their hyper-patriotism might be offended by the U.S. loss of another war. Yet they would buy almost anything to sustain their stranglehold on the country. As for the Democrats, how can they criticize the administration for exiting a war they say it shouldn't have entered in the first place? Most Demo-crats won't vote for him anyway. And then there is the always-shifting middle, which was once taken in by George W. Bush; will they be taken in again? I wouldn't bet against it, especially if there is a modest decrease in unemployment and Saddam Hussein is somehow found. The formula for a Bush victory is simple: Cut and run. * Andrew M. Greeley, a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, teaches at the University of Arizona part of the year. His e-mail is agreel@aol.com. azstarnet.com