Goldberg is picking the right time for his proposal, now that the greater violence is by native Iraqis against other native Iraqis, instead of by foreign terrorists drawn to Iraq by the U.S. presence. The calculation no longer runs "Will the terrorists leave if the Americans do?" but "Since we don't need the presence of Americans to want to kill one another, perhaps we should keep them around to prevent us from doing so." Still, the last paragraph is the only one I find plausible. It would be better for us to withdraw on the finding that Iraqis don't want us there than because we despair of getting the job done. But I'm afraid that the emotional and nationalistic desire to be rid of a foreign presence will outweigh the rational calculation.
Moreover, Goldberg seems to be more worried about soundbite than political reality. The people who refer to our presence in Iraq as an occupation for the most part have done so for a long time. What threatens our political will to remain in Iraq are the moderates and conservatives who tally up the money spent, soldiers killed and wounded, and say, "Why should we stay? We got Saddam Hussein, we found that there were no WMDs, we need to have a military prepared for other threats like Iran. Let's leave and allow the Iraqis to sort themselves out." Bush himself never has committed the number of troops necessary to rehabilitate and secure Iraq.
Also, the invocation of referendum with regard to a war in Iraq is a bit peculiar, considering that most of our allies in Iraq are nations that, had their assistance been put to referenda, would have rejected the idea.
2 comments:
That's a phenomenal article.
Goldberg is picking the right time for his proposal, now that the greater violence is by native Iraqis against other native Iraqis, instead of by foreign terrorists drawn to Iraq by the U.S. presence. The calculation no longer runs "Will the terrorists leave if the Americans do?" but "Since we don't need the presence of Americans to want to kill one another, perhaps we should keep them around to prevent us from doing so." Still, the last paragraph is the only one I find plausible. It would be better for us to withdraw on the finding that Iraqis don't want us there than because we despair of getting the job done. But I'm afraid that the emotional and nationalistic desire to be rid of a foreign presence will outweigh the rational calculation.
Moreover, Goldberg seems to be more worried about soundbite than political reality. The people who refer to our presence in Iraq as an occupation for the most part have done so for a long time. What threatens our political will to remain in Iraq are the moderates and conservatives who tally up the money spent, soldiers killed and wounded, and say, "Why should we stay? We got Saddam Hussein, we found that there were no WMDs, we need to have a military prepared for other threats like Iran. Let's leave and allow the Iraqis to sort themselves out." Bush himself never has committed the number of troops necessary to rehabilitate and secure Iraq.
Also, the invocation of referendum with regard to a war in Iraq is a bit peculiar, considering that most of our allies in Iraq are nations that, had their assistance been put to referenda, would have rejected the idea.
Post a Comment