November 15, 2003

NO, THIS TIME THERE REALLY IS A WOLF...:

Exit Plan Or Victory Strategy? (William Kristol and Robert Kagan, Nov. 10, 2003, Weekly Standard)

On the Sunday talk shows at the beginning of last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld didn't exactly say that we were going to run, but he certainly sounded as if he were eyeing the exits. He emphasized that "you've got to get the security responsibility
transferred to the Iraqi people. … It's their country. … We're not going to provide security in their country over a sustained period of time." And then on the same day as the president's speech, the Defense Department announced plans to reduce U.S. forces by about 20 percent in the next few months. The secretary of defense claimed that the rapid growth of Iraqi security forces made this drawdown possible -- even though that growth has come at the cost of levels of training previously thought necessary to enable them to do their job.

In other words: The president wants to win, and the Pentagon wants to get out. It's of course possible we can do both at once. And it's also true that on the political side, there's a strong case for a faster transfer of power to the Iraqis. But the fact remains that over the short term we have a
policy in contradiction with itself. Is it to be a victory strategy or an exit strategy? The president has, since 9/11, prevailed (on key matters) over the status quo foreign policy favored by his State Department. Will he now prevail over his Defense Department as well? After all, speeches are good; troops are better.


We've a theory around here--tested in the crucibles of Afghanistan and the run-up to the Iraq War--when Kristol and Kagan start mewling about how badly the administration is doing we're on the verge of total victory. No two men have been more wrong about the will and the methods of the Bush team, nor about the situation on the ground since 9-11. Here's just one of the many hilarious examples, Going Wobbly? : Is the president backing away from regime change in Iraq? (William Kristol & Robert Kagan, 05/24/2002, Weekly Standard)

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 15, 2003 7:46 AM
Comments

Kristol's take on Bush during the 2000 primaries and general election was in general so far off and at times downright hostile as to make me wonder whether or not he and GWB had some falling out during Bush 41's administration, when Bill was Quayle's chief of staff.

Posted by: John at November 15, 2003 8:59 AM

I think rather that it's a Jews vs. Born-Agains deal. Though Kristol-Krauthammer-etc. have cagily moved toward the Christian Right on cloning issues.

Posted by: oj at November 15, 2003 9:16 AM

Maybe they figure if they change their tune, they'll jinx things. . . .

Posted by: Twn at November 15, 2003 10:42 AM

Funny, I use the same barometer.

The problem with Kristol is that, outside the field of politics, he is fundamentally a thinker with no practical experience. I love the guy. He's on my side. But people like him get wobbly upon hearing bad news because they really don't have a practical basis for comparison necessary to tell if this is a bump in the road or a major failure. Andrew Sullivan has similar tendencies.

Note that the Bush admin tends to have lots of doers and few thinkers. So they muddle through just when Kristol starts to wig out.

Posted by: JAB at November 15, 2003 12:17 PM
« YANKEES' GREAT BIG ADVENTURE: | Main | IT'S A GRAND OLD NOOSE: »