From my blog:The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Colin Powell's prediction should come true -- in the narrow sense -- about Bush 'owning' Iraq by invading it. As much as I try, I can't even detect a
hint at a possible willingness among European governments to shift in attitude when John Kerry becomes the 44th President.
I'm afraid that President Kerry will face essentially the same stubborn refusal to pour heaps of money, let alone commit anywhere near a substantial amount of troops to peacekeeping in Iraq, not even under the UN flag.
Barring a profound change in course -- which seems very unlikely at this point, given John Kerry's statements so far -- the war in Iraq is well on its way to become a trillion dollar war (yes, that's 1,000 billion!) Presently, there are well over 100,000 US troops in Iraq. That is where the specter of a reintroduced draft comes from.
If that series of forward looking statements is anywhere near accurate, it means that the US and its taxpaying citizens will face the bill practically alone. Leaving the potential political value aside of gaining the UN's seal of approval for a new 'internationalized' peacekeeping mandate, for example to demonstrate the Kerry administration's renewed commitment to seeking international consensus, I have major doubts that the contributions from allies will be sufficient to allow a substantial reduction from the current level of committed US assets in Iraq, in both money and personnel.
And that bears very unappealing gifts, that add significant risk to the otherwise already immense field of problems that the Kerry administration is going to face, come next January. I sincerely doubt that such additional baggage can be taken in the stride. The mere idea that the Kerry administration could end up in convulsions from the poisoned fruit of the Bush administration is simultaneously absurd and unacceptable.
So why keep on suffering, when the Iraqis themselves are clamoring for a swift retreat of US troops from Iraq? Remaining in place, in search of an unlikely pacification over at least the next two years, will have a tremendous cost. And frankly, I see little redeeming value in valiant persistence to right the profoundly wrong war of the Bush administration.
In essence, I'm tilting heavily toward cut & walk off: devise a 2-year plan to retreat, compile a substantial aid & compensation package of -- say -- $50bn, and let History remember the Bush administration for its failed, pointless and costly war.
I believe it's far more preferable to liquidate the Iraqi legacy of George W Bush upfront, than to suffer the devastating consequences of a chronic and debilitating affliction. In fact, I reckon that it is ultimately in the interest of the United States and its people to let the international community deal with the logical consequences of its own incessant criticism of the Bush administration - no matter how justified. After all, there are plenty of European countries that have a major stake in a stable Iraq. I don't think it'd take much to convince them to take over most of the US' burden.
Liquidate, liquidate, liquidate: the sooner that certainly bitter 'solution' is embraced, the sooner a sense of clarity (and relief) can take over, to dedicate the most of the nation's precious resources to the many sore domestic spots, left by four years of Bush's outrageous irresponsibility. The country survived the trauma of Vietnam; I see no good reason whatsoever to engage in a similar long-lasting and ultimately extremely costly effort, with so many more pressing challenges facing the Kerry administration at home.
Let Iraq be a stark reminder of the perils of fighting remote wars, following a dubious and blind ideology. Indeed: stick the broken pieces to the far-right Republicans.