I caught a fascinating panel disccussion on C-SPAN the other day about the future of the Iraq. It was put on by the Center for American Progress, but the really provocative comments came from Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute(!), who argued strongly that the U.S. would be wise to get out of Iraq now -- that the timetable should be months, not years.
I'm having a hard time reconciling myself to any proposal on the issue. On the one hand, I remain vigorously opposed to the administration having gone to war, and to its continuing insistence that Americans should be deciding on how and when the country transitions to democracy. And I want us to stop spending billions of dollars and sacrificing the lives of hundreds of young men and women for such purposes.
But at the same time, I don't think it's a moral -- or even strategically wise -- course of action to aid a dictator's rise to power then destroy a country with two wars and a decade of economic sanctions, only to turn around, say "oops" and let it fall into the hands of whoever winds up with the most guns. And let's not kid ourselves: that would be the consequence of an immediate pull-out from Iraq. There is no international community waiting in the wings to come in and pick up the pieces. Iraqis deserve the chance to live under a democratic government, on their own terms, not George Bush's or Muqtada al-Sadr's.
Meanwhile, Ruy Teixiera (an increasingly good person to be reading as the campaign season heats up), chimes in with some polling-driven criticism of the Kerry message on Iraq:
Personally, I think Democratic voters are likely to stick with Kerry no matter what his Iraq position--because they want to get rid of Bush so badly. What I worry about is his ability to appeal to independent voters, without some kind of exit strategy.
Very interesting.
Posted by Michael at May 30, 2004 02:31 PM | TrackBack