In his thirty-minute speech tonight, President George W. Bush did nothing to squelch the rumors (started here) that his current Exit Strategy is to find a transitional government that will ask for a pull-out of all coalition forces after June 30th. Indeed, he stressed that the new government would have “full sovereignty,” while giving no pullout timetable (See Reuters, “Bush Tries to Allay Mounting Doubts Over Iraq,” 05-24-04)
- Hmmmmm.
- Update (05-25-04): Somebody needs to remind TChirs at TalkLeft that Colin Powell has already told the nation that we would pull out American troops when the new Iraqi government asks us to do so. All the vagueness about a withdrawal timetable will just make it easier for the Aministration to say it’s surprised when the new government asks us to leave, and we “reluctantly” acquiesce to their full sovereignty.
I do like your exit strategy theory, and it very well could turn out to be true. However, it will not be true if the new transition government acts rationally, since it is quite obvious that the security situation in Iraq is out of control and the Iraqis do not yet have a stable police force. As much as they hate our presence (and will face political pressure to have us leave), they simply need our troop presence for the time-being.
I’m afraid I agree with the Democratic criticism of the President’s speech last night. Instead of telling us he’s “staying the course,” the President should be flying to Berlin, Paris and London to make good with our true allies and negotiate an international solution involving either the UN or NATO. He frankly should have been doing that before invading Iraq but, unlike his father, this President is an utter failure when it comes to international diplomacy.
Comment by UCL — May 25, 2004 @ 1:28 pm
I do like your exit strategy theory, and it very well could turn out to be true. However, it will not be true if the new transition government acts rationally, since it is quite obvious that the security situation in Iraq is out of control and the Iraqis do not yet have a stable police force. As much as they hate our presence (and will face political pressure to have us leave), they simply need our troop presence for the time-being.
I’m afraid I agree with the Democratic criticism of the President’s speech last night. Instead of telling us he’s “staying the course,” the President should be flying to Berlin, Paris and London to make good with our true allies and negotiate an international solution involving either the UN or NATO. He frankly should have been doing that before invading Iraq but, unlike his father, this President is an utter failure when it comes to international diplomacy.
Comment by UCL — May 25, 2004 @ 1:28 pm
The new Iragi government will be filled with politicians. Given the choice between acting in the rational, long-run interests of their country, or in their own self-interest (and self-preservation), how do most politicians act?
Comment by David Giacalone — May 25, 2004 @ 1:54 pm
The new Iragi government will be filled with politicians. Given the choice between acting in the rational, long-run interests of their country, or in their own self-interest (and self-preservation), how do most politicians act?
Comment by David Giacalone — May 25, 2004 @ 1:54 pm
Answer: by discretely acting in the interests of their country while pretending to reflect the views of the populace.
Politicians are a sneaky bunch, as you know. Most Americans do not realize, for example, that there are French special forces troops in Afghanistan that are helping the US search for Osama bin Ladin. The French keep this quiet because their population would find it unacceptable. The Americans keep it quiet at the request of the French.
Comment by UCL — May 25, 2004 @ 6:11 pm
Answer: by discretely acting in the interests of their country while pretending to reflect the views of the populace.
Politicians are a sneaky bunch, as you know. Most Americans do not realize, for example, that there are French special forces troops in Afghanistan that are helping the US search for Osama bin Ladin. The French keep this quiet because their population would find it unacceptable. The Americans keep it quiet at the request of the French.
Comment by UCL — May 25, 2004 @ 6:11 pm
I promise not to tell any of the rabid fans of your weblog what that UCL is such an optimist.
skepticalEsq thinks it might be the American Government that doesn’t want the Afghan collaboration to get out.
Comment by David Giacalone — May 25, 2004 @ 7:40 pm
I promise not to tell any of the rabid fans of your weblog what that UCL is such an optimist.
skepticalEsq thinks it might be the American Government that doesn’t want the Afghan collaboration to get out.
Comment by David Giacalone — May 25, 2004 @ 7:40 pm