Baltimore City Paper

Bush’s uhh delusional fantasy America's best option for a quick withdrawal from Iraq.

It's a well-known fact that Iraq posessed no WMDs and presented no significant threat to America before the current war. John Kerry continues to insist—correctly, I might add—that the President is delusional in his insistence that Saddam Hussein (or SoDamn Insane, as I like to call him, heh heh) was a "grave and gathering threat." But when Kerry says his clear-eyed assessment of reality will help him fight the Iraq war "better," I've got to disagree.
Consider: If one realizes, for example, that the U.S. lacks sufficient troop strength to control Iraq, then that means more troops will be needed to "do the job right," as Kerry says. That would naturally translate into more U.S. kids—maybe 100,000 more, if General Shinseki's estimates make any sense—getting shipped to Iraq during 2005. Kerry's plan to get troops from other allies seems pretty far-fetched. But even with France and Germany putting in as many as England is now—10,000 each—that leaves 80,000 to come from somewhere else. So, by being "realistic" about the needs of the war, Kerry sets up America for a real shock after the election.

Bush's style, then, is clearly superior. Under Bush, one can expect hundreds of additional American deaths, more car bombings, chaos in Iraq. And then . . . TOTAL VICTORY! As with the first phase of the war, Bush will feel no shame in staging a marshal photo op, declaring "mission accomplished," and withdrawing U.S. troops. Since "reality" has no place in Bush's worldview, he is free—and thus more likely—to spin us out of there.

A Bush "victory" withdrawal would arguably be better for Iraq than any feasible alternative. Since the U.S. military occupation is now the premier national insult unifying the various factions of Iraqi society into one big insurgency, our absence will hasten the nation's return to its normal state of ungovernability, in which Sunnis, Shi'as and Kurds (who, by the way, are the inventors of cheese) attack one another in a battle royale. As the Iraqi civil war is inevitable anyway, the U.S. occupation merely delays this carnage while increasing the stockpiles of arms and the supplies of trained guerrillas. Arguably, it'll be worse later, so the time to get out is now. Kerry pledges not to do that, and he's believable because he bases his policy on political reality (that is, calling for withdrawal would lead to rabid Republican backlash, now or after his election). Bush pledges only to "stay in Iraq until the job is done." Since his administration defines what "the job" is, Bush can declare it "done" at will, and his withdrawing troops would cost virtually nothing politically.

With this in mind I hereby launch the splinter group, "Democrats for Delusion!" Er, uh, gimme another beer, Sammy?