An Early Exit from Iraq?
Talks with Syria suggests the U.S. may want out in the not-too-distant future

Tuesday, Sep. 21, 2004
The distinction between what politicians say on the campaign trail and what they really believe is well illustrated by the current Kerry-Bush skirmishing on Iraq: If either man really believes some of the things he's saying, we're in worse shape than we know. For President Bush to seriously maintain that he has set Iraq on a steady course towards freedom and tranquil prosperity — or made it, to quote the talking points provided by his reelection web site "an example of reform to the region" —he'd have to be ignoring his government's own National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. If Senator Kerry expects Americans do believe his promise that he'd remedy the malaise with an infusion of troops sent by suddenly-willing foreign governments, he's showing what could only be called a Cheney-esque willingness to play the American electorate for fools when it comes to Iraq.

Each man speaks more accurately, perhaps, in pointing out the weaknesses of the other's case. Kerry has finally begun to articulate what many in the intelligence community, the military, and even the Republican Party's foreign policy establishment have been saying for quite some time — that the occupation of Iraq has created more problems for U.S. national security than it has solved, and has left America more vulnerable rather than safer. That view echoes the consensus of mostly Republican national security professionals interviewed by James Fallows in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly. It also appeared to coincide with a barrage of criticism by Senate Republicans of the administration's handling of Iraq, echoing many of Kerry's points and even, in the case of Indiana's Republican Senator Richard Lugar, questioning the administration's competence.

But go beyond the critique to Kerry's plan for fixing Iraq, and you find the following: "First, the president must secure international support. Second, we must commit to a serious effort to train Iraqi security forces. Third, we must carry out a reconstruction plan that brings benefits to the Iraqi people, and fourth, we must take the necessary steps to hold elections next year." It's not hard for President Bush to retort that Kerry is simply demanding something the Bush administration is already trying to do.

President Bush likes to taunt that if John Kerry had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Kerry advocates counter that keeping Saddam contained would have allowed the U.S. to make far more headway in its battle against al-Qaeda, which Operation Iraqi Freedom has not only detracted from, but has also made considerably more difficult. (Rather late in the game, Kerry surrogates have begun to point out that Saddam Hussein did not rank even in the top three national security threats to the United States at the time of the invasion, but occupying Iraq has weakened U.S. ability to confront more serious challenges such the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, and the continued growth of al-Qaeda.)

The rest here at Time