Name the quote!
Who was quoted as ... (don't peek now)
1. arguing against more American troops and in favor of arming Iraqis, who have been ruled until now by Americans "walled up in a compound in Baghdad, contemptuous of those swarthy, gesticulating folk on the outside."
2. [saying] "If we still have 100,000 soldiers in Iraq at the end of the year, then this is no longer a liberation; it's just a military occupation"
3. [saying] American troops belong in a "backup role" while we should quickly cede authority to Iraqis, "even with some inherent disorder."
4. [saying] bringing in more American troops "could jeopardize our long-term goal to transfer authority" and could make the Iraqi government "more dependent on American power."
And the answers are, folks:
1. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute
2. a Defense Department official in April
3. Newt Gingrich
4. Heritage Foundation analyst James Phillips
Confused?
TNR points out that a rift in views on Iraq among the neocons reflects perspectives almost as diverging as those between Republicans and Democrats - or among Democrats, for that matter, "with officials who have worked closely with the Iraqi opposition arguing for Iraqification and those in the John McCain/Project for the New American Century orbit arguing that the strategy reflects a loss of will."
The Weekly Standard folks want to respond to the attacks in Iraq with more American troops. But centred around the Pentagon are the "Iraqifiers" - "the heirs and custodians of the Reagan Doctrine" (a reference to the
brilliant August article about the Right's very own "Che" episodes). Ironically, what they end up arguing is much the same thing as those Deanite "liberals who still argue that the answer is internationalization". "Each side approaches Iraq from a different direction, but both end up in the same place: generating excuses to leave".
(The article notes this disapprovingly, quoting McCain and others to convincingly enough show why a hasty retreat would be disastrous. But it doesn't quite make clear how, then, to best ward off the risk of seeing, "walled up in a compound in Baghdad", liberation turn into occupation turn into neo-imperialism - as paternalistic as any UN operation, but throwing a lot more bombs around ...)
Confusing times ahead ... I guess with so many scenarios being played out - yielding (more) control to the UN, staying to keep a tight grip on (military) command, retreating and leaving Iraq to the Chalabiites to save - or any combination of the above - there will be ever more political faultlines on the matter.
That would make it harder for the Democrats (Dean) to mobilise people around some clear for-or-against on the matter, I think?
