On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Dwayne Monroe wrote (in re: Stanley Hoffman's piece on an Iraq exit strategy at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17470):
> Mr. Hoffman's argument is as good as any other I've read from (mostly)
> conventional circles of debate. He makes several quite solid points.
>
> But like similar presentations Hoffman's runs against a hard wall:
> the Bush administration did not invade Iraq to leave it to the Iraqis.
<snip>
> Kerry, representing the more liberal arm of American imperialism, may,
> if elected, withdraw completely but nothing he's said so far suggests
> that's his intention.
Actually that's not true. Kerry stated that intention very clearly in the recent debate. I'm not for a moment saying this is a guarantee you can take to the bank. But he certainly did say it clearly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/01/politics/campaign/01dtext.html
And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to
convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't
have long-term designs on it. As I understand it we're building some
14 military bases there now. And some people say they've got a rather
permanent concept to them.
<snip>
I will make a flat statement. The United States of America has no
long-term designs on staying in Iraq.
<end excerpt>
Michael