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:
from -
<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>
=============================
Yes, you're right; he has indeed announced the US, at least under his "leadership", will not stay. Of course, as you said, these statements should not be confused with true intentions but the correct sounding words are certainly out there.
I'm fascinated however by what's hidden in plain sight: the obvious contradiction of these two Kerry declarations:
"We're going to win..."
and
"America has no long term designs on Iraq."
Chomsky has said that it's possible, even using (critically analyzed) conventional news sources, to get a clear enough view of the shape of things to ask the right questions and just such an opportunity presents itself here.
"Winning" implies military action which means substantial basing which means a prolonged presence. 'Till things are stable' is the standard formula. But of course, things will remain unstable for quite some time - so long as laser guided bombs, missiles and shells are raining down upon Iraqi cities and car bombs, RPGs, kidnappings, IEDs, drive bys and periodic general uprisings are unleashed in response the situation will provide an excuse for American involvement.
So here's the closed loop: we cannot leave till things are "stable" but things will surely not be stable so long as we refuse to leave.
This will be Kerry's out from any (so far vague) promise of withdrawal: the situation is "too unstable", Iraqis are asking for America's help in defeating the enemies of freedom, we cannot leave....just yet.
American interference in Iraqi affairs will endure until the cost is deemed to be too high by those sections of the ruling class with their hands on the wheel.
Perhaps the decision to leave has already been made (as Robert Novak "revealed" in a recent column). Perhaps not.
I don't think so. I don't believe the hubris glass is quite full yet. There will be more efforts to 'save appearances' and 'salvage the situation' at a cost of lives.
But what do I know really? Only time will tell.
.d.