Novakaine

Robert Novak, who has never seen eye-to-eye with this administration on Middle East policy, has a numbing piece on Iraq today. He claims there's a plan to pull the troops out of Iraq ASAP after the election. What I personally find numbing is this doesn't even make sense as a trial balloon.

I admit no one can know precisely what the future brings--plans change when hit with reality. Moreover, after their elections, if the Iraqis want us out, we'd probably have to go.

But President Bush has been adamant about staying the course in Iraq and regularly criticizes John Kerry for sending mixed signals. And don't forget, over a year ago the "smart" people thought Bush would pull out by mid-2004 to get rid of the issue for the election, but he has remained firm.

As a policy, the idea is nuts. Pulling out too soon would not only create a power vacuum likely filled by civil war and massive death, but would also be admitting defeat and encouraging terrorism: just keep fighting and America will fold.

Reading the column closely, it's clear Novak is relishing yet another chance to attack the "neoconservative dream" (he uses the term twice and returns to the theme over and over). At this point, "neocon" has become such a vague term (and, generally, one of unfounded derision) that it would probably be best if a moratorium were declared on its usage.

By the end of his piece, Novak wonders, rhetorically, if we want to repeat Iraq. First, we couldn't even we wanted to, since every country represents a unique geopolitical situation. But in general, would it be a good thing to get rid of bloody tyrants running pro-terrorists state that are serious threats, and replace them with potential democracies? Doesn't sound that bad to me.