UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT. I guess that I’m a little bit unclear on the administration’s political strategy for maintaining a U.S. presence in Iraq. The Korea nonsense and this latest from Ryan Crocker seem to be part of a campaign to convince someone that the United States ought to stay in Iraq for twenty or thirty years. What I don’t understand is the logic behind this campaign; even if you want to keep the troops there, wouldn’t it be better to say that you envisioned a point in the fairly near future at which U.S. troops could be withdrawn? While a Democratic presidential victory in 2008 won’t necessarily result in a complete and immediate withdrawal, it certainly won’t help the vision of permanent U.S. imperium on the Tigris. Moreover, there’s virtually no short-term political gain to be had from advocating a policy that will incur significant costs for the next forty years. I can’t imagine that anyone now believes that arguing for a long-term presence in Iraq will actually help the Republican candidate for president; whatever one can say about the administration, it continues to have a fair grasp on domestic PR.

I’d almost be inclined to say that the administration is giving a true assessment of how it sees the world, but that seems so far fetched…

–Robert Farley

Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, University of Kentucky. He contributes to the blogs Lawyers, Guns, and Money and TAPPED.