<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1498" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#c0c0c0>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Visionaries,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Lest you forget...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Is there an exit strategy?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hoping for the best,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Linda Pall</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>MOLLY IVINS <BR><BR>RELEASE: TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2005, AND
THEREAFTER <BR><BR><BR><BR>AUSTIN, Texas -- Meanwhile, back in Iraq. I was going
to leave out of this column everything about how we got into Iraq, or whether it
was wise, and or whether the infamous "they" knowingly lied to us. (Although I
did plan to point out I would be nobly refraining from poking at that
pus-riddled question.) <BR><BR>Since I believe one of our greatest strengths as
Americans is shrewd practicality, I thought it was time we moved past the now
unhelpful, "How did we get into his mess?" to the more utilitarian, "What the
hell do we do now?" <BR><BR>However, I cannot let this astounding Downing Street
memo go unmentioned. <BR><BR>On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a
secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney
general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq
with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street
foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23,
2002. I suppose the correct cliche is "smoking gun." <BR><BR>"C reported on his
recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military
action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through
military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (There it is.) The
NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no
enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was
little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
<BR><BR>After some paragraphs on tactical considerations, Rycroft reports, "No
decisions had been taken, but he (British defense secretary) thought the most
likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the
timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. congressional elections. <BR><BR>"The
foreign secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It
seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the
timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening
his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea
or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in
the U.N. weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification
for the use of force. <BR><BR>"The attorney general said that the desire for
regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three
possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC
authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case."
<BR><BR>There is much more in the memo, which can be found easily online. What's
difficult now is placing the memo in the timeframe. Can you remember how little
you knew about a war with Iraq in July 2002? Most of us who opposed the war
concluded some time ago this was the way it went down. There was plenty of
evidence, though nothing this direct and cold. Think of the difference it would
have made if we had known all this three years ago. Now? The memo was a huge
story in Britain but is almost unreported here. <BR><BR>The memo does get us
some forwarder. At least it finally settles this ridiculous debate about how
Dear Leader Bush just wanted to bring democracy all along and we did it all for
George Washington. <BR><BR>Enough said. What to do? Now that we're there, at
least we're on the right side, not even withstanding the disgusting Ahmed
Chalabi as oil minister. Unfortunately, our very support for the good guys is
making it much harder for them. A tactical Catch-22. I was impressed by the
premise of Reza Aslan's new book, "No God but God," which is that all of Islam
is undergoing a struggle between the modernists and the traditionalists, between
reformers and reactionaries. <BR><BR>But in Iraq, which already had a secular
state, we have the additional complication of sectarian/ethnic divisions -- your
Sunnis, your Shiites, your Kurds -- not to mention, the tribalism within those
divisions. (Am I bitter enough to point out once again that Paul Wolfowitz said
under oath, "There is no history ethnic strife in Iraq"? You bet your ass I am.)
<BR><BR>Our most basic problem in-country is that having the U.S. of A. on your
side automatically makes you about as popular as a socialist in the Texas
Legislature: We are working against the guys we want to win by supporting them.
This requires some serious skulling but is not, in politics, all that unusual a
pickle. <BR><BR>There is a political solution. Like all politics, it requires a
deal. What about letting the interim government make a deal with the Sunnis for
us to withdraw -- as in, "You cooperate with us, and we'll get the Americans out
of here for you." We can't make that deal, but the Iraqis can. <BR><BR>To find
out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers
and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
<BR><BR>COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>