Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Road Home
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
•
Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.
At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq's government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.
While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush's plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.
The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.
Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation's alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.
A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.
That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.
The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America's allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.
The Mechanics of Withdrawal
The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.
The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.
Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is probably unrealistic. The political decision should be made, and the target date set, now.
The Fight Against Terrorists
Despite President Bush's repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.
This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda's leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.
And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.
The Question of Bases
The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.
There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy — and too tempting — to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington's real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations' governments.
The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.
The Civil War
One of Mr. Bush's arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening.
It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq's political leaders and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused to act on.
But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraq's neighbors to help achieve a negotiated solution.
Iraq's leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival — might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.
The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.
The Human Crisis
There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displaced within their country. Without the active cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq — Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria — and the help of other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the suffering, massive flows of refugees — some with ethnic and political resentments — could spread Iraq's conflict far beyond Iraq's borders.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors' conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.
Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore.
The United States has the greatest responsibilities, including the admission of many more refugees for permanent resettlement. The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will — translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers — whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans.
The Neighbors
One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors — America's friends as well as its adversaries.
Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.
For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq's borders.
•
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.
This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
27 Comments so far
Show AllAt first I thought Johnny come lately NYT came to its senses and realized that we have to withdrawal, but reading the article showed that they are advocating nothing more than continued imperial hegemony, only this time from a nearby client region.
"At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq's government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that,"
How could they have been so brainwashed, all the editorial board had to do was inquire Fellow neocon columnist Tom Friedman on the post invasion plan, and he would have let them know him and his cabal's views, from "who cares, as long as Saddam isn't a threat to Israel anymore" to "who cares, as long as they kill each other".
And if NYT demands the regional state to not interfere, why aren't they advocating, as Sy Hersh has reported, that Israel stay out of the Kurdish region.
Isn't this the same paper that allowed Judith Miller to push the Bush agenda and drag us into war? Isn't this the paper that printed Cheney's "leaks" as "reliable sources" and then allowed Cheney to go on Meet the Press and quote Judith Miller that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? And the lies just went round and round! Are we to believe that they were just as incompetent as the air force was on 9-11? Or do the words "conspiracy of the elite" mean anything??? I see, those "liberal papers" that helped cause the problem in the first place are suddenly going to help us solve it. Whoopty friggin do!
If this rag had done it's job, we wouldn't have to leave Iraq, because we would not have been there. A savings of over a million lives and trillions of dollars.
All the hypocrisy...that fits.
Great editorial article by the New York Times. Finally, the media elite have articulated a vision that many Americans support. Now, can the political elite represent Americans or continue to represent disaster capitalists? The mess in Iraq is similiar to the mess in New Orleans as a result of Katrina. Two disasters. Lots of talking. Nothing as changed except more dead soliders in Iraq and more money for Halliburton and defense contractors. And a growing US taxpayer debt on a chinese credit card. This is not my ideal for America to handle its problems.
Leoule Goshu
Student, Harvard University
Nothing of vital interest to the United States necessitated this misadventure. All justifications for going to war in Iraq save that Saddam was a brutal tyrant have proven vacuous. This war was not thrust upon us; we chose it.
Our continuing presence in Iraq is each day not only generating more terrorists, but also diverting resources from more urgent needs at home and elsewhere abroad. America is draining its Treasury of well over a billion dollars a week fighting every prospective terrorist to death in Iraq – a prescription for endless war – that might otherwise be spent here at home improving our national security by fortifying our cities and our ports, and protecting our people against poverty, ill-health, ill-education, and the threats of disaster natural and manmade.
It is long past time for this gigantic distortion in our national priorities to be called to an end. This war that our leaders have concocted has sapped our military strength, our credibility, our economy, our disaster preparedness, our morale, and our moral standing in the world. It has increased the threats America faces, and reduced the military, financial, and diplomatic tools with which we can respond.
So many lives so badly wasted, so many more to follow.
Bring 'em home.
hey strange:
"by fortifying our cities and our ports"
ya know
security is an illusion!
ken
I know this is pretty much the same thing most of you said, but the first thing I did after reading the original source, then the first line, was check my watch and figure "only 4 1/2 to 5 years late".
Congratulations for actually taking the time to think about the subject instead of just drooling over your 'exclusive access'. Or have you been thinking on the matter? Did your war-profit/credibility ratio drop too low?
Yep, that's my country, actually CARING will give you an ulcer.
I believe the reasons and excuses given by the Pentagon experts and the rulers of our administration for not pulling out of Iraq now are bull. Just more propaganda to feed the members of congress and us.
In 1960, we moved an entire combat ready calvary division a distance of three hundred miles in Korea by airlift alone in one day. They were operationl as soon as they departed the aircraft.___ No, we weren't being fired on, it was a drill. But in Iraq there are an adequate number of Army and Marine helicoptor gunships, AC-130 and A-10 aircraft available, to safely escort our troops and their equipment the few hundred miles to Kuwait. Would some be killed by roadside bombs? Possibly, they are already, every day. Aircraft surviellance and roving flanking patrols would cut that possibility. It isn't going through the mountains, it's flat, open land. We don't have to use the damn highway.
All of those aircraft mentioned except the A-10s are able to conduct operations at night or in dusty or smoke filled sky's, and there are other types of aircraft available besides those mentioned. It wold just take a few hours of serious plannng by generals and their staffs to set it up.
Our troops are as prepared to travel in a southward direction, just a well as heading north. They have been well trained to move out in a moments notice. The simple truth is, the Cheney Bush Boys don't want them to go anyplace and we can be assured they won't be leaveing for a long time. Gotta guard the oil pipeline to Quwait.
The support personnel can be flown out in cargo aircraft, just like the Berlin Airlift and get everyone out in a day.
I'd have expected a different reaction here to the UNEQUIVOCAL nature of The Times' opening salvo:
"It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."
My first thought was, Hallelujah!!! Yes, The Times has a lot to answer for, but THEY didn't invade Iraq -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocon cheering squad did.
All very true and I ask "what took you so long?"This might start a real reversal of our policy.however the editorial reads as if it had been composed by a committee trying to cover all the bases which gives the administration the chance to not change course.And we can only hope that does not happen.
It is kind of odd that the NYT would print an article like this. Given that the Times is a bastion of conservative discussion and Republican favoritism, to use the words of Justin Raimondo, this rag is part of the propogandistic "Bush Bizarro Empire."
"At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq's government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing..."
Said more clearly: you believed whatever Bush told you to believe.
Well, if it keeps the Gates/Clinton plan for bipartisan support of indefinite occupation from taking root, I suppose you will have done us a service by this. But it might be a little too little, and a little too late.
"One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors — America's friends as well as its adversaries."
oooh, the new york times wants to save iraq from meddling. how very kind of them. how sensitive.
what does the nyt think the US has been doing these last 4 years, thanks in part to initial support from nyt writers. judith miller worked hand in hand with libby to get us this war. and now gordon brown (is that the right name) is working hard to bring us war with iran.
really, the hypocrisy is incredible.
Congratulations to the New York Times. After fervently supporting every move by Baby Caligula for the last four years, they've have finally woken up and smelled the 76 to 24 percent coffee. I mean, who wants to be in the same corner as a bunch of redneck Jesus freaks? Certainly not a bunch of respectable White House stenographers.
We may as well stop speculating what is the smart move to get out of Iraq. Cheny already is priming the pump to bomb or invade Iran as there are more signs every day of all the mischief that is coming from there and must be dealt with militarily. Is there any other way? Remember the Iraq buildup and how well it worked? Time for the Commander in Chief to take action again--maybe start from the deck of one of those handy aircaft carriers that just happen to be over there. We are probably not coming home-we are just getting started. Besides, don`t we want to use our fabulous new 100 acre embassy that was built to make the Iraqi people proud? Also,unless Iraq gets stubborn, we have 90% of their oil to take charge of so they can have liberty and democracy.
Rather than wagging fingers in the face of the New York Times and asking 'what took them so long,' I would rather ask what took US so long. The media function as mirrors for social reflection; they are rarely, if ever, without bias of one kind or another. They show, one face at a time, the evolution of society and culture.
If the article is too little too late, incomplete, or contradictory - is that not a horrible, accurate reflection of the way Americans as a whole have responded to this situation?
(Is this what it feels like for a social construct to exist without leadership?)
Let us hope that this article also reflects an evolution of the American people towards re-engagement in the process of deciding what, in the service of tomorrow, we will do today.
Once again come the demands that the international community has to step in and help clean up the mess that Bush and the neocons have made, all in their "own" best interest of course, while our congress refuses to take any steps at all. Where are the impeachment trials, the serious efforts to force withdrawal, followed by trials at the Hague to show that we actually deserve some help by showing that we are willing to begin to clean up the mess ourselves?
Lobo Gris
My goodness, the NYT has noticed what most people have understood for years. What will they think of next?
So out of one side of their mouth will the Gray Lady make the stand and out of the other will they endorse conventional Establishment corporate heir apparent, Clinton - although she sidesteps the issue with deceptive soundbites hiding her agenda?
The amazing thing about the logistics of withdrawl is, and I have heard Clinton claim this as well, that it will be dangerous and difficult. Notice, they never claim that bringing more troops and equipment INTO Iraq is ever difficult. It would be more likely that iraqis would allow a withdrawl over an invasion. In fact, that may be when we might see them lining the street cheering because it is what they want--the occupiers out.
Terrorist, shmarerists. No more Neo-con game plans or politicians who entertain them via AIPAC allegiances.
Who woke up the NYT?
NYT wrote: At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq's government, army, police and economic structures,..... In that first week of the war, we (the US) also destroyed the last vestiges of Mesopotamia, one of the oldest and most significant cultures on the planet. But of course, NYT believes itself to be the organ of the ONLY culture on the planet. Were it not for computer spell-checkers, NYT couldn't produce a middle-school newspaper.
When the main stream media starts calling for withdrawal of troops you know the money is elsewhere. Mercenaries perhaps? Note they call for keeping the bases. So happy days, the spending will go on!
Look media, the people want to end the war and Stop the spending. We want health care.
Dellnico, you say the media function as a mirror for social reflection ... reflecting one face of society at a time as it evolves. You would be correct if you substitute "corporate propaganda" for "a mirror", "consumption" for "reflection" and "always the same" for "one at a time". NYT did not mention that Bush immediately met and continues to meet his goals in our invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan: Corporate profits. "Terrorism" as an excuse to undermine our laws and gut our federal oversight agencies. Bush won and wins every minute.
The Times was one of the main cheerleaders when Bush was pounding the war drums. The Times and the rest of the MSM owe America--and the world-- an apology.
Maybe if the NYT had printed this five years ago, I'd have it delivered to my doorstep instead of the NYC's Daily News, which may be a bit pro-war but at least runs comics inside rather than on page 1.
While this "The Road Home," takes a new, seemingly progressive, tack in the elite US assessment of the occupation of Iraq, it still very much presents an elite US point-of-view and is both fatally flawed and disingenuous.
It sees the real US/corporate interests as being the "prevention of terrorism" and control of oil. While it is refreshing to see this naked admission, that is exactly the problem.
Prevention of terrorism is simply a euphemism for controlling the Mideast, economically and politically. It is the cover for brutal naked aggression and oppression. The US-led corporate West, in fact, creates the conditions that breed the many violent and horrible acts that are called terrorism.
The only way to stop terrorism, is to stop the aggressive murderous brutal attacks, the support of dictatorships, the oppression of the Palestinians, and to encourage a proper distribution of oil revenues and water resources in the region to promote healthy economic development.
Obviously, our dependence on an unsustainable petroleum-based economy must quickly cease if we are to survive, and we somehow have to erase the absolutely destructive and self-destructive notion that the Earth's oil belongs to us.
Which leads to the greater short-term problem: the solution proposed by the editorial. The proposed withdrawal is not a withdrawal at all. It is simply a game of military musical chairs: where should we put our bases so we can ostensibly chase terrorists around Iraq and perpetuate continual murderous aggression?
How about Kurdistan? Well, Kurdistan is still very much part of Iraq and is engaged in a near civil war between the PUK and PKK parties, as well as suffering on-going invasions from Iranians and Turks. Neither the Kurds (many of whom remain Iraqi patriots) nor the Iraqi resistance will allow US troops to be based there without the massive violent resistance that is now driving US-led forces out of the rest of the country.
And as long as the US-led forces continue to use those bases for attacks and to attempt to control the region's oil, the US-led forces there (and those who attempt to collaborate with them) will be subject to uncontrollable violent resistance in the midst of an ongoing civil war -- including terroristic violence, ala Afghanistan.
Any US military presence -- or the attempt to control oil resources through proxies -- will yield nothing more, and nothing less, than ongoing chaos, terror and military defeat .
What I'd like to know is why I can't find out per each state in the union how many soldiers have died in the BushIraqi War? I have searched the internet for this information and so far I cannot find it. Does anyone know of a site where that information is available? I realize the total will change as each day passes.