Succeeding by Withdrawing: US Forces Would Only Make Things Worse by Staying In Iraq.
What? You want us pundits to stop complaining about what a mess the Bush administration has made in Iraq, and say something constructive for a change?
But sniping is so easy! Did you know that a leaked draft report by the Government Accountability Office concludes that the Iraqi government has met only three of the 18 political and military benchmarks mandated by Congress?
All right, all right — I’ll stop.
OK, what exactly should we do in Iraq?
Option One: We keep doing what we’re already doing — the White House approach. Theme song: “Give War a Chance.”
This is not a viable option. Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” But you don’t have to be an Einstein to see that the White House approach hasn’t worked, isn’t working and won’t work.
Even if we wanted to maintain our current troop levels and strategy, we can’t. Troops don’t grow on trees, and neither do “up-armored” Humvees or Bradley fighting vehicles. As Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly plans to warn Bush, we risk degrading U.S. military readiness and jeopardizing our own national security interests if we don’t substantially decrease troop levels in Iraq.
Option Two: We do something different. Instead of calling up the last few idle reservists — the middle-school boys and girls in Junior ROTC, maybe — we withdraw troops. (Go ahead, call it “redeployment” if it makes you feel better).
Want nitty-gritty details on who/what/where/when/how? For those who like to dig their teeth into think tank reports, I recommend “How to Redeploy: Implementing a Responsible Drawdown of U.S. Forces from Iraq.” Released this week by the Center for American Progress, the report’s lead author is Lawrence Korb, a guy who knows his stuff.
Korb, who served during the Reagan administration as assistant secretary of Defense for manpower, reserve affairs, installations and logistics, recommends redeploying U.S. troops over a period of 10 to 12 months. That time frame allows for the removal of weaponry and sensitive equipment, without the expense and exposure of more extended drawdown periods — and it gives local and national Iraqi authorities a reasonable opportunity to prepare for our absence.
As troops rotate out at the end of their tours, they would not be replaced; remaining troops would be repositioned from more stable peripheral regions of Iraq and consolidated in Baghdad until only a small number of Marines remain to protect civilian personnel at a downsized U.S. Embassy. Two brigades would also remain for a year in the Kurdish region.
The U.S. would continue to have a strong regional military presence through a carrier battle group and Marine expeditionary force in the Persian Gulf, and through existing U.S. bases in neighboring states.
Fine, you say, Option Two sounds like it works reasonably well for the U.S., but what about the Iraqis? Are we just going to abandon them to a world of endless conflict? Bye, thanks for all the kebabs, and good luck getting that U.S. visa.
The honest (though not very satisfying) answer is that no one really knows what will happen in Iraq after the United States leaves. Interestingly, a poll in March found that a majority of Iraqis thought the security situation would improve immediately after a U.S. withdrawal. But things could also get worse — and anyone who claims to have a crystal ball is lying.
We long ago squandered any capacity to guarantee a happy ending for the Iraqis. But, as several other recent Center for American Progress reports suggest, there are still steps we can take to minimize the chance that a U.S. withdrawal will make things worse for them.
First, accompany a U.S. troop drawdown with strong support for a robust U.N. presence in Iraq, a move that even Shiite militia leader Muqtada Sadr has indicated he would welcome.
Then, get serious about engaging Iran, Syria and other regional powers in stabilizing Iraq. All have plenty to lose if Iraq falls apart entirely.
Next, recognize that Iraq’s fate — and the continued rise of Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism — is linked to ongoing Arab-Israeli tensions, and redouble efforts to resolve that long-running conflict.
Finally, welcome fleeing Iraqis into the United States. Stingy quotas and idiotic restrictions on where Iraqis can apply for U.S. visas have meant that only about 200 Iraqis have been resettled in the U.S. over the last 10 months. We need to make refugee resettlement easier, fast.
Still don’t like any of my proposals?
Fine. Say we stick with the current White House approach. Iraqis are now fleeing their country at the rate of 50,000 a month. If that keeps up, Iraq will be entirely depopulated in 45 years.
That’s one way to make the Iraq problem go away.
rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com
© 2007 The Los Angeles Times
For those interested in a psychological analysis of warmongering, I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It examines how the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives–concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq–or an attack on Iran–will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and how to counter them. It’s available for viewing HERE.
Yes. At this point, even the pottery barn rule is itself broken.
Any Iraqi institution, party, militia, structure or leader tainted by our “support” is slated for demolition.
Delaying the consequences of our exit will only amplify its grim consequences.
just leave.
Yes, I agree, when the number of iraqi’s who are fleeing their homes has DOUBLED during the surge - that means we do not bring security with the surge.
I sent the article to my Congressman and spoke with the people in his office to be as informed as possible and not to just listen to General Petraeus- the Pentagon has stated that his report will not be in writing only oral and what does that tell us regarding spin?
Stop spinning is what Dr Tony Cordisman a very respected Middle East expert has warned and stop experimenting with the life and death of a whole nation- 25 million are out there and need the best support we can possibly give- not just trying out things.
Iran will play a major role in Iraq and they are better more peacefully able to do this by US influence receeding.
Get a life: we will have to simply buy the oil like everybody else and it won’t be 9 dollars a gallon as is the latest fearmongering- there is a world market and Exxon still got a 30 billion profit last year.
the military is out there with the tin cup and that military has more money than all the other militaries in the world all combined!!!! So no troops will be not supported- the military has enough greenbacks period.
I like my 10 to 12 hour exit plan better. True our troops would leave all their weapons behind and come home with just the clothes they are wearing. Also true that Iraqis friendly to the U.S. would be left behind. But I believe the sacrifices are less than waiting another 10 to 12 months.
If the regime were really interested in checking the growth of Iran’s influence, we would have our troops out tomorrow, because if Iran attempted to make Iraq a client state or co-belligerent in what the kooks imagine would be an “islamo-fascist” struggle, they would be caught in the same trap, only worse, because it would promote the growth of their own internal opposition.
Rosa’s discussion is incomplete.
There is at least one other option. We could decide we’re serious about our occupation of Iraq and a) reinstate the draft; b) increase the size of our occupation army by perhaps an order of magnitude; and c) put our country on a wartime footing with tax increases, resource use restrictions, and the like. Consider what the U.S. did in WWII.
This would constitute proper alignment of the Administration’s alleged objectives regarding the importance of our occupation with the resources required to achieve the those objectives. Anything less is rank hypocrisy.
I am not advocating this position, just noting the disconnect in the public discourse. My personal position is that we should leave immediately and pay reparations for the damage done by the illegal invasion. This is what we required of Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait.
But we should be open and clear about the situation.
The goal of depopulation of Iraq may be successful much sooner than 45 years from now, if the current Cholera outbreak there catches on. I know the author meant “depopulation” to be a satirical “modest proposal” kind of comment. But, what if that’s the actual policy? Is that what administration officials mean when they say “We are winning and we will win..”? From the perspective of depopulation as a “final solution”, perhaps they’re correct.
withdrawing from Iraq is only part of the solution to the problem of dependence on oil. We should put the same money into research to find a cheap clean renewable source of energy (fuel cell or the like) that has gone into this war. The Chinese are doing something along these lines. Imagine if the Chinese make the breakthrough first!! We should vote for someone who has this goal of making cheap clean renewable energy the cornerstone of his/her foreign policy. The result will be jobs for Americans, a cleaner environment, elimation of nuclear power plants etc. etc. Bush promised $10 billion in his SOTU address but as usual no action. Need to hurry.
The level of discussion has dropped to a new low.
It is as if the Nuremburg trial had never tken place. The United States is guilty of the crime of the century. The present administration lied us into the war resulting in the death of a milion Iraqis and thousands of US citizens dead and maimed and there is a question as to how we should leave? We should leave as soon a possible and ask the Iraqi people to forgive us for what we have done.
For Labor Day
Join in the battle
Wherein no man can fail
For who so fadeth and dieth
Yet his deed shall still prevail
William Morris
One last provision I would add to Rosa Brooks’ excellent plan is to turn over command of US troops to UN generals, allowing them to define our mission there. Without this, no other nation will be willing to participate in a peace-keeping effort. Bush’s ability to influence the course of the conflict has to be completely removed before other countries will participate.