SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Is the U.S. Government Planning for Withdrawal from Iraq?
Apr 17, 2007
Here's a question you might consider asking your Representative in Congress, your Senators, and any Presidential candidates who happen to pop by:
"Do you think that the United States should be doing more to plan for the possible withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq?"
After all, when people report on, say, U.S. plans to bomb Iran, the standard answer is, "don't worry your pretty little head about that, we plan for every contingency, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise."
How about the "contingency" of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? Have you planned for that?When you fail to plan, you plan to fail, as the saying goes.
Or is the default plan to withdraw Vietnam-style, denial until the last possible moment, followed by helicopters from rooftops?
It's not just a river in Egypt, as Stuart Smalley used to say.
There's a growing sense among both America's allies and its enemies that U.S. combat troops, at least, will be out of Iraq by the end of next year, Newsweek reports.
The United States Senate has gone on record favoring a withdrawal by March 2008; the House by no later than September 2008, and quite possibly earlier depending on the progress of the Iraqi government on meeting reconciliation benchmarks laid out by President Bush that they are making little progress towards. Shouldn't the Pentagon be planning for the "contingency" that the people's representatives will, more or less, have their way?
Reviewing the record of previous withdrawals by the U.S. and others, Newsweek says:
the aftermath in every case was made worse by the fact that governments waited so long to admit that a pullout might be necessary. When the moment came, their hasty departures made the chaos that followed that much worse.
If we care what happens to the people of Iraq - and the larger Middle East - after we withdraw, shouldn't we be planning for that?
Kenneth Pollack of Brookings, who has written a study on the aftermath of a U.S. withdrawal, says he is "a bit concerned":
"Before the invasion I was going around saying how important postwar reconstruction was, and I was dutifully reassured: 'We got it covered; we have all these planning cells.' Only to learn after the fact that these efforts were totally half-assed. I'm hearing very similar things now."
Regardless of where you stand on withdrawal, you have to concede that it is now in the realm of possibility. Therefore, the Pentagon should be planning for it. To fail to do so would be "irresponsible," as the Vice-President likes to say. Perhaps, as Members of Congress consider the war spending bill, they may wish to earmark some money for this.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy .
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
Here's a question you might consider asking your Representative in Congress, your Senators, and any Presidential candidates who happen to pop by:
"Do you think that the United States should be doing more to plan for the possible withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq?"
After all, when people report on, say, U.S. plans to bomb Iran, the standard answer is, "don't worry your pretty little head about that, we plan for every contingency, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise."
How about the "contingency" of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? Have you planned for that?When you fail to plan, you plan to fail, as the saying goes.
Or is the default plan to withdraw Vietnam-style, denial until the last possible moment, followed by helicopters from rooftops?
It's not just a river in Egypt, as Stuart Smalley used to say.
There's a growing sense among both America's allies and its enemies that U.S. combat troops, at least, will be out of Iraq by the end of next year, Newsweek reports.
The United States Senate has gone on record favoring a withdrawal by March 2008; the House by no later than September 2008, and quite possibly earlier depending on the progress of the Iraqi government on meeting reconciliation benchmarks laid out by President Bush that they are making little progress towards. Shouldn't the Pentagon be planning for the "contingency" that the people's representatives will, more or less, have their way?
Reviewing the record of previous withdrawals by the U.S. and others, Newsweek says:
the aftermath in every case was made worse by the fact that governments waited so long to admit that a pullout might be necessary. When the moment came, their hasty departures made the chaos that followed that much worse.
If we care what happens to the people of Iraq - and the larger Middle East - after we withdraw, shouldn't we be planning for that?
Kenneth Pollack of Brookings, who has written a study on the aftermath of a U.S. withdrawal, says he is "a bit concerned":
"Before the invasion I was going around saying how important postwar reconstruction was, and I was dutifully reassured: 'We got it covered; we have all these planning cells.' Only to learn after the fact that these efforts were totally half-assed. I'm hearing very similar things now."
Regardless of where you stand on withdrawal, you have to concede that it is now in the realm of possibility. Therefore, the Pentagon should be planning for it. To fail to do so would be "irresponsible," as the Vice-President likes to say. Perhaps, as Members of Congress consider the war spending bill, they may wish to earmark some money for this.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy .
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
Here's a question you might consider asking your Representative in Congress, your Senators, and any Presidential candidates who happen to pop by:
"Do you think that the United States should be doing more to plan for the possible withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq?"
After all, when people report on, say, U.S. plans to bomb Iran, the standard answer is, "don't worry your pretty little head about that, we plan for every contingency, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise."
How about the "contingency" of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? Have you planned for that?When you fail to plan, you plan to fail, as the saying goes.
Or is the default plan to withdraw Vietnam-style, denial until the last possible moment, followed by helicopters from rooftops?
It's not just a river in Egypt, as Stuart Smalley used to say.
There's a growing sense among both America's allies and its enemies that U.S. combat troops, at least, will be out of Iraq by the end of next year, Newsweek reports.
The United States Senate has gone on record favoring a withdrawal by March 2008; the House by no later than September 2008, and quite possibly earlier depending on the progress of the Iraqi government on meeting reconciliation benchmarks laid out by President Bush that they are making little progress towards. Shouldn't the Pentagon be planning for the "contingency" that the people's representatives will, more or less, have their way?
Reviewing the record of previous withdrawals by the U.S. and others, Newsweek says:
the aftermath in every case was made worse by the fact that governments waited so long to admit that a pullout might be necessary. When the moment came, their hasty departures made the chaos that followed that much worse.
If we care what happens to the people of Iraq - and the larger Middle East - after we withdraw, shouldn't we be planning for that?
Kenneth Pollack of Brookings, who has written a study on the aftermath of a U.S. withdrawal, says he is "a bit concerned":
"Before the invasion I was going around saying how important postwar reconstruction was, and I was dutifully reassured: 'We got it covered; we have all these planning cells.' Only to learn after the fact that these efforts were totally half-assed. I'm hearing very similar things now."
Regardless of where you stand on withdrawal, you have to concede that it is now in the realm of possibility. Therefore, the Pentagon should be planning for it. To fail to do so would be "irresponsible," as the Vice-President likes to say. Perhaps, as Members of Congress consider the war spending bill, they may wish to earmark some money for this.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy .
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.