When Should the U.S. Withdraw? Ask the Iraqis.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally Posted by Kuffar Street Journal

When Should the U.S. Withdraw? Ask the Iraqis.
By SCOTT TUROW
November 30, 2006; Page A16

Now that we have a divided government, a new defense secretary and the Iraq Study Group prepared to issue its report, we appear ready to descend into a period of rancorous national debate about how long our troops should remain in Iraq. But before Americans go toe-to-toe with one another, I have a new idea. Why don't we ask the people of Iraq what they think?

I'm not a foreign-policy wonk. I am merely one of millions of Americans who despairs over the news from Baghdad, and yearns to see this country as united as we were in the days after 9/11. The Americans who opposed the Iraq invasion -- like me -- and those who fully supported our military action now find themselves in accord on two fundamental points: First, the war has not gone well. Second, we are prisoners of an ethical dilemma of our own making, crystallized in the "Pottery Barn Rule" Colin Powell reportedly invoked to President Bush: You break it, you own it. Whatever the validity of our reasons for going into Iraq, we terminated not only a despotic government but a stable, civil society. It seems selfish and unjust for us simply to leave the country in chaos, and we will be required to spend billions repairing Iraq for years to come.
[Ask the Iraqis.]
Mr. Turow is author, most recently, of the novella "Limitations" (Picador, 2006).

But that does not resolve the question of our military presence, which is sharpened by the young Americans being killed and maimed there every day. Many foreign-policy experts believe that a large-scale American force on Iraqi soil aggravates ethnic rivalries by forcibly enhancing power differentials between those groups, thus robbing the current government of legitimacy in the eyes of many citizens. Others, including many of our generals, say that the 140,000 American troops stationed in the country are all that stand in the way of a full-scale civil war. But why attempt to resolve this as a debate among our dueling experts when we can ask the genuine authorities -- the Iraqi people? They are there. They know their country and their countrymen. And naturally, it is they who care most intensely about their future.

So here's what I propose. Our government must urge Iraqi leaders to hold an immediate plebiscite on a single question: Should American forces remain in Iraq until a stable democratic order emerges, however long that takes, or should we instead withdraw in stages over a fixed period, say, the next 12 months?

I have a guess about which way the vote will go. Since opinion-sampling began a year after the invasion, one poll after another has found that an increasing majority of Iraqis would like us to pack our gear and leave. But who knows how accurate polling is in a society like Iraq, where so many citizens have reasons to be guarded about their views? And even if the results reflected opinions at the time, it's possible that an informed national discussion might change minds. Yet if the remaining rationale for our presence in Iraq hinges on our commitment to democracy there, what possible excuse can we have for not letting the Iraqis make the ultimate choice about our occupation? If a solid majority throughout the country wants us out, then we can leave knowing that we are not deserting a people eager for our presence.

And if instead a majority of Iraqis prefer that we remain, we can revert to our own national debate about the kind of commitment we are willing to make, knowing we have an open invitation. I am not proposing that we give the people of Iraq veto power over how long Americans must fight and die on their behalf. We must fix goals for our inevitable departure. But even the Americans who believe we should depart tomorrow will have to reflect twice if the beleaguered citizens of Iraq, 150,000 of whom have already died according to their government, say the future presence of our troops will be helpful. And attacks on American soldiers will perhaps slacken if it becomes fact-established that we are invited guests, not an occupying army.

The results of the vote would probably not be the same in the various ethnic regions of Iraq. In prior opinion polls, the Kurds have overwhelmingly favored the American presence that has freed them from the menacing hand of Iraq's central government. But a split verdict may suit our aims. American troops must continue to be stationed somewhere in the region to prevent active coercion by Iraq's neighbors, especially Syria and Iran, and to respond in case the direst predictions prove out and parts of Iraq become a lawless terrorist breeding ground, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. The emerging Kurdish canton might be the ideal place for our soldiers to wait out events, while removing themselves from the cross-fire in the rest of the country.

After the blood and treasure America has expended in Iraq, all Americans should hope that a stable society emerges there, governed by people who are not actively hostile to American interests. That is an ever more distant dream at this stage. But the longer we remain in Iraq without considering the will of its people, the more certainly we imperil the dwindling hopes we have by breeding enduring resentments.

Mr. Turow is author, most recently, of the novella "Limitations" (Picador, 2006).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1164...n_commentaries

Elegantly intelligent, deceptively simple or cutely naive?

[Agamemnus]

Cutely naive.

Re: Hamas party.

[Illusions]

Any minute now. Good old George W. Bush recently announced that we won't be withdrawing from Iraq until the mission is completed and since there was this whole publicity event on an aircraft carrier a few years ago declaring "Mission Accomplished" he's probably just finalizing a withdrawal plan and should have it done soon. Any day now. He implied so. Unless he forgot that whole thing. On the aircraft carrier. Where he wore a flight suit. There was a banner in the background with "Mission Accomplished" written on it. Guess not...

[ThePensive]

Think about how massively chaotic that vote would be. The violence that happened when the Iraqis voted for their government would be mild compared to the clashes that happen when they vote for whether the Americans, who for some stand for freedom and liberty and for others stand for oppression and evil, should leave or stay, the ultimate question in some eyes.

[Dreadnaught]

There was very little violence when the Iraqis have gone to the polls. The whole country basically shuts down for the vote. The US troops impose mass car bans and strict curfews.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Elegantly intelligent, deceptively simple or cutely naive?

I'd like to say cutely naive, but it's apparent that he DOES understand the room for inherent disagreement on the issue between different ethnic groups. So I'm going to have to go with "whistling in the dark."

[Heero]

I think it is an interesting take. I also wonder about the effectiveness if the US chose to say shift its presence to the Kurdish areas and let the sunnis & shiites duke it out for their space. I also was thinking about the situation today and really wonder WHY (I ask as a rhetorical, I could make my own guesses) the Iraq war, and really military action in general, has become something so "political".

To explain that question, in WW2, it was all about the country working together, doing as JFK said and asking what YOU can do FOR your country. Now, Iraq is Bush's war, there was even an opinion piece I saw about how when the Democrats take control they need to make sure "blame" for this stays on Bush, keep it as "Bush's War" even as you work to get the army out. This isn't new to Bush per se, Kosovo was Clinton's "wag the dog" scenario, Iraq I was Bush Sr.'s war, etc etc. I think Vietnam is when all the damn hippies decided they needed someone to blame for international events, so it became Johnson's war/problem. But I don't think we'll ever win a war when it is linked to a political side, because by default almost half the country will oppose it purely for political reasons.

[']['ear]

Perhaps it's whistling in the dark. There's a certain appeal to letting a country take responsibility for its own destiny. There's an appeal to saying "OK, we freed you. Do you want our help or not?"

I think the whole thing is fubared. We can't win this. It's going to be a full-blown civil war sooner if we leave now, and later if we leave later.

Originally Posted by Heero

I think it is an interesting take. I also wonder about the effectiveness if the US chose to say shift its presence to the Kurdish areas and let the sunnis & shiites duke it out for their space. I also was thinking about the situation today and really wonder WHY (I ask as a rhetorical, I could make my own guesses) the Iraq war, and really military action in general, has become something so "political".

To explain that question, in WW2, it was all about the country working together, doing as JFK said and asking what YOU can do FOR your country. Now, Iraq is Bush's war, there was even an opinion piece I saw about how when the Democrats take control they need to make sure "blame" for this stays on Bush, keep it as "Bush's War" even as you work to get the army out. This isn't new to Bush per se, Kosovo was Clinton's "wag the dog" scenario, Iraq I was Bush Sr.'s war, etc etc. I think Vietnam is when all the damn hippies decided they needed someone to blame for international events, so it became Johnson's war/problem. But I don't think we'll ever win a war when it is linked to a political side, because by default almost half the country will oppose it purely for political reasons.

WWII was an unambiguously just war. We were attacked, the enemy was trying to take over the world and had invaded a large fraction of our allies, etc. The subsequent wars were all debatable.

[Heero]

Originally Posted by ']['ear

WWII was an unambiguously just war. We were attacked, the enemy was trying to take over the world and had invaded a large fraction of our allies, etc. The subsequent wars were all debatable.

That's a frivolous standard based entirely upon your own opinion. By that standard both the US Civil War and the American Revolution were entirely UNjust. The American Revolution is arguable as a point of freedom, but if you'd maintain that the AR was just then there is NO justification for the US Civil War and the Conferacy should have been allowed to state their case.

[Loki]

Let alone our wars against Mexico, the Spanish-American War, and WWI.

[']['ear]

Originally Posted by Heero

That's a frivolous standard based entirely upon your own opinion. By that standard both the US Civil War and the American Revolution were entirely UNjust. The American Revolution is arguable as a point of freedom, but if you'd maintain that the AR was just then there is NO justification for the US Civil War and the Conferacy should have been allowed to state their case.

I saids nothing about those wars, did I? So please don't put words in my mouth.

I said that WWII was unambiguous, and the subsequent wars were not. Sure that's an opinion, but one that the vast majority of Americans appear to agree with. WWII was not a was of choice, but of survival. Every war since was optional, and optional wars are going to receive a lot more criticism.

[Loki]

Originally Posted by ']['ear

I saids nothing about those wars, did I? So please don't put words in my mouth.

I said that WWII was unambiguous, and the subsequent wars were not. Sure that's an opinion, but one that the vast majority of Americans appear to agree with. WWII was not a was of choice, but of survival. Every war since was optional, and optional wars are going to receive a lot more criticism.

You're missing the fact that WWII was probably the only unambigious war in human history...

[']['ear]

That was the question he asked, so I answered it.

Edit: But I think a strong argument can be made for others. For example, the American Civil War. Arguably a greater imperative than WWII. Does a government let a chunk of the country wander off when it wants to? I don't think so. The CW was arguably the most important and imperative war in US history, aside from the RW.

[Heero]

Originally Posted by ']['ear

I saids nothing about those wars, did I? So please don't put words in my mouth.

I said that WWII was unambiguous, and the subsequent wars were not. Sure that's an opinion, but one that the vast majority of Americans appear to agree with. WWII was not a was of choice, but of survival. Every war since was optional, and optional wars are going to receive a lot more criticism.

I didn't say you DID comment on those wars, I said by your standard they ARE "unjust". The American Civil War can only be called "just" on hindsight based on the after-effects. If you think the US had a right to revolt from Britain, then the Confederacy had an equal right to secede from the US, moreso if you consider it is how the nation started.

WW2 is considered "justified" because we were given an enemy we could "hate", even today, Hitler and the Nazis are one of the FEW factual groups people have blanket permission to hold up as "evil". Even terrorists get some measure of arguement regarding their "motivations" for their actions. Why is Hitler worse than Napolean or William the Conqueror or numerous other similar figures? History is written by the winners, pure and simple.

Brian: Yeah, um about your pamphlet...I'm not seeing anything about German history between 1939 and 1945. There's just a big gap.
Tour Guide: Everyone was on vacation. On your left is Munich's first city hall erected in 15…
Brian: Wait, wait. What are you talking about? Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and…
Tour Guide: We were invited! Punch was served! Check with Poland!

[']['ear]

I don't even see what you are debating. But you've been is a pissy mood ever since the election, so I'll just avoid it.

[Heero]

Originally Posted by ']['ear

I don't even see what you are debating. But you've been is a pissy mood ever since the election, so I'll just avoid it.

Huh? Is this about that CNN media bias discussion? Because I'm TELLING you that was valid altho I KNOW you don't wanna get into that again. I'm saying that as a nation we no longer support the country in time of conflict simply because we are citizens of the nation. Don't get me wrong, in WW2, the Nazis had supporters and I totally acknowledge "I disagree with our actions because of X", but this isn't like that. Too many of today's detractors are "I'm not supporting this because X is behind it". Like I said, it's not limited to one side, the Right was all to willing to jump Clinton on this also, I just find it disappointing and sad.

Of course, there's also people just looking to find fault with the prevailing authority, just look at oldmunchkin's crazy "police overkill" thread.

[Loki]

Originally Posted by ']['ear

That was the question he asked, so I answered it.

Edit: But I think a strong argument can be made for others. For example, the American Civil War. Arguably a greater imperative than WWII. Does a government let a chunk of the country wander off when it wants to? I don't think so. The CW was arguably the most important and imperative war in US history, aside from the RW.

How about self-determination?

[']['ear]

What, every country in the world would then splinter into whatever faction is pouty and wants to call its own shots.

A country's foremost obligation is to itself, and one of the most fundamental elements of that is its integrity. Sure, there are times where a schism might be considered on ethnic grounds, particularly if the original boundaries were drawn by colonial powers (for example, Iraq or the former Czechoslovakia). That clearly wasn't the case in the US. It was a power grab, pure and simple, and the very existence of the country depended on ending it. I will also say that the suspension of habeas corpus under those extreme circumstances was justified (otherwise Maryland very well may have seceded as well).


As an aside, I always crack up when I see rabid US patriots with confederate stickers or flags. Hello? You're talking the least patriotic event in US history! hereabouts I see pickup trucks with a confederate flag sticker next to an American flag sticker or a "God bless the USA" sticker."

[Heero]

Originally Posted by ']['ear

What, every country in the world would then splinter into whatever faction is pouty and wants to call its own shots.

Would China be justified in going and pummelling Taiwan to bring them back in line with the national ideal? Or would that be unjust for the people of Taiwan? Since we (the US) are sort of helping Taiwan assert independence from China, are we wrong and should totally withdraw support from them?