The Embarrassing, but Unqualified, Imperative to set a deadline for troop withdr
By Anonymous Thursday, October 12, 2006, 06:01 PM EDT
We long ago reached the point of diminishing returns in Iraq. The only legitimate question is when, not whether; we should withdraw our troops from Iraq. One school of thought is that we cannot exit Iraq unless we win, and that any talk of an immediate withdrawal would simply embolden our enemies there. Both of these reasons are wrong. We need to set a deadline for withdrawal, and we need to set it immediately. The deadline itself should allow for an orderly withdrawal of troops, but should not be set more than 3 months away.
Embarrassing as it is, we can no longer ignore that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us to leave immediately. Nor can we deny that the widespread violence plaguing Iraq is more akin to a civil war, than it is to a terrorist -driven insurgency. We cannot win there if we are not wanted by the people who we thought would welcome us with open arms. Nor can we successfully referee a civil war. Nor is that among the many reasons we invaded Iraq in the first place
Keeping our troops in Iraq is wrong for the further reason that their presence inflames, rather than, mitigates the violence. If additional troops could quell the violence surely the Administration would have sent them in by now. The Administration’s failure to send additional troops in the face of increasing violence means either that additional troops would not quell the violence, or that it is politically unacceptable to send more troops. If either of these reasons are true, we cannot allow our troops to remain in a line of fire which we know they are incapable of putting out. Keeping them there simply because other Americans troops have died there is also wrong. New deaths will not bring back to life those who have already died. We honor the memory of those who died by not putting others in harms way unnecessarily.
Those who oppose an immediate troop withdrawal or the making of an announcement of an immediate troop withdrawal claim that these courses of action would embolden the enemy. Which enemy? Our true enemies in Iraq, the terrorists, have already succeeded in their goal of igniting a civil war. Our departure would simply allow the Iraqis to determine their own fate, which is what civil wars are, in the end, all about. It would also eliminate further, unnecessary, losses of American life and limbs.
Even assuming we could “embolden†the terrorists by announcing a withdrawal; those who support this view suggest that “emboldening†the terrorists simply means that they would stand down until we left. Why would it be otherwise, and wouldn’t that be a good thing for our troops and the Iraqi forces we support? So, “emboldening†the terrorists would result in a saving of American life and limb, and might also buy the Iraqi government an additional opportunity to put its house in order. Why are we staring this gift horse in the mouth?
The necessary ingredient for a successful, prompt withdrawal is that it be done as part of a bi-partisan solution to our woes in Iraq. Democrats need to resist an “I told you so,†and Republicans need to acknowledge the need for a face saving retreat from the ever worsening disaster their party foisted upon the American people.
Embarrassing as it is, we can no longer ignore that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us to leave immediately. Nor can we deny that the widespread violence plaguing Iraq is more akin to a civil war, than it is to a terrorist -driven insurgency. We cannot win there if we are not wanted by the people who we thought would welcome us with open arms. Nor can we successfully referee a civil war. Nor is that among the many reasons we invaded Iraq in the first place
Keeping our troops in Iraq is wrong for the further reason that their presence inflames, rather than, mitigates the violence. If additional troops could quell the violence surely the Administration would have sent them in by now. The Administration’s failure to send additional troops in the face of increasing violence means either that additional troops would not quell the violence, or that it is politically unacceptable to send more troops. If either of these reasons are true, we cannot allow our troops to remain in a line of fire which we know they are incapable of putting out. Keeping them there simply because other Americans troops have died there is also wrong. New deaths will not bring back to life those who have already died. We honor the memory of those who died by not putting others in harms way unnecessarily.
Those who oppose an immediate troop withdrawal or the making of an announcement of an immediate troop withdrawal claim that these courses of action would embolden the enemy. Which enemy? Our true enemies in Iraq, the terrorists, have already succeeded in their goal of igniting a civil war. Our departure would simply allow the Iraqis to determine their own fate, which is what civil wars are, in the end, all about. It would also eliminate further, unnecessary, losses of American life and limbs.
Even assuming we could “embolden†the terrorists by announcing a withdrawal; those who support this view suggest that “emboldening†the terrorists simply means that they would stand down until we left. Why would it be otherwise, and wouldn’t that be a good thing for our troops and the Iraqi forces we support? So, “emboldening†the terrorists would result in a saving of American life and limb, and might also buy the Iraqi government an additional opportunity to put its house in order. Why are we staring this gift horse in the mouth?
The necessary ingredient for a successful, prompt withdrawal is that it be done as part of a bi-partisan solution to our woes in Iraq. Democrats need to resist an “I told you so,†and Republicans need to acknowledge the need for a face saving retreat from the ever worsening disaster their party foisted upon the American people.
