Put up or shut up: tell us your plan to get the US out of Iraq

Great Debates
1

Full disclosure: I’m in the camp that thinks (a) President Bush and his advisors were, to be polite, ill-advised to want to take us into Iraq, mendacious in their way of getting us there, and less than competent in their conduct of the war thus far; and (b) that at this point, the costs of leaving Iraq immediately, or even within the next two years, are much higher than the costs of staying until the country is stable.

But that’s not what I want to discuss. I want to know how the utterly anti-war Dopers would handle our exit, if they were suddenly placed in control of the executive & legislative branches of our government. I place the thread here rather than in IMHO (where I’d say it truly belongs) because I foresee a great deal of Bush-bashing and it would get moved here anywhistle.

Anyway, here’s the topic:

You find yourself suddenly in the oval office, with your political allies firmly in control of both house and Senate (i.e., with 2/3 or better majorities in both houses). What’s your plan to extricate the US from Iraq?

2

I announce a phased withdrawl to begin in 6 months. Within one year after that, we have the majority of troops out of Iraq, with some number of troops still there (20-30,000) to act as advisers and trainers for 2-3 more years, but they do not participate in active patrols. Then I call Maliki and tell him he better get crackin’ on making sure the IDF is ready.

3

How long does it take to safely move out an Army? 30 days? 90 days? That’s what I’d use as a target.

I frankly don’t care what happens to the Ira

4

Step 1 : Put soldiers in planes and ships.
Step 2 : Leave.

5

Call the UN: “I’ve made a huge mistake.” Humbly ask them to bring in peacekeeping forces. Get out and never come back.

6

Here’s my plan. We get out ASAP. At the very most wee take 6 months telling the Iraqi government and people that their fate is in their own hands.

We seem so certain that an Islamic Theocratic terrorist breeding government will result. Perhaps if we actually demonstrated through our actions that we do NOT want to dictate the direction of governments in the middle east according to our own interests the people might surprise us.

7

Don’t know how that happened!
How long does it take to safely move out an Army? 30 days? 90 days? That’s what I’d use as a target.

I frankly don’t care what happens to the Iraqi population. They need to sort out who lives and who dies on their own. Make a country or make 3 countries, I don’t care!

8

We’ve done this before. I’ll give the same answer (aproximately) that I did last time.

Ramp up the training of the Iraqi army. If possible, get our good buddies in Europe to help with at least THAT much. If necessary, ship Iraqi’s (at least officers) out to Europe and have NATO train them. In the short term (say a 6 month period), ramp up US troop levels and become more aggressive about confronting the insurgency. At the same time, ramp up US political efforts (if possible) to see if there is ANY political solution to this.

After 6 months begin a gradual, phased withdrawl, starting with a steady de-emphasis on US ground forces coupled with a increase in emphasis by the Iraqi military. The US would be gradually pulled back into a more defensive posture, leaving the Iraqi’s free to confront the insurgents directly. Gradually withdraw US forces from Iraq with a target troop strength on year after the 6 month ramp up period of 60-70% of the maximum levels. 6 months after that we should be at no more than 20% of our total maximum force still in theater.

I make that at aproximately 2 years to do what can be done…and then get out of dodge if they Iraqi’s STILL can’t get their shit together. I think that would be a good faith effort on our part, and that if things THEN fell apart we would have a relatively clear consious…we will have done everything we could to fix the mess we originally created. It would be up to the Iraqi’s to do their part…or not.

Step 3 : Watch the whole country go up in flames.
Step 4 : Feel smug because its all Bush’s fault.
Step 5 : Feel rightous as the entire region catches fire, because its all Bush’s fault

Optional : Piss on the ashes, but feel good deep down inside because its all Bush’s fault.

-XT

9

That is the crucial first step. Admit that it was a colossal fuck-up. Ask the world for help and advice. Pledge whatever support is needed to make things right.

Until those yahoos admit they were wrong they will never get out.

10

Yeah - terrorists every one of them.

11

I offer no support for Der Trihs’ solution, but, you know what? It’s all Bush’s fault. Whatever happens, it’s all Bush’s fault. He lied. Thousands have died as a result. A country is in chaos. Our country is reviled.

He is a villain of no small magnitude.

12

I give Bush the lions share of the blame myself for this mess. That doesn’t mean we should pull the rug out from under the Iraqi’s and then take our marbles home and leave them to face the music. And Der is willing to do this because its a no lose situation (for him). If we pull out and it all goes to shit (which is highly likely) then he feels good because its all Bush’s fault, and nothing could have fixed it anyway, blah blah blah. If we pull out and through some miricle the Iraqi’d keep the wheels from falling off, then obviously the US’s presence was the key thing keeping the Iraqi’s down. Its all a game to him…IMHO.

To me, its not a game. Its one of those horrible situations where there ARE no good alternatives…only the lesser of two bad choices. And to my mind, cutting and running a la Der’s 2 line drive by is by far the worst of the bad choices. Even a phased withdrawl with a target date of early next year is preferable (and more realistic of course).

-XT

13

How many peacekeeping forces do you think UN member countries might send? The number, give or take, is approximately negative a thousand. If US troops can’t maintain order in Baghdad, how many other countries are likely to want to stick their dicks in the meatgrinder and crank the handle?

If you want to pull out of Iraq regardless of the consequences then say so, but don’t pretend any international peacekeeping force is going to step in to take over for US troops.

14

Just as a quick aside, how well did Vietnam do after the US left? And what happened in Cambodia without a US presence nearby?
We cut and run and you’re looking at either the return of another Saddam or, worse, a reliogious fanatic like Iran has.
I want everyone home now. But realistically, we can’t afford some nutcase with visions of the 12th Imam running the show there. Make the Iraqi’s step up. Every patrol, every search will have more and more Iraqi involvement. Wean them off the teat. It will take time but eventually we can ship home the majority of our troops, leaving detachments behind like we did in Beirut. If the new Iraqi government has an ounce of sense, they would let us keep a base there to hold Iran and Syria at bay.

15

And you may ask yourself, “how do I work this?”
And you may ask yourself, “where is that large oval office?”
And you may tell yourself, “this is not my Congressional majority!”
And you may tell yourself, “this is not my beautiful mandate!”

16

Why does the US need to admit error and apologise? Why couldn’t we just say we accomplished our objectives (ousting Saddam, establishing representative government, striking decisive blow against international terrorism) and welcome the rest of the international community to accompany Iran as they stride into the future?

17

All these responses seem to revolve around the Iraqi security forces suddenly being competent and capable.

What if they don’t? What if they continue to be incompetent? If a good proportion of them turn out to be function as death squads?

Stay in forever? At what point do you say, “Fuck it, it’s not working” and then pull out? Do you measure it in days or in US casualties?

A whole lot of these plans (looking at you in particular, XT) seem to involve staying the course. “Draw down US forces as Iraqi forces can take over” has been the plan since Day Fucking One.

How much has US troop strength in Iraq dropped?

-Joe

18

The object is to achieve some sort of stable end-state which minimizes the likelihood of Iraqis’ killing each other in large numbers. That’s a pretty tall order.

If I were really President, I’d spend a lot of time first, talking with our military and intelligence people, getting more detailed information than I have now as a private citizen, and trying to get *them *to figure out a decent exit strategy that doesn’t take forever.

But if I have to come up with my own, on my own, with none of the special tools a President has at his disposal:

I think the way there is to tell them that we’re on our way out, and will be completely gone by March 2008; five years is enough. And that unless the warring parties can come up with some sort of peace deal on their own, we’re going to partition the country into Kurd, Shi’ite and Sunni parts, so they’d better get on with it, because we’ll use our air power to protect their country from foreign invasion (or from full-scale interfactional military actions) after we leave only if they come to a deal. Otherwise, we don’t mind terribly if Turkey grabs a piece here, and Iran takes a piece there, or if Sadrists and Badrists kill each other off while fighting over Basra.

My thought, or at least my wild-ass hope, is that that combination of facts and threats would get all the main parties to the negotiating table in earnest.

First of all, all the parties have something to lose from foreign invasion. The Kurds are most vulnerable, since Turkey and Iran could easily come to a deal to split up Iraqi Kurdistan; both feel threatened by the existence of a Kurdish quasi-state. The Iraqi Shi’ites, friendly though they may be with Iran, don’t really want to be ruled by non-Arabs. And even the Sunnis have to consider that Syria might grab much of western Iraq, even if it isn’t worth much, once Iran and Turkey were active in other places.

And the Sunnis, without a deal, have no oil, so they need a deal to keep them economically alive. The Kurds and Shi’ites still need us there to preserve some sort of order, in the absence of a deal.

So that’s how I’d do it: tell them to start dealing, or we start partitioning Iraq next June 30 based on the votes in the last election (since most parties were closely identified with religious/ethnic groups), with the partition to be complete by the time we leave on or before March 19, 2008. And if that involves drawing lines right through the middle of Baghdad or Kirkuk, well, so be it.

19

Then wait until they stop laughing.
Bring a lunch.

You’re all forgetting the one thing we do owe the Iraqis - infrastructure. First thing we do is to kick Halliburton and fellow fuckups the hell out of there. Putting the DoJ onto the job of investigating where the money went would keep them busy. Start offering contracts - none no bid - open to everyone. If you want NATO and other countries involved, you better make it profitable for them. Giving all the contracts to US companies did wonders for the Republicans campaign warchest, but not much in signing up a true coalition. As part of the deal, foreign contractors need to bring their own security. A deal with their governments would be fine. That should free up our troops for real work. Make sure there are real inspectors, with teeth, and real penalties for missing deadlines. We can write in escape clauses for real security issues, but any company bidding had better be aware they aren’t working in Disneyland. Also, make sure the work has a lot of local content. Iraqis will be a lot more willing to give good intelligence if they know they’ll be out of a job if that bomber gets to do his business.

In the meantime, try to do some background checks on at least the officers of the IDF. We know the insurgents have infiltrated - it would be nice to know how far. Also, try to control promotions within the IDF, so that people who can do the job get the higher ranks, not the guys associated with the right politicians and clerics.

Finally, we’ll need a turning point battle. Disarming the militias (at least temporarily) is a good start. The Sadr brigade is acting up - shut them down, and see how the IDF does.

We need to leave as the infrastructure projects get finished. Forget NATO for filling in - we need some Arab soldiers. I know that won’t be easy, and we’d have to deal with the Sunni/Shia problem, but if they can’t help they shouldn’t complain that we can’t.

It might fall apart anyhow, but we’d have given it our best shot.

20

Excellent point. I don’t know where the idea comes from that the UN can (or would) save the day in Iraq, but one simply has to look at the amount of trouble they are having getting up to their full troop strength for their peacekeeping mission in Lebanon to gage what the potential response would be to a request by the US to take over (well, IMHO the response would be uncontrollable laughter or weeping, depending).

If the UN can’t cobble together 15,000 troops for patrolling the border between Lebanon and Israel, how are they going to replace 150,000 US troops?? We won’t even get into the relative technical capabilities of said replacement troops…how are they going to get 150,000 warm bodies for Iraq??

The phrase that comes to mind is something like ‘when snowballs exist for long periods in hell’…

-XT