What do you think of this proposal for withdrawal?

Great Debates
1

I think we can all agree that we’d like to have our soldiers home out of harms way. We would all like to see an end to the terrorits blowing up innocent Iraqis. Ideally, some of us would also like to have accomplished something in Iraq, namely, allowing them to develop their own style of democracy in a peaceful fashion.

So, Here’s my idea—we can play with the numbers obviously, but here is the gist of it:

We announce to the Iraqis, the insurgency, and the world, that for every complete month that there is no terrorist activity, we will withdraw 10,000 troops.

That’s it. For every month that goes by without terrorist activity, 10,000 U.S. troops leave Iraq. That would mean our presence would end completely in fifteen months.

That should please everyone, right? The insurgents want us out, they get that. The Iraqis want the terroists to stop blowing people up and to have their country back, they get that. The American left wants the war to be over and a timeline or benchmarks in place, they get that. The American right wants no more soldiers dead and wants Iraq to peacably determine their own future, they get that.

So what do you think? Peaceful month two, 10,000 troops home. Peaceful month two, 20,000 troops home. Peaceful month two, 30,000 troops home. Etc. And all the while during those peaceful months we will be able to train more and more Iraqis troops.

If there areterrorists attacks, obvioulsy this agreement is void, and we’re right back to where we are now trying to devise a plan. But at least we put the respobnsibility for us being there in the future and the very people who want us out: the insurgency.

Comments? Thought?

2

Please, you think the only problem that these insurgents have is with American troops being in Iraq?

3

Suppose for a moment that there are terrorists who want the war. As I’ve maintained before, it’s being waged so ineptly that it’s just about the best recruiting tool imaginable for Al Qaeda.

If that’s the case, then you’ve given the terrorists groups a very strong incentive to keep the attacks up indefinitely, so that they can maintain their recruiting tool. Then, if the US decides to change its mind (“never mind that bomb in the marketplace yesterday, we’re pulling out now!”) the US looks very weak and foolish.

The same idea has occurred to me before, but it’s too easily corrupted and twisted. Won’t work.

Daniel

4

Under your plan, the Iraqi government would get time to stabilize itself and take control of the country. Anyone who doesn’t want this to happen would therefore not cooperate with the plan.

If the goal of the al-Queda types is to destabilize the current government and establish an Islamic theocracy in its place, then they have no incentive to cooperate. This plan will put in place a government which they are precisely opposed to.

There is also the matter of Bathist insurgents and Sunni insurgents who don’t want this government stabilized either, presumably so they can come back to power. So, again, this plan would be contrary to their goals.

The only insurgents who I think might view this plan favorably are Shiite ones, but then they are poised to take power under the current Iraqi government, so this plan aligns with their interests. However, the Shiites also have competing factions, and it’s not clear to me that all of these factions are supportive of the current Iraqi government.

5

How would this stop Sunni’s from slaughtering Shi’ites in job lots (since this happening a hell of a lot more than insurgents attacking Americans atm)? Or does this not count?

-XT

6

I think it’s a very reasonable idea, but due to reasons already stated it won’t work. The only way I see this working {should have been done a year ago} is to say, we are, come hell or high water, pulling our troops out 10,000 a month. So Iraqis have that time to stand up and fight for their own democracy, if they want one. At least at that we can say, we tried to help but they wouldn’t stand up for themselves.
Not many will believe it at this late date but it sounds like a very Bushlike bullshit story.
This might have worked if this Bush and his gang had actaully wanted Iraq to have a democracy that wasn’t controlled by the US and it’s military and economic interersts. If from the start our goal had actually been to let these folks determine their own fate {as is their inalienable right} then we might have saved face and been seen as sincerely trying to accomplish something positive. As it is, Bush has made it obvious to most that his goals {that means our goals} are to have military and economic control over the middle east.

7

Also, what’s to stop the terrorists from sitting and planning quietly for 15 months, then coming back stronger than ever after the last transport plane takes off?

We started something. For better or worse, whether you agree with the war or not, I think we can all agree that a premature withdrawal before Iraq is standing on its own two feet would be worse in the long run.

8

Myself, I think a more reasonable strategy would be after the December elections give the Iraqi’s 2 more months to get their shit together, train their military hard and then begin a phased withdrawl of x thousands of troops per month with no qualifiers. In addition, state that our intention is to have our troops in a completely defensive posture (i.e. no more patrols) sometime by the spring/early summer of next year, but that we will continue to provide close air support and intelligence. Phase these out as well by the fall of next year (close air at least, though continue to provide intelligence obviously). Keep open the possiblity/support of Special Forces operations to cooperate with Iraqi forces in the future, but definitely phase out the regular military.

Personally I think such a plan is much better than what the OP is suggesting. I’d begin right now with some back channel communications telling the Iraqi’s of our intentions once the elections are done to put this plan into effect.

-XT

9

Hell, I’d offer that we withdraw 154,000 troops for every month of no violence.

10

Yeah, that would be a pretty easy offer to make all things considered…if you never wanted to withdraw a single troop that is (for a couple of centuries or so).

-XT

11

cosmosdan and xtisme have superior plans, due to the fact that the insurgents can’t decide whether the plans work. Important military principle: if your enemy is making all the parameter decisions for the war, you’re fucked.

Daniel

12

Especially since there isn’t some monolithic enemy in Iraq but myriad factions with their own agendas. No doubt SOME faction fighting us would stop with such a plan as the OP’s…mostly just to get us out of there as quickly as possible. Other factions either wouldn’t care or it would simply encourage them to fight more. Obviously if killing Shi’ites is your goal you don’t give a shit if the US stays or goes. And if killing American’s is your goal, why get rid of your easist source? So much easier to kill them in Iraq than Afghanistan…or in the US or Europe. Logistics and all.

-XT

13

It’s a wonderful idea; the only problem is that it holds an entire country hostage to the whim of a single individual.

Any swinging dick with a small amount of explosive can effectively put the kibosh on the whole shebang any time they choose to. A small number of people could keep the US troops there indefinitely.

14

You all make good points. And I would not be surprised if it didn’t work. In which case, we’re no worse off. But it would show the world, and the Iraqi people, our intentions of getting out. So our presence there would then be the fault of the insurgents, not us. From a PR standpoint, it seems like a pretty good idea.

In the merantime, for as long as it did work, that would be months spent safely training Iraqis, which MUST be done.

The again, it could work. If—and this is a big if, I know—Zarqawi and his infinite string of #2s see this as a good idea, wouldn’t they, couldn’t they, put the ixnay on blowing people up? The way the bombings have been happening, they seem to act as one organization.

15

No we can’t all agree on that. There’s a legitimate question about whether Iraq can within the foreseeable future, be a democracy standing on it’s own. The other issue is this admin. allowing the Iraqis to actually having their own goverment and not just puppet leaders propped up by the US. Is it true that a huge percentage of the Iraqi citizens want us out of there? If so how can staying under the pretense of helping them establish a democracy do us or them any good. There’s no doubt that pulling out now will plunge Iraq into violent chaos. {Like it isn’t already there} The question is will it ever really be better if we stay. I don’t think it can be. I doubt that a year or two more of our presence will be any better than it is right now. By staying we may be prolonging the inevitable. Bush and friends were wrong wrong wrong, and we let them do it. Now we’re trying to save face by trying to salvage something “right” out of it. That sounds like the same reason we let Vietnam linger on at the costs of thousands of lives, only to face the truth of our failure years later.

16

I disagree. The plan would quickly be blamed for every single terrorist attack, as people speculated on whether the terrorists were attacking in an effort to keep us there. If the plan had any qualifications on it at all, there would be massive debate over whether a specific incident of violence qualified as a terrorist attack (those Iraqi men torn from their home in the middle of the night by soliders wearing the uniforms of the Iraqi police–how dare we not call this terrorism?). And when, inevitably, the US has to scrap the plan due to the continuing terrorist attacks, our nation looks like a bunch of idiots.

I just don’t see any upside to it at all. Again, it gives the worst of the bad guys control over our agenda, and that’s a terrible idea.

Daniel

17

We would be worse off because we are essentially saying that we won’t leave if the violence continues. Are we saying we are staying there indefinately? I think that’s the Bush plan but I can’t imagine the Arab world accepting that ever. Notice how we pulled troops out of Saudi shortly after Iraq fell. Strangely enough the Arab nations want to determine their own fate. What are they thinking? Meanwhile Bush and friends feel it is our duty and right to use the military to pursue our economic interests in other countries. We’re sure to earn some good Karma with that plan.

18

Only if we can add 10,000 troops if there is a attack that month.

It’s a war, and wars can’t be planned like this for the simple reason that the enemy is not going to play along, for if they did it wouldn’t be a war.

I could see a proposal that would transition the Iraq military for the US but in a different way. Like right now lets say it takes 3 Iraqi troops to equal every 1 US. If they have 15,000 troops ready, we can pull out 5000 of ours. If we can train them better to a 2 to 1 ratio we can pull out another 2500.

But the total number of troops that is needed MUST be flexable (again this is a war, things don’t always go your way).

19

Sorry. I thought I clarified. This plan would be in addition to whatever withdrawal plan you favor, except immediate pull-out.

Most people, even on the left, seem to think that we will be there for some time, at least until enough Iraqi troops are trained. So as we reach the benchmarks, as proposed by John Kerry, Bob Kerry , or others, we withdraw our troops accordingly. But in the meantime, why not put the onus on the insurgency, and let them be perceived to be the obstacle to some degree of normalcy in Iraq?

The Washington Times carries this article stating:

Thsi is a good thing. The more we can make Zarqawi within the Muslim world, the better. Wouldn’t you agree?

20

I agree. It would force us to actually start training (something I suspect we ave been lax with) and would put more pressure on the new government to get their act together. They have no incentive, so long as they can depend on us to do things for them. It would also remove us as the “outsiders and enemy”, a very useful rallying point for insurgents. They would have to get another excuse. They would no longer be “brave heroes fighting Yankee aggression”. I think they will continue fighting (forever), but we won’t be such a convenient reason for it.