What is the downside of setting a reasonable timetable for leaving Iraq?

I'm against the invasion in the first place and think the Admin has done a terrible job of managing it but the more I think about it the more I think setting a timetable is problematic.

You raise some good points but I don't think that the insurgent attacks will abate. If anything they will intensify because a pullout will appear that the US is retreating because they are losing. Knowing that the US will leave a set point in time the insurgents will work much harder to position themselves to take over and that means stepping up attacks to make it impossible for the provisional government to run and also to score propaganda points by making the departure from Baghdad look like the fall of Saigon. Americans flying out under fire.

The biggest problem with setting a timetable now is that at the moment there is no realistic alternative to even the possibility of stability without the US military. The provisional government is too weak and its highly doubtful a Sunni led insurgent government could take charge without civil war. The only reasonable way I could see a timetable set is if the new Iraqi government can show that it is strong enough to maintain order on its own or that there is a viable international force stepping into replace the US.

We're a long ways from either of those.

 

Heck, you have been unconsciously transformed into a reluctant Wilsonian and accomplice to neocons.

What US should do is to negotiate a temporary truce with whom the troops are fighting (may have to declare it unilaterally if US cannot identify its enemies), then hold a nation-wide special balloting which specifies a number of choices Iraqis are going to face, including a vote for immediate, unconditional withdraw of all foreign troops. I bet even the most feisty insurgents will be keen to such balloting. The mere purpose of this vote will almost ensure high voter turnout and honest, non-BS voting. Whatever Iraqis decide (by majority), US has to accept and honor, since it truely reflects the will of Iraqi people.

 

The only argument against it I've heard is "well, that will give the insurgents the ability to outlast us."

But think about it. What does that actually mean?

Does it mean that, if we set a timetable, the insurgents will stop attacking until we leave? Wouldn't such a reprieve be an excellent chance to build infrastructure and get the country up and running so that the Iraqis can adequately defend themselves once we're gone?

The insurgents won't stop attacking - they can continue to attack. They are being reinforced by outside countries (most reports have a number of Syrians and Iranians joining the fight).. All it will do is give the other side a timetable for victory and motivate them.

If the insurgents said "if we don't win by August, we're done", don't you think that would boost public opinion/confidence in the US? That's exactly what would happen the other way around for the insurgency. You can NEVER set a public timetable, because good military strategy involves not giving your enemy your plans. If the enemy knows your plans, they can plan around them and that automatically weakens your position.

What US should do is to negotiate a temporary truce with whom the troops are fighting (may have to declare it unilaterally if US cannot identify its enemies), then hold a nation-wide special balloting which specifies a number of choices Iraqis are going to face, including a vote for immediate, unconditional withdraw of all foreign troops. I bet even the most feisty insurgents will be keen to such balloting.

You assume the insurgents just want the US out - that's not at all the case. They want control of the control and they want democracy to fail in many cases (especially the foreign fighters and Al Queda-related troops). They already had huge turnout in one election, and it did absolutely nothing to slow the insurgency or convince them to stop fighting... another ballot isn't going to do any better.

The insurgents don't represent all of Iraq, but they are well-supplied and well-armed. So essentially, bailing on Iraq gives them free reign to try to take the country by force, or cause civil war. That's in no one's interests because that gives terrorists a country with no structural leadership to play around in - basically, it creates a new pre-9/11 Afghanistan.

There are no good solutions to this mess, but bailing on the country is the worst of all of them.

 

What I was saying is why can't US at least let Iraqis state what they want to do with their country? If the ballot (not poll) results show the majority of Iraqis want foreign troops to stay and fight insurgents, I'll be the first one on this BBS to stop posting any anti-(this Iraqi)-war stuff.

 

I'm not sold on leaving Iraq, but I am entertaining that idea. I understand what the arguments are about encouraging the insurgents etc.

But how much good are we doing staying there? I think our main purpose is training the new Iraqi security forces, but it seems that we are targets, and each slip up involving human rights abuses will only encourage insurgents and terrorists as much if not more than a timetable for withdraw.

We can't even control the area around the Baghdad airport, and even the old green zone wasn't entirely under our control. The electricity is now worse than it was prior to the invasion, the oil isnt' flowing to such an extent that it is helping out very much. I really wonder how much good we are doing.

 

Perhaps Basso and Giddyup have been encoding secret signals in their posts to manipulate me unconsciously like the Manchurian Candidate.

 

If we left Iraq, Iraqi civilians would get crushed. The term "insurgent" isn't even accurate, since these guys want to crush people, not rise up. I'm not sure what the point of such a poll would be, it clearly would be bad to leave.

 

i think you're right. i'm not happy about it. but i'm not sure it's the "right" thing to do...to invade a country and then leave them high and dry in a power vacuum.

 

I think the Administration is right on this one, for reasons already made pretty clear by Sishir and Major.

 

Not poll, man, not poll.

 

Suggestion:

1. U.S. secretly meets with Shiite, Sunnis, Kurd factions (the leaders). Tell them they have 3 months before the announcement- "We are leaving"

Tell them the message will be the training of the security forces is moving ahead of schedule.

Tell them that the insurgents will soon be Iraq's problem and they are going to deal with it at some point or the other. We are going to be out in 12 months, they can go beg the U.N. for more help, but ours will be over. We will give them some technical help and humanitarian aid and we will make one arms deal with them.

2. Then in 3 months make the announcement of a 12 month withdrawal plan.

3. Execute the plan and live with the consequences.

4. Focus on healing the returning war veterans and honoring their service. Then give full attention to domestic issues.

5. Figure out a better way to get oil and gas.

6. Ditch Cheney and Halliburton.

7. Have the CIA go ahead and capture Bin Laden.

 

What I was saying is why can't US at least let Iraqis state what they want to do with their country? If the ballot (not poll) results show the majority of Iraqis want foreign troops to stay and fight insurgents, I'll be the first one on this BBS to stop posting any anti-(this Iraqi)-war stuff.

Because you don't vote on things like that. Citizens aren't expected to have all the information to making informed decisions on things like that - I know it sounds harsh, but that's why we elect leaders. The US elected Bush to make decisions that affect the entire nation. We have a right to question his decisions and vote him out of office, but we don't vote on whether we go to war with Iraq. The random rural person in some remote province of Iraq has no idea what the repercussions are of US troops leaving. They vote for leaders who can make educated decisions on those things.

But how much good are we doing staying there? I think our main purpose is training the new Iraqi security forces, but it seems that we are targets, and each slip up involving human rights abuses will only encourage insurgents and terrorists as much if not more than a timetable for withdraw.


To me, this is just a case for doing it right, but not for leaving. First off, us being the targets, sadly, is a good thing for Iraqi forces - it lets them figure out how to get things together while we're "drawing the fire" so to speak. Not good for us, but helpful for them. Second, if we can't even overcome the Iraqi resistance, what chance do the still-untrained Iraqi forces have against them? We'd basically be creating a civil war.

You could argue we went in for any of three general reasons:

(1) WMDs
(2) To establish a beachhead for democracy in the ME
(3) Fight terrorism

If we leave, we will have found no WMDs, left democracy a complete failure (and thus discourage it in every neighboring country who sees it as non-functional), and created an open breeding/training ground for terrorists. Any chance we might ever have for winning over the Middle East will be completely and totally gone. We may not know the right solution, but we have to find it.

 

So let's see... word of the plan leaks, only encouraging the insurgency. Once the US leaves and "lives with the consequences", Iraq becomes a new Afghanistan with factions fighting and no central rule of law, and 3 to 5 years from now, we have another 9/11. Great.

 

Let's send the Hollywood and Media Elite to Iraq to make friends with the terrorists and insurgents-- voluntary of course. This problem will be resolved in no time.

 

1. There were no WMD
2. It is not a democracy and democracies end in failure soon enough on their own.
3. Terrorists don't need any more breeding/training ground they have plenty- Phillipines, China, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Balkans, etc (short list)

 

I see no end in sight if we stay, although leaving will officially kick off the Iraqi Civil War.

How will it turn out? I think Beavis said it best, "the streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers."

 

1. That's besides the point. I wasn't arguing the validity of the reasoning, just that these were all the reasons provided at one time or another.

2. Iraq IS a democracy. All democracies start out sketchy. The US had freaking wild-west justice for half its existence. The problem is that they also have a very strong foreign and domestic presence fighting against democracy, which WE brought to them. It's up to us to clean up the situation we created.

3. Ummm, do you not recognize the difference between what those countries are for Al Queda and what Afghanistan was? There's a reason AQ headquartered in Afghanistan and not any of those other places. There are great benefits to having lawlessness and no central authority. Iraq would become another Afghanistan, not another China.

 

I appologize, because I was being somewhat facetious. I have no answer to our exit plan.

Iraq has three antagonists- the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds plus the insurgents.
The Shiites are the majority.

These factions are not going to get along - probably ever (they were forced to by the dictatorship- they were ruled by terror and an iron fist).

Insurgents are going to continue to disrupt and destabilize Iraq as they are doing now even if we stay. In fact the longer we stay the worse it will get. We are breeding the strength of the insurgency- Why? because militant terrorist insurgents are galvanized across the globe and the U.S. presense in Iraq is there absolute best target.

We have the most powerful high tech military on the planet, we can blow Iraq to dust, but fight urban terror war in a populace is something we are not well equipped for. We will suffer more and more casualties while only solidifying the opportunity for insurgents to enter the country and recruit.

A far better course would be for the CIA to go ahead and take down al-Queda. al-Queda and the CIA have a long history. CIA assets and infiltration is thorough in these groups and has a long history- back to the Russian conflict, the Balkans, etc. The CIA is good. They are very good. They can turn coat on Osama and the rest of the network and deliver a severe blow to the terror side of things.

Terrorists would resurface eventually but they would be severely limited and set back if they lost all their CIA support. The CIA manipulated, supported, infiltrated and used al-Queda for years. They worked with al-Queda in the Balkans and extensively during the Russian war. The CIA is very big in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan- Three key players in the terror network.

I really don't think we have figured out the oil-gas and pipeline issues fully to know our next step in the middle east. We aren't going to bring the mililtary home until we know it fits the next step in us controlling the region.

Over-all oil, gas and pipelines in the middle east are the driving forces.

Don't forget drug trafficking- drug business is a tremendously important cash assett to the U.S.

 

You bring up good points, and I am not convinced that we should pull out. The one thing I would disagree with is that we are taking fire that would be directed at the Iraqi security forces. They seem to be targets as much if not more as we are. I think the difference is that once we were gone, foreign fighters wouldn't enter into Iraq as much.

Making the best out of what we have done, I wish someone would come up with a workable plan for us to stay there and help stabilize Iraq. I am just wondering if we are doing more stabilizing or destabilizing at the moment.