My position that we should bring our troops home now has been criticized as naïve and unnecessary. So a view of the opinion landscape on this subject could be helpful and I'll spend some time over the next few days looking at even more opinion, trying to get the best of the ideas.
Donald Rumsfeld said, "Our exit strategy in Iraq is success; it's that simple. The objective is not to leave [but rather is] to succeed in our mission." If this is the case, then our mission needs to be better defined -- as does "success."
Since administration officials now admit that we can "no longer expect to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges," we need to know what we should expect. And perhaps that should be one of our original intents -- to bring democracy to Iraq.
Which we have succeeded in doing.
There is an interim government. There is almost a constitution. General elections for a permanent government are expected in January. Security forces are being trained.
With all that, there are the makings for Iraq to take care of Iraqis. Is this then enough for success?
It should be. Particularly since a Zogby poll, taken in Iraq in January 2005, found that 82 percent of Sunnis and 69 percent of Shiites favor the withdrawal of American and coalition forces "either immediately or after an elected government is in place." We're long past the immediate -- and even past the elected government.
Isn't it then time to leave and let the Iraqis run Iraq?
But how?
Can we just send a bunch of planes and bring everyone home right now?
Probably not realistically.
No one wants more war-dead. And as much as I would idealistically like to bring all our soldiers home right now, that probably isn't the best idea. But, we certainly need to find a workable plan to get our troops out of harm's way while at the same time not leaving Iraqis facing an imminent civil war.
One way to solve this dilemma is to acknowledge that, as Tom Hayden says:
- There is no military solution
- Reconstruction is impossible under occupation
- We must set a new direction
Once acknowledged, we can then see why many experienced leaders suggest that the best way to win the peace (for us and for Iraq) and to end the war is to turn away from military battles and focus on political realities.
Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman said, "You have to have an olive branch, always. You have to have amnesties. You have to have a path always open to let the enemy back down, get off the limb, become reassimilated."
Using that reasoning, some suggest that we need to negotiate with leaders of various secular Iraqi insurgent groups -- whose primary goal is to end the occupation of their country and who are increasingly angry with extremists who target innocent Iraqi civilians. Many of these secular insurgents are willing "to surrender in return for immediate and total U.S. withdrawal and major concessions to Sunnis in the new political order." Thus, if they became part of the political process, there would be more Iraqis having more of a say and thus more buy in while at the same time effectively isolating the extremists from the Iraqi society.
Others, including Michael Wilson of Defense Watch, some members of the EU, and even some Iraqi bloggers writing with despair (although I can't remember which ones) suggest breaking Iraq into three areas (Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd) with the right to self-determination -- and a hope for eventual unity.
Veterans for Commons Sense suggest the best way to to get out is "a staged withdrawal over a period of time; minimizing military operations and dramatically increasing support for democratic institutions, the courts, civil society and infrastructure in Iraq."
Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, believes, as the new elections near, "that Iraqi politicians, as they look forward to the next elections ... as they begin to compete more and more for power and social support in the context of an insurgency which is less focused on the foreign occupier and more against Iraqi society, the Iraqi leaders themselves at some point will begin to compete with one another in saying increasingly publicly, over time increasingly loudly and clearly... that I favor an American departure. And I am confident that we can deal with the insurgency more effectively on our own and not through the Americans." He suggests that as this occurs, it is the time for troops to be withdrawn since letting the Iraqis deal with the Iraqis is what democracy is about and thus we would have been successful.
If we are really trying to help Iraq be a democracy, then we also need to let them do it -- and do it their way. We can help support the creation of democratic institutions, but don't need 140,000 troops to do so.
As Fred Iklé, author of Every War Must End and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the first and second Reagan administration, says, "Punitive occupations don't work, especially when administered by a democracy."
We have seen this. We know this. We must remember this.
It is time to end the military occupation and begin working for peace, begin structuring -- with Iraqi support -- the best, most expedient way to transfer power over themselves to themselves so that we can begin bringing our troops home so that the Iraqis can begin their own democratic practices. ---
Written in collaboration with Jennifer Hicks.