Bush's Humiliation, Not America's

Since maintaining the status quo in Iraq is plainly untenable, the debate over what course to take seems to be boiling down to two options: pull out slowly in a phased reduction of troops, or increase troop levels and try to stabilize the country. But both these options will have the same effect: that of escalating the conflict and making it impossible for us to ever leave. (Indeed, escalation is essentially the stated purpose of increasing troops.) If we care about our troops, and if we want to minimize our country's (sadly, inevitable) humiliation, the only thing to do is to pull out as quickly as possible.

Even with the troops we have, they can't control the country, or even make a creditable pretense of it. Insurgents, terrorists, militias, and death squads seem to operate at will even on the streets of Baghdad. And God only knows what they're doing in out-of-the way corners of the country--no doubt exactly as they please. If our troops can't even control the capital now, what makes you think they're going to be able to do anything when the force is halved? Or reduced even further? They'll be open to all kinds of attack, and it won't be only of the hit and run variety either; there will be sustained battles. As long as there's any US military in Iraq, even in "advisory" roles, they will be a target. The best course is to mass troops into large units to prevent reprisal attacks, and march them straight out of the country.

Some, such as Sen. Carl Levin, argue that a phased withdrawal will allow the Iraqi government to assume more power and to gradually take over the defense of the country. This is a pipe dream: they have only the power that our troops provide; the less the troops, the less their power. Everybody in the Iraqi government seems to understand this; they are all hedging their bets by associating themselves with some Shiite militia or other. The Iraqi government is going to be toppled sooner or later; the only question is if we want our troops there when the country devolves into anarchy. If there are too few U.S. troops, they won't be able to defend themselves. And the people of Iraq, who have watched our men run roughshod over their country, are not going to let them off scott free.

Those against leaving Iraq immediately argue that the country will devolve into a civil war, possibly even resulting in ethnic cleansing by the Shiites against the Sunnis. They are right to fear that: Iraq certainly will devolve into civil war. But hey, we should have thought of that before we destroyed their government. Now a new one is going to have to be built from the ground up. It did no good for us to impose the present puppet government, as no one in Iraq is fooled by it. The Baath party was, unfortunately, as close as Iraq is going to get to a democracy for a good many years, probably decades. With Saddam gone, the climate was right for moderation and negotiation, but now, because of our heedless insistence on purging all elements of the Baath party, Iraq is going to wind up with a fundamentalist Muslim regime far to the right of even Iran. That's a foregone conclusion, and there's nothing we can do about it now.

If we stay in Iraq, even if--especially if--we reduce troop levels--it leaves room for an incident that could lead to an escalation. Am I the only one who believes President Bush capable of just such a ploy? Instead, why not just say the political climate has shifted and it's time to get out? This allows us to save face to some extent. Let's take this opportunity, before it becomes the Democrats war. Now, we can just say it was Bush's failed war, and we're not going to elect a lunatic like him again. We can say it's Bush's humiliation rather than America's. This would be strengthened if we were to follow up with serious impeachment proceedings. In any event, we need to pressure Bush to start the pullout now. The longer we wait, the more complicit we become, the worse the humiliation we suffer, and the more it becomes the Democrat's--and America's war. If Bush is allowed his way, he'll leave the Democrats with a quagmire a million times worse than what his father left Clinton with Somalia.

Those who argue for a phased withdrawal tend to want to put it off for as long as possible; a fixed time-frame is anathema to them. This just seems to be a ploy to delay the inevitable in the hope that some miracle will happen. Democrats are ultimately in thrall to the same oil interests as Republicans, and they want to keep the "pipeline" of profits running for as long as possible. These people pride themselves on their real politic, but all I see is an abundance of posturing and politics-as-usual and very little of the kind of courage and clear thinking we so desperately need at this point.

Ed Hamilton
www.hotlechelseablog.com