Responsible withdrawal

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via Kaplan, two proposals for withdrawal from Iraq -- one from Steven Simon, the other from Juan Cole.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for anyone serious about U.S. policy in Iraq -- that is, about the war and occupation -- to read all three pieces (the two proposals and Kaplan's analysis). I cannot do them justice in this short post.

Kaplan: "They both reject the Bush administration's stay-the-course surge and the congressional Democrats' insistence on a fixed timetable for withdrawal. And they're also both utterly unlikely to receive the slightest attention from President George W. Bush."

Both Simon and Cole argue that "the surge and the new counterinsurgency strategy almost certainly won't work, in part because the war is not just an insurgency war but also a civil war involving three sects (and divisions within those sects) against one another)"; that "the U.S. occupation strengthens the insurgents and broadens their support at least as much as it weakens or isolates them"; and that "real hell would break out if U.S. forces suddenly or arbitrarily withdrew."

Yes, that's right -- and this is important for critics of the war and proponents of withdrawal to keep in mind, particularly when confronted with slanderous accusations from the other side (e.g., "cut-and-run," "Defeatocrats," etc.) -- withdrawal, or an end to the war as we know it, would not necessarily (and certainly not preferably) involve a complete evacuation of U.S. forces. If all-out civil war and genocide are to be avoided, a responsible withdrawal would involve "a timetable to be negotiated with the Iraqi government and in tandem with a separate, broader negotiation to end the civil war," "active engagement with all of Iraq's neighbors," the maintenance of some U.S. forces in Iraq "to secure Baghdad International Airport, the Green Zone, and access routes in between" (Democrats also support "continued funding for troops involved in counterterrorism, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting U.S. personnel), and "a stepped-up U.S. military presence elsewhere in the Persian Gulf".

I have conflated the two proposals here, but these are the key elements of a phased withdrawal that would allow the U.S. to get out of Iraq without Iraq falling into complete chaos.

Bush won't pursue either proposal -- he prefers to invite Democrats to the White House not to negotiate but to lecture them on his ongoing plans for Iraq -- but, and Kaplan is right about this, his successor should.

Any plan for Iraq involves risk -- even a well-staged withdrawal along the lines of these two sensible proposals could result in chaos -- but what other viable options are there?

It seems to me that this is a risk worth taking.

Now.