The Case for a Pullout Date
On Thursday, the Senate narrowly passed a spending bill, already passed by the House, that ordered an October 1 pullout of US troops from Iraq. Bush has said he'll veto it. While I think October might be too early, I do think it is time we set a date. Rather than either immediate or indefinite withdrawal, setting a pullout date is the best policy for Iraq. Here's my thinking:
If we set a date, we will force key Iraqis to start worrying. Members of the government, if they wished to keep their jobs, would have to scramble to get security forces trained and functioning bureaucrats in place. It may be naive to imagine that the government can suddenly pull itself together. But it is equally so to think that given more years it eventually will. What the Iraqi government needs is more incentives, or perhaps disincentives.
But more important are the militias. The New York Times quoted Abdul Mehdi Mutairi, one of Moktada al-Sadr's officials, as saying, "In order to drive out the occupation, we need to build up the security forces; then we can have a timetable." Sadr is openly critical of the U.S. He stirs up resentment and, most probably, violence against U.S. forces and interests. But he still relies on the U.S. presence to prevent outright war. These semi-political, semi-organized militias don't want an outright civil war full of foreign influence and with an uncertain outcome. So let's give Sadr what he claims he wants. Let's set a pullout date, an end to the occupation. Sadr and co. would be forced to scramble to set up a stable system to fill the security void. The stability he seeks might not be the stability Bush originally had in mind, but right now any stability will do.
The main argument I've heard against a pullout date is that, given an exact date, the insurgents or the Iranians will simply wait until the U.S. leaves and then attack the fragile system that remains. If this is true, which I doubt (because I bet the insurgency would just continue), I think that would be a great result. First, many insurgents are simply incensed by the U.S. presence, and their anger may well die down after we leave. As for the more sectarian violence, if this really were temporarily halted, it could buy the Iraqis time to set up a functional system. I do admit that there should be some fear of Iranian influence, but hopefully we can count on a revived Iraqi nationalism to counter it.
The other argument against a date is, of course, that we would be admitting defeat. I don't know who is going to do the admitting--certainly not Bush who has already declared victory. But seriously, what were the criteria for victory? We got Sadaam. We ensured there was no WMD. We needn't worry directly about oil: it'll find its way to the market. (Who the money goes to and how they spend it does matter in the long term, however.) So stability is the only remaining goal. If I'm right, U.S. forces are actually standing in the way of stability. By setting a date and sticking to it, we will force the Iraqis to stop merely blaming us and start working while we provide security for the transition period. It's win-win. Neither immediate or indefinite withdrawal has those benefits.
Interesting to note: Lieberman voted with the Republicans, but Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith (R-OR) voted with the Democrats.
Here is the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1591
If we set a date, we will force key Iraqis to start worrying. Members of the government, if they wished to keep their jobs, would have to scramble to get security forces trained and functioning bureaucrats in place. It may be naive to imagine that the government can suddenly pull itself together. But it is equally so to think that given more years it eventually will. What the Iraqi government needs is more incentives, or perhaps disincentives.
But more important are the militias. The New York Times quoted Abdul Mehdi Mutairi, one of Moktada al-Sadr's officials, as saying, "In order to drive out the occupation, we need to build up the security forces; then we can have a timetable." Sadr is openly critical of the U.S. He stirs up resentment and, most probably, violence against U.S. forces and interests. But he still relies on the U.S. presence to prevent outright war. These semi-political, semi-organized militias don't want an outright civil war full of foreign influence and with an uncertain outcome. So let's give Sadr what he claims he wants. Let's set a pullout date, an end to the occupation. Sadr and co. would be forced to scramble to set up a stable system to fill the security void. The stability he seeks might not be the stability Bush originally had in mind, but right now any stability will do.
The main argument I've heard against a pullout date is that, given an exact date, the insurgents or the Iranians will simply wait until the U.S. leaves and then attack the fragile system that remains. If this is true, which I doubt (because I bet the insurgency would just continue), I think that would be a great result. First, many insurgents are simply incensed by the U.S. presence, and their anger may well die down after we leave. As for the more sectarian violence, if this really were temporarily halted, it could buy the Iraqis time to set up a functional system. I do admit that there should be some fear of Iranian influence, but hopefully we can count on a revived Iraqi nationalism to counter it.
The other argument against a date is, of course, that we would be admitting defeat. I don't know who is going to do the admitting--certainly not Bush who has already declared victory. But seriously, what were the criteria for victory? We got Sadaam. We ensured there was no WMD. We needn't worry directly about oil: it'll find its way to the market. (Who the money goes to and how they spend it does matter in the long term, however.) So stability is the only remaining goal. If I'm right, U.S. forces are actually standing in the way of stability. By setting a date and sticking to it, we will force the Iraqis to stop merely blaming us and start working while we provide security for the transition period. It's win-win. Neither immediate or indefinite withdrawal has those benefits.
Interesting to note: Lieberman voted with the Republicans, but Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith (R-OR) voted with the Democrats.
Here is the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1591
Labels: policy
posted by Brian at 3:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home