Deanna TaylorThe Way Out of War: A Blueprint for Leaving Iraq Now
George S. McGovern and William R. Polk have developed a plan for the U.S. to get out of Iraq and for the Iraqi people to get the genuine assistance needed to rebuild their country.
Staying in Iraq is not an option. Many Americans who were among the most eager to invade Iraq now urge that we find a way out. These Americans include not only civilian “strategists” and other “hawks” but also senior military commanders and, perhaps most fervently, combat soldiers. Even some of those Iraqis regarded by our senior officials as the most pro-American are determined now to see American military personnel leave their country. Polls show that as few as 2 percent of Iraqis consider Americans to be liberators. This is the reality of the situation in Iraq. We must acknowledge the Iraqis’ right to ask us to leave, and we should set a firm date by which to do so.
We suggest that phased withdrawal should begin on or before December 31, 2006, with the promise to make every effort to complete it by June 30, 2007.
The report is quite lengthy yet detailed and well thought out. Basically the plan calls for the U.S. to withdraw and allocate for the planning and organization of the reconstruction the sum of $1 billion, or roughly four days of current wartime expenditure. After the planning phase is complete, Iraq and the U.S. would come to terms on what the reconstruction payment would be to Iraq from the U.S.
….if reconstruction funds are portioned out to village, town, and city councils, the enhancement of such groups will go far toward the avowed American aim of strengthening democracy, given that Iraqis at the “grass roots” level would be taking charge of their own affairs.
Other plan highlights include (please read the entire article - these are just highlighted concepts):
* Dismantle all the U.S.military bases (there over 100 camps, some of which have been turned over adn 14 permanent bases, one of which has a Pizza Hut and a jail)
* Allow Iraq to void all contracts entered into for the exploration, development and marketing of oil during the American occupation
* Offer through international or NGO’s further financial inducements to Iraq’s recovery such as fellowhsips for the training of lawyers, judges, journalists, social works and otehr civil-affiars workers. Two days’ cost of the current war, or $500 million, would ably fund such an effort.
* Advise the Iraqi government to request the temporary services of an international stabilization force to police the country during and immediately after the period of American withdrawal. The police force would have no need for tanks or artillery or offensive aircraft but only light equipment. It would not attempt, as have American troops, to battle the insurgents. Indeed, after the withdrawal of American troops, as well as British regular troops and mercenary forces, the insurgency, which was aimed at achieving that objective, would almost immediately begin to lose public support. Insurgent gunmen would either put down their weapons or become publicly identified as outlaws.
* Help revive the Iraqi public health system by rebuilding hospitals and clinics
* While mourning the lost lives of the more than 2600 U.S. soldiers (for the “meager” pay they received) we should also find a way to experess condolences for the large number of Iraqis incarcerated, tortured, incapaciated, or killed:
This may seem a difficult gesture to many Americans. It may strike them as weak, or as a slur on our patriotism. Americans do not like to admit that they have done wrong. We take comfort in the notion that whatever the mistakes of the war and occupation, we have done Iraq a great service by ridding it of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Perhaps we have, but in the process many people’s lives have been disrupted, damaged, or senselessly ended. A simple gesture of conciliation would go a long way toward shifting our relationship with Iraq from one of occupation to one of friendship. It would be a gesture without cost but of immense and everlasting value - and would do more to assuage the sense of hurt in the world than all of the actions above.
November 11th, 2006 at 7:22 am
I thought James Baker, Lee Hamilton and Mr. Gates (and of course, GW) already had this under control?
November 11th, 2006 at 11:02 am
I think that would be a great plan for leaving. If our country needs one thing it would be humility. Humility to recognize a mistake and chose a new path.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Deanna,
Thanks for submitting this. It is the most sane thing I’ve read regarding Iraq in some time.
Seeing Ex Senator George McGovern when he was in Salt Lake City speaking about Social Security was inspiring. He remains a statesman and voice for reason on many fronts!
November 11th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Sounds like the same blueprint that had us cut and run out of Vietnam that cost the lives of millions of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians under the Viet Cong, Kamere Rouge and Pol Pot. Do you really want to return to the killing fields this time in Iraq with an even greater potential for loss of life and far more severe consequences to the region and our own country? The mass killings didn’t seem to bother the left after Vietnam so I suppose you will also not care what happens in Iraq as long as US troops are no longer there.
I’m all for pulling out when the time is right, but if we pull out now Iran and Syria not to mention Al Qaeda will quickly fill the void. We would be forced to re invade Iraq but in much worse circumstances. Are you prepared to betray the people in Iraq who have helped us. They will be the first to the slaughter since they collaborated with us. I know you liberals care a great deal about what the world thinks of us, so what will our allies think if we leave to give our enemies free rein to murder, rape, pillage, and torture? Doesn’t sound like you have much regard for the Iraqi people if you want to unleash the Hell that will be theirs if we prematurely bug out.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:44 am
The people in irak who “helped” us? You mean helped Bush and Israel while their own people were slaughtered. They are called collaborators. A bullet in the head is all they deserve, though we will probably air vac them all to usa to really foul the pond.
Can you imagine the old world scum that could end up deposited in our country. Shudder, Shudder.
Sounds like Ken is a front man for the ballet dancer who wants us to stay in iraq. Go sign up as a blackwater contractor yu f—. Then we’ll see how smart you are.
How long did it take the vietnamese to solve the problem after we got the f—- out.
Three days idiot. And the country has remained peaceful ever since.
Don’t blame the killing fields on the locals homie. We get full credit for every body.
Down with collaborators.
November 11th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
There is a military tactical problem with leaving. Our troops are spread all over the place. It has been said that since the American focus was on “terror” the insurgency made a point of commiting such acts in every corner of Iraq that they could. This has led to our troops being in every nook and cranny of Iraq, and as such severely undermanned, and spread out. A recipe for disaster when the bottom falls out.
The logistics of getting our troops out become daunting as we can’t use the roads anymore effectively and have to chooper or fly everyone to Kuwait. As this obvious attempt occurs everyone, and their dog, will be taking their parting shots. It won’t be pretty. Expect Shiites and Sunnis to cooperate fully on this one until we are gone, then they can get back to the important job of killing one another.
It is ironic that after all this, a shiite iranian based group will rule iraq, unless our former favorites the sunnis can knock them silly, which they are fully capable of doing, which is why we chose saddam(sunnis) in the first place. Now our shiite enemies that humilated us when carter was president, will hang our favorite guy that isn’t a jew in the mideast. saddam once received as much money from us as israel. Go figure. The disaster is so complete you have to think that what has occured by why of the chaos was pre planned and purposeful. I will refer you to huntington, and Clash of Civilizations for some insight on doing everything wrong and why.
WE have been Sun Tzu’ed and the verdict and settlement is going to be very expensive. With no clear goals to maintain and acheive, a military force is like a ice cube on a hot Deseret day. Doesn’t matter who you are.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Today’s paper reports that Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias are dropping mortar rounds on each other on a daily basis now in Baghdad. We have 150,000 soldiers in-country and can’t even stop these mortar attacks. As Rep. Murtha has said for a year now, there is nothing further that we can accomplish militarily in Iraq. Both the Dems and GOP ought to understand this basic fact. Nobody should send U.S. soldiers to die just to avoid admitting defeat– that would be Vietnam all over again.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
When Benjamin Franklin was away from America in Britain for several years, he so lost touch with America, that he had no idea the severity of the rebellion that was occurring in his own country over the Townshend acts, etc. When George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld decided to attack Saddam, their only perspective was the ease with which George senior had prosecuted Operation Desert Storm. Hindsight shows the paucity of that perspective. When America, along with France, Germany, and others built up Saddam, it was with the short-sighted notion of creating balance in the region against the mad Iranian mullahs. Another huge mistake that can’t be taken back.
We are, unfortunately, faced with a situation that must be taken in light of itself. Saddam is deposed, but his minions are not. Mr McGovern has an excellent theory, which I fear will not play itself out well in reality. It is hard to imagine that if the Americans left at this juncture, that there would be anything less than a huge escalation of the mayhem.
News coming from Iraq comes predominantly from Baghdad, and from al Anbar. Ask the rest of the provinces and a majority will say they are better off than under Saddam. That, being said, is not saying much, however.
The rate of death in Iraq the past 3 years is high, but is not likely higher than the rate of death under the Hussein regime. But the current rate of death can be nearly all laid at the foot of terrorism and not the US Military as is so often implied. And the rate of death currently is directly attributable to a culture of domination and death that was instituted under the regime of Saddam the madman. Those bent on perpetuating their former pedestals of power will stop at nothing to ensure that perpetuation.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Yes, and pretty soon they may just decide to shell our troops in concert. What are are the mighty dems going to do then?
Iraq can get worse progressives, much, much worse. In the mind of a Parthian, it has only begun. The sunnis under saddam killed 1 million shiites during the iran/iraq war, now they won’t even have to commute to do it. At the time the US gave saddam logistical support(satellite data on troop movenments, chemical weapons, etc.) and 4 billion US a year. Shiites have reason to be angry at US, and since we have sold out the sunnis, they too have reason now. Wait until saddam hangs, or wait until his double hangs, or whatever.
Semper Fi in the middle of THAT!
Ah, the grand old days of saddam, giving him control over kuwait is going to look cheap after all this is over, if it ever is.
Something bad is coming, and we are in no way ready.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
My my Frank. You are quite the blogger you little devil. And here I am giving YOU advice (recent e-mail).
So I went to your other mil-blog, and went right to this post and I have to tell you, I consider this kind of rhetoric to be no different than bold faced lying. Maybe you justify lying as does the Bush administration by telling yourself the ends justify the means. I call it lying and no different than calling us all stupid.
Do you really mean to call us all stupid Frank? Do you really think Kerry was insulting the troops, when anybody with half a brain knows DAMNED WELL he was insulting Bush?
I won’t ban you for being a propagandist, but I will also call a spade a spade, and you my good man are on well on the side of a cabal of men who may well hang as traitos to this country.
Exploiting the uniform with get you nowhere fast.
Take a good hard listen to Olbermann’s response to your “Kerry needs to apologize BULLSHIT.”
Know that the rest of us have heard it too, and I dare you to come back here and tell us Kerry needs to apologize.
It is YOU SIR who needs to apologize for calling us all stupid. When did wearing my country’s uniform give you the license to call us stupid?
If you are going to call us stupid and be a shrill, please take the uniform bullshit off your site, or stop recklessly parroting the garbage fed you by idiots who never served, and let Frank the average man call us stupid.
I await your response SIR!
November 11th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Cliff,
Having been a member of the military, I take a different perspective on what Kerry meant. I do not claim to be infallibly right, but I was personally insulted by his comments and have no reason to believe he meant otherwise (especially in light of his initial refusal to apologize) My intent was not to lie or imply that people who disagree with me are stupid. Such an implication is not an efficient arrow in the quiver of persuasion.
Being surprised by your comments regarding my Kerry post I went back and re-read it to see whether I might have inadvertently implied that I thought people who disagreed with me were stupid. I said in the post that “People who think they are a gift to the world often make stupid comments.” But that was as offensive as I thought it got. My perspective is that Kerry thinks he is a gift to the world, and that the comment was stupid. I expect you’d agree with me on the stupidness of his comment.
Lest I give the wrong impression, I do think Bush needs to be “insulted” (called on the carpet) from time to time, as I implied in my above comment to this post. But Kerry could have done a much better job of it than a joke that was taken by me and many other military members as a “direct” insult.
I didn’t like Kerry for president, but neither did I like Bush. I have never voted for a Bush, considering them to be part of a cabal that has undue influence on US and world politics. Bush has done many political things that are in my opinion inane, especially with regard to Iraq. But, politics aside, I see the process of liberty that the people of Iraq tasted for a short time a desperately needed process.
Just like you I am fashioned by my prejudices, whether right or wrong. I don’t consider it propaganda or lying when I simply express my personal feelings. I’m sorry you see it that way.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Frank,
I believe your post says “I agree with President Bush that John Kerry owes us Iraqi veterans an apology.” Furthermore, you admit, “the video clip I saw didn’t give time to see the response.”
So I guess it’s up to your Frank. You can stand firmly on your admittedly unqualified assumption, “Everyone in the crowd where John Kerry belittled America’s service in Iraq should have booed him–maybe they did,” or you can do the work yourself, and be really sure about whether people booed or not.
One way is the way of integrity, the other is the way of a shrill propagandist and (unfortunately) a Marine with an uniformed opinion.
The choice is yours. Sempre Fi.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Military people, consider that being insulted by kerry is a reflection of your own mind, the conscience that rebels when confronted with a combat veteran like yourselves, claiming that if you don’t study history you can end up like bush, bringing those he has lead to great harm.
It isn’t about you. You follow orders…like kerry did in Vietnam, and realize, that if you believe what you believe about kerry to be true, he has in this instant called himself STUPID, as he was a simple follower once, in the very same military in which you have served, also lead by several people that didn’t do their homework.
So if this is the case, before kerry ever insulted the troops, he insulted himself for his own service in a FAILED CAUSE!!
November 11th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
I’m guessing Frank, you are somewhat new to politics so let me save you some embarrassment. I believe it was O’Reilly (if not Limbaugh) who began to institutionalize the “I have and equal right to my opinion” cannard. To the intellectually lazy, It’s come as a gift from God that one can equate disagreement with discrimination.
Let me give you an example. Today O’Reilly equates people who call him a bigot for gay bashing, with racists.
The logic of your reaction to my calling your post propaganda, is an eloquent use of that canard, but only if you are playing to an audience that doesn’t know any better.
You will not find that audience here.
You said, “I went back and re-read it to see whether I might have inadvertently implied that I thought people who disagreed with me were stupid.”
I would say repeating disingenuous propaganda DOES imply people stupid.
I will only explain this once, so listen up, because this is a classic case. When Kerry essentially called Bush stupid, Rove or somebody of his ilk called a meeting of his “propaganda machine” and ordered them to SPIN it as Kerry called the troops stupid.
Since Rove knew that was not true, he was asking people to perpetuate a lie. You drank it up, swallowed it whole, and then went out like an obedient little Indian, and repeated it. You either made the choice NOT to investigate any further, or just went with it because for you, perhaps truth is not as important as results.
There is no integrity in uttering uninformed opinions even with qualifications like, “the video clip I saw didn’t give time to see the response.”
November 11th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
I’ve been called stupid by people less intelligent than Frank. That doesn’t make it so. Especially since thier ‘intelligence’ allows them to be suckered by the likes of G.W, and Dick Cheney. That about says it.
November 12th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Even if Kerry meant what he said, or as the Bushies interpret what he said, he does have a point. I mean, come on folks, aside from Pat Tillman, you don’t see a lot of high educational achievers or the wealthy folks joining the military. I sure as hell wouldn’t join, but then again, I went to college and got generally C’s or better. Having said that, if the Bush girls join, then I will join, too.