The Light at the End of the Tunnel
When I was in college, the tired joke behind the title of this post was a question: “Is it sunlight or an oncoming train?”
And that’s precisely what we don’t know about Iraq.
What we do know is this: With a majority of the democratically elected Iraqi government voting for us to leave, and with 11 moderate Republicans stepping up to look Bush squarely in the eye and tell him (effectively) “time’s up” — the end game is near. We can definitely see the light at the end of the tunnel.
However, as the NYT ed board wrote today …
The really important question now facing Washington is the one Mr. Bush still refuses to address: how, while there is still some time left, to design an exit strategy that contains the chaos in Iraq and minimizes the damage to United States interests when American troops inevitably leave.
At Central Sanity yesterday, several co-bloggers, readers, and I got into a civil but spirited exchange regarding a post in which I confessed that, after months of equivocation, I have finally joined yesterday’s crew of 11 Mod-R’s, plus a long list of Dems and others, and concluded that “we should, as quickly and sanely as possible, get the hell out.”
The arguments played back to me by readers and co-bloggers were similar to what I’ve previously debated with the mirror: “But what about the Iraqi people? What about the bloodbath to follow? Don’t we have some responsibility to stop that? After all, we created this mess.”
Rightly or wrongly, we liberated the country from Saddam. Rightly or wrongly, we took them to the doorstep of Democracy and handed them the keys.
And now, their government is not stepping up to the plate. I don’t believe the line that they can’t step up; I think it’s a matter of will — and there have been conservative publications (The Economist, for one) that have reported the same.
Plus, there’s the factor of news reports … that suggest a majority of democratically elected Iraqi lawmakers want us out of there; they want to be a sovreign nation determining their own destiny. We have an obligation to let them try; and maybe this is the first sign of their “will” to succeed.
Face it, at a certain point you can’t help those who won’t help themselves — and you can’t ask noble people (like our friends, relatives, and their fellow soliders) to continue to put their necks on the line to help those who won’t help themselves.
Finally, once again, this is about sane withdrawal, not careless withdrawal. It’s about putting pressure on people to help themselves by not letting them simply rely on our already too-thin resources to do it for them.
Later in that same comment (consistent with, though not identical to, thoughts offered separately by Mod-R blogger Dennis Sanders), I suggested my position was ultimately consistent with a — wait for it — conservative Republican philosophy …
Bedrock among conservative principles are these: limited involvement in foreign conflicts; promoting human liberty by encouraging if not forcing self reliance.
And now, this morning, after a relatively decent night’s sleep, I find my position has not changed. It is time for a sane but swift withdrawal, or again, as the NYT ed board put it: “an exit strategy that contains the chaos in Iraq and minimizes the damage to United States interests when American troops inevitably leave.” Importantly, it can’t be sane or swift, exit or contain. It must be both; it must incorporate the “genius of the and.”
So, does “swift but sane” mean July … September … January? I don’t know. The Generals should decide the timing, i.e., they should be given the authority to do what they’ve rarely been granted the authority to do in this Administration. Meanwhile, this Administration would be well advised to go back, crack open a copy of that Baker-Hamilton report — compiled by smart people who know a hell of a lot more than this Administration or any of us about foreign policy — and start implementing the remainder of their thoroughly considered, thoughtfully constructed bi-partisan recommendations.
Only then will we be able to hedge our bets that the light at the end of this tunnel is sunlight and not an oncoming train.
20 Responses to “The Light at the End of the Tunnel”
Welcome aboard.
I do know that the war is a total and absolute mess. How to leave with grace and honor and minimal chaos, I don’t know.
The B-H report was not fair to our allies in the Middle East.
As I see it, that is a contradition in terms. Withdrawal will automatically create more chaos, I fear.
It’s incredibly difficult, I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I feel for the ‘surge’ for a year, 75,000 troops for as long as it takes plan.
I heard reports that WH staffers are going after LaHood and others for leaking details about the meeting. So much for honesty and integrity for this WH, the
BorgRepublicans must be assimilated.Well, logistically September would probably be the earliest we could possibly manage to withdraw.
But let’s be honest here. The drawdown will not begin untill January 2009 regardless of what the American public thinks.
It could, or it could reduce the violence. We just don’t know but none of that matters anyway.
A year from now the situation will not be changed with the possible exception of the Iraqi parliament having voted to kick us out.
And of course, another 1000 or so dead kids at the current rate.
Rudi,
Surely they had to see that coming right?
Regardless, here’s a story from The Hill on it.
Bush aides berate GOP members
Michael beat me to it. Of course we all want to get out as quickly as possible and also contain the chaos, but what if that isn’t possible? What if “containing the chaos” requires a long term commitment?
I think the question of “should we stay” hinges on both, the moral question of our obligation (which Pete sums up by saying that we’re no longer obligated when the Iraqi’s don’t hold up their end, and I agree with that part) but also the question of what is in our best interest now.
Holly — If you have time to elaborate, or point me to other things along those lines you’ve written previoiusly, I’d appreciate it. Always willing to learn.
We may have liberated the Iraqis from Hussein, but we didn’t liberate them. We replaced his tyranny with our version of it.
Bush only granted elections after Ayatollah Sistani and his followers took to the street and demanded them. Then in Washington began to revise history and claimed that it was their idea to hold elections all along.
Then what happened during those elections? We spent millions of dollars supporting our preferred candidates there, and did what we could to subvert the other candidates.
Let’s not kid ourselves. The Iraqis don’t have a functioning or sovereign government. The “government” can’t claim it controls its own capital. The “government” can’t override the Army’s plan to build concrete walls in and around the city. The people don’t trust the “government” security forces.
You can blame the Iraqis all you want for the U.S. having destroyed their country, if that makes you sleep better at night. But you know in your heart of hearts that this is our fault, through and through.
I’m not going to say that I even begin to have the answer. I do know that the Bush administration is stalling for time- they have no intention of withdrawing troops, in September or at any other time. Cheney is in Saudi Arabia assuring King Abdullah of that as we speak.
Its true this was not the Iraqis fault, but it is their country. We can’t fight their civil war for them. I vote for letting the Iraqi parliament decide if we are still welcome in their country. Since we are there to give them democracy -lets see some in action. And then we should provide as much aid as possible to the refugees who had to leave their homes because they helped us or were caught in the middle.
Chris,
I don’t blame them for what we did. Nor do I think they are blameless in all respects.
I do think the Iraqi’s (at least their elected officials) should have stepped up sooner and louder, demanding the right to control their own destiny. And now they have done just that — and that alone suggests we should get the hell out.
You deny they have a sovereign gov’t, and yet, in your own post, you acknowledge that government’s vote for us to leave and seem to suggest that vote puts you and I pretty much on the same page.
So certainly, quibble with some of my language if you like; I’m fine with that. But at the end of the day, we apparently agree on the bottomline. Am I wrong?
Pete,
I’m glad you’ve come around, even if you’re come to the same conclusion from another line of thinking
As for the sovereign vs. puppet government issue, I’m not saying it’s black and white either way. The U.S. tried to influence the outcome of the elections but largely failed (their boy Chalabi is nowhere to be found). Ultimately, the Iraqi government is riddled with contradictions right now.
It’s full of Sadrists who aren’t loyal to the U.S. cause. It has virtually no support from the Sunni population. It’s sovereignty is limited by working within an acceptable framework from Washington.
So in effect, the government is staffed by anti-Americans but lacks the actual power to carry out any type of agenda.
The ‘ chaos will follow’ argument has valifity, but you have to continue the thought to the end. How can the ensuing chaos be avoided?
As I see it, the alternative is a decade or longer military presence in the face of increasing local opposition to us being there at all.
In the meantime, we are propping up a governement with goals clearly different from ours. They don’t seem to be worried about the ensuing chaos. By now, it looks like a lose-lose situation, Iran being the only winner.
What we need now is an exit strategy of when, not if. I just hope the administration is working on exit strategies A and B, maybe C.
As I see it, the alternative is a decade or longer military presence in the face of increasing local opposition to us being there at all.
If that isn’t the alternative, then someone should explain what other alternative exists.
This is one of many examples I see of leftwingers failing to achieve a balanced argument. The punditocracy, of course, doesn’t help with this, but part of why we’ve already been there longer than we were in WWII is because nobody has had to face political consequences of saying we should stay ten or twenty or a hundred years if that’s what it takes.
JJC-
Fine. Say that we should stay for 10 or 20 years.
Will you be contribuitng money to the effort? Or manpower?
Talk is cheap.
Does it even matter to anyone that the Iraqi Parliament wants us to have a timetable? Or are we admitting that we are a real occupation;that they do not legitemately run their own country? If they want us out , what right do we have to stay?
Kritter – 144 members of Parliment (out of 275) are co-sponsoring a bill for the US to set a timetable for withdrawal. It was presented to the Speaker and he has one week to submit it for discussion and a vote. The co-sponsors alone make it like to pass. This will be a true test of Bush and whether he really believes in Iraqi soverignty. My guess is that he will ignore it and rely on the UN resolution to give him cover to continue to occupation and us the US Veto to overcome any change in our mandate expiring at the end of this year. Meanwhile, he will find some Iraqi General to sign a SOF agreement that “legitimizes” our continued presence.
Bush ain’t leaving Iraq until he gets booted from the White House
Yes, jdledell, I was just on Mvdg’s site posting about the parliament’s timetable. I agree with every word you wrote. We will see that vote stifled, because in reality they are a puppet of the American occupation.
We are more worried about the oil falling into Iran’s or al queda’s hands than we are about sectarian genocide. Cheney is in S.A. tonight reassuring King Abdullah that despite that pesky body known as the US Congress and the irrelevant opinions of 60% of the American people, we aren’t going anywhere for at least 18 months.
From Think Progress:
“House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said this week, “By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn’t, what’s Plan B.†His remarks were echoed by Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS).
But a new National Journal “Congressional Insiders Poll,†which surveyed 124 members of Congress, finds that the September deadline may not mean much to war supporters.
Fully 67 percent of congressional Republicans say that even if conditions in Iraq have not improved significantly by September, Congress will still not pass legislation withdrawing U.S. forces out of Iraq. They give reasons such as, “Democrats will try, but fail,†and “No complete withdrawal can occur without Al Qaeda setting up a safe haven.‒
Notice how every time Republicans talk about when they will know if progress is being made by Petraeus they add a month? Now its October- yesterday it was September. Last week it was end of the summer. When the surge was announced it was “in 3-4 months”. They just keep moving the deadlines to avoid confronting the reality that they won’t really do anything if there’s no progress.
Afiak Maliki can shuffle the request off to a committe like he did last time and it can get ‘lost.’ Although with SCIR r3formign itself and opposition buildiNG to Maliki – gosh nows if this ould lead to a no-confidence vote…
I would also point out that many memebrs of the Iraqi parliment are not even in country to vote (too dangerous) so that 144 votes is actually a much more sizeble percentage of those present than it would first appear. It also indiates a fair degree of passion behind it. On many days the pariliment has too few memebrs attending to even vote anything because they do not have a quorum.