In 2008, how do we get out of Iraq?

[LanternWaste]

After reading a rather interesting article by Josh Marshall (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ Article Header: Decision Time), I began to wonder... I want our guys out of Iraq. You want them out, too. But the relevant question (to me, anyway) is: How?

1. Immediate Withdrawal (aka, the "We Broke It, But We Ain't Fixin' It scenario). Screw the infrastructure we've invested in, put our boys on troop ships (or whatever we use these days) and just... well, leave. Get out with minimal costs to the troops regardless of the costs elsewhere.

We'd leave a power vacuum leading to an increase in violence and death until a new power establishes itself. Chances are, the established power would not be our new BFF (best friend forever-- thanks for the younguns' at my office for filling my head with *that* one) and could hold a lot petro-power in the world. We're already teetering on the brink of oil-ruin and this scenario would most likely push us over the edge.

2. Phased Withdrawal. Same as above, except it takes longer, probably incur more casualties, and save more of the infrastructure. But the end result is the same... we leave Iraq in a damned mess washing our hands of it and saying, "Oh well... that's life". Not acceptable to me (as if my acceptance makes it any more or any less viable)-- We're now responsible for so much more death and destruction than has been previously known in that area.

3. Withdraw *most* American troops, replace them with a large (and expensive) U.N. Peacekeeping force (cost/debt incurred by the U.S. & Britain because let's face it-- we started it), and very intense, multi-national diplomacy (think Pres. Carter, not Rice). I think this is the lesser of all the above sins: it demonstrates world solidarity, it demonstrates American humility and above all, it illustrates that we will at least attempt to work with others in an attempt to resolve the issue. Obviously, this is the one I think is the most workable (all other things being equal), but is still not perfect.


Is there a consensus on how to get out of this mess without incurring further destruction on the Iraqi people? Josh Marshall writes, "But we're so deep into the pit at this point that our decision-making is inevitably constrained now to choosing from a range of disastrous policy courses and figuring out which is least bad." Yet I think that there *must* be some highly educated individuals across the world with a depth and breadth of both knowledge and wisdom to the vast majority of bad scenarios, but I haven't heard anything as of yet?

We're not going to get out until after the '08 election and a Democrat sits in the White House, of that I have no doubt. But there's going to be a hell of a mess to clean up when that time comes, and I honestly think it's incumbent upon us (and by extension, the world) to come up with a solution that doesn't make an already bad mess worse.

Are there any ideas/theories being shopped around already, or have I missed a pretty big boat and we've (at least the DU "we") already come to a common how-to platform?

(Sorry... late evening at work running virus scan on all the office computers. It gets quiet here and when thing are quiet, I start thinking out loud...)

[scarletwoman]

1. Don't bother worrying about it. A Dem president won't withdraw the troops.

Imperialism has always been bipartisan. We will maintain military bases in Iraq, there will be NO complete and total withdrawal no matter who gets the White House in 2008.

And NO other Western country -- or the UN -- is going to step in and take Iraq off our hands. That's just an absurd fantasy. Why would anyone else want to pay in blood for the mess WE created?

Clinton has already made it clear that she's for keeping *some* U.S. forces in Iraq -- the Ruling Class has absolutely no intention of letting go of its booty.

sw

[trashcanistanista]

2. The only way,

Sir NO Sir!

[ThomWV]

3. Put the troops on airplanes and fly their asses home - that's how.

[LSK]

4. I read the same arguments on DU last year

And you know what? At the current course we just keep getting more and more stuck there, with more death and destruction happening every day.

Are we just going to continute to debate this as the sinkhole gets bigger and bigger?

Whether we leave today or next year, whatever is going to happen, will happen, either sooner or later.

So I vote sooner and the sooner we leave and if things get worse there, the sooner things can eventually get better.

Because at the present course, things just stay the same and staying the same means endless death and destruction over there.

[AndyTiedye]

5. I Think The Fast Exit May be the Least Bloody Alternative

You seem to think we are obligated to stay forever (though at reduced troop levels).
That presupposes that our troops are able to accomplish someting positive there.
I see no evidence of that.
They are caught in the middle of a bloody civil war, being shot at by both sides.
They cannot mediate anything because they do not (with rare exceptions) speak Arabic.

[and-justice-for-all]

6. 08??

Umm, about half being withdrawn before X-mas?!

[sandnsea]

7. Pragmatically

It doesn't matter how it should be done. It will be done gradually, giving some opportunity for either the UN or regional security to step in as we depart. As soon as there's a Democratic President, Republicans will revert to ranting about nation building and it will be significantly easier to get out.

[mdmc]

8. We don't

We elect HRC, then she will lead us to victory.