Disengagement

Our friend Alex W, one of the guests in our last episode of FCB¹ asked me about my thoughts on withdrawing from Iraq.  Last week a student queried me on what he termed 'disarmament'², and we chatted about his concerns about the war in the context of his young children and the potential of a draft--another student, whose son is serving over there as an intel officer, joined in.  It's always a dicey thing talking about this stuff, especially with a customer, but in contrast to the trollish crap we see in the blogosphere, I take such questioning as honest engagement and I respond accordingly³.

I'm glad we're having this discussion as a nation, even if it is way later than it should've been.  And it's great to see reasonable folks within the military domain are also doing so openly and frankly.  While I don't agree with every specific item in this recent report from the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, it provides a great deal of insight and things for all of us to think about when considering withdrawal:

1. U.S. Government leaders must never forget that the United States will achieve its key objectives once the Iraqi government is viewed by the majority of its people, regardless of sect or ethnicity, as a legitimate government that is worth fighting and dying for; and the Iraqi security forces have the training, know-how, and equipment to put these convictions into practice...

2. The United States must develop detailed plans for implementing a withdrawal of significant numbers of troops under a variety of much less than optimal conditions...

3. U.S. military and intelligence leaders must be painfully honest in addressing the question of when Iraqi security forces will be able to function without a coalition troop presence to prop them up...

4. Senior U.S. military leaders must resist the view that they are “grading themselves” when they are asked to train the security forces and to evaluate Iraqi readiness to assume more expanded duties for military and security operations...

5. The United States MUST NOT establish a timetable to withdraw from Iraq so long as U.S. leaders consider the situation in Iraq to be redeemable...

6. As a last resort for preventing near-term civil war, the United States may have to swallow the bitter pill of allowing local militias to retain a significant and ongoing role in Iraqi politics if the Iraqi government is interested in pursuing this option and if the Iraqi security forces cannot take full responsibility for the nation’s safety...

7. The United States needs to renounce interest in permanent bases in Iraq on a strong and continuing basis...

8. The United States needs to deemphasize rhetoric that may cause Iraqi citizens to believe their government has been put in place to wage war on U.S. enemies in the Muslim World and otherwise serve U.S. interests...

9. U.S. leadership must recognize that it may still continue to support democracy after U.S. forces are withdrawn from Iraq, providing that the nation is stable when it leaves...

10. U.S. leaders should continually note the courage, commitment, and sacrifice of our troops in the field, while realizing that these same qualities are reasons to safeguard their lives even more carefully...

I'd like to particularly emphasize points 2, 5, 7, 9 and 10, with which you might be surprised to find I wholeheartedly agree.  I also want to highlight these words expanding on the final item:

All future wars should have carefully planned exit strategies based on something other than best case planning for the future of the countries involved. In undertaking such plans, the United States must take care to maintain realistic expectations of what it can actually achieve with military intervention, especially with regard to the imposition of market economies and democracy on states that we do not fully understand.

Alas, Bush had only short-term objectives in mind and no sense of history or long-term implications.  In today's radio address he also shows how tone deaf he continues to be:

Iraqis will decide the future of their country through peaceful elections, not violent insurgency.

If only he'd had more faith in the Iraqi people before he launched his violent war, which gave birth to the violent insurgency.  Yes, Iraqis themselves were capable of throwing off the yoke of tyranny, and without our invasion if we'd only recognize that we do not hold a monopoly on Brand Liberty, which we dole out at our discretion.

One of the small lessons Bush might have drawn from Cindy Sheehan's vigil, had he been open-minded and intellectually curious, is that she follows in the footsteps of Las Madres and the Rosenstrasse wives--women who fought brutal dictatorships and won.  Regular people have the power to confront any regime, democratic or not.  For us to truly support liberty we must not try to impose our will on people if we want them to ultimately attain lasting freedom.

And now I must remind you once again of Boyd's concepts of moral conflict and provide some counterbalance with McReynolds' Philosophy of Nonviolence.  Two sides of the same coin in my mind.

ntodd

1 - Bill's been busy with VIFF and other things, but will most assuredly get #21 and #22 edited and posted as soon as he can.  And yes, I'll be recording an NToddcast sometime soon.  No, really.

2 - The following icon is on my dusty, old website:

I'm guessing he didn't realize that's the War Resisters League logo, and doesn't necessarily mean I'm an advocate of disarmament per se, but whatever.

3 - In other words, I try to be kinda serious and thoughtful, rather than, you know, calling people fuckers.  Out of character, yes...