NYT: Wrong Way Out of Iraq

[babylonsister]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081307M.shtml

Wrong Way Out of Iraq
The New York Times | Editorial

Monday 13 August 2007

As Americans argue about how to bring the troops home from Iraq, British forces are already partway out the door. Four years ago, there were some 30,000 British ground troops in southern Iraq. By the end of this summer, there will be 5,000. None will be based in urban areas. Those who remain will instead be quartered at an airbase outside Basra. Rather than trying to calm Iraq's civil war, their main mission will be training Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, while doing limited counterinsurgency operations.

That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers - and urban exposure - but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It's a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed.

If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work - that the United States can simply stay in Iraq in reduced numbers, while ignoring the civil war and expecting Iraqi forces to impose order- the British experience demonstrates otherwise. There simply aren't reliable, effective and impartial Iraqi forces ready to keep the cities safe, nor are they likely to exist any time soon. And insurgents are not going to stop attacking Americans just because the Americans announce that they're out of the fight.

In Basra - after four years of British tutelage - police forces are infiltrated by sectarian militias. The British departure will cede huge areas to criminal gangs and rival Shiite militias. Without Iraqis capable of taking over, the phased drawdown of British troops has turned ugly. The remaining British troops hunkered down in the city at Basra Palace are under fire from all directions. Those at the airbase are regularly bombarded.

And Basra should be easier than Baghdad. Most of the population is Shiite, and neither Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia nor other Sunni insurgent groups have a significant presence. Elsewhere in Iraq, where internal rivalries are overshadowed by the Sunni insurgency, sectarian civil war and rampant ethnic cleansing, a reduced American force might find itself in an even worse predicament. The clear lesson of the British experience is that going partway is not a realistic option.

The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.

But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. That's exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.

-------

[spanone]

1. G E T O U T N O W !!

[panader0]

2. Sure, there's going to be chaos if all occupying troops leave.

It's like a bull in a china shop. The longer it stays, the more things get broken. If the invasion was wrong in the first place, staying even one more day is also wrong. The chaos in Iraq will eventually work itself out. US OUT NOW!

[groovedaddy]

3. A Pan-Arab force is the best solution

Occupation by western powers only serves to stoke the flames of unrest. The Brits couldn't do it the first time they tried, early last century.
The "terrorist front," argument (also used by Hillary Clinton) seems to play right into the goals of the neo-cons (permanent military bases). This may explain why Rummy sent in an "under-whelming" force, counter to recommendations of military advisors. If order had been established early on, through use of overwhelming numbers, the need for an extended stay (or permanent bases) would not have been there.
Given that the Sunnis have now turned on Al Qaeda in Iraq, the fact that the Shiite have no love for them either and that their numbers are relatively small, it should be safe to say that Iraqis will not tolerate their presence. Remember, the perps(?) of 9/11 are 'hiding' in western Pakistan. Shifting the focus of war to Iraq from Afghanistan allowed the Taliban to regain a foothold there and served as a recruiting tool Islamic fundamentalism.

[Bigmack]

4. Pan-Arab equals...

Iran owns Iraq. (I know.. Iran isn't Arab.)

Hell, Iran will own Iraq anyway.

The neocons have stepped the US into shit that it can't scrape off.

[groovedaddy]

5. That was their plan all along -

keeping us in Iraq FOREVER.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Unfortunately any country in that region will be perceived by Iraqis

as favoring one side or the other in the main conflict. All of the countries' regimes have Sunni or Shia identifications, even those whose parties are entirely secular. Some of the surrounding countries also have axes to grind in the Kurdish conflict, and any bordering state will be suspected of trying to enlarge its own territory either directly or by gaining "undue influence" in the part of Iraq it polices.

It's unworkable even if you could find countries willing to have their soldiers slaughtered in Iraq.

[groovedaddy]

7. Which is exactly how most Iraqis view the U.S. now, even though

we are not a border nation. Also, the oil is a huge issue - for us and them. The only way the U.S. has any legitimacy in playing cops in this situation is to swear off on permanent military bases there and back out of the oil negotiations - which probably won't happen and the "insurgency" will continue.
If the Iraqi people were asked to vote our military presence there, how do you think they would vote?

[kenny blankenship]

8. Dude just stop.

The fact that there can be no "Pan-Arab" force to save Iraq does not mean that I support the US invasion of Iraq or continued occupation for a second. That's bullshit.