[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[Rasker]

How about a roadmap out?
Brian McNicoll Townhall.com
September 2, 2005

Cindy Sheehan is not going to make political history. President Bush’s vacation is over, and soon her place in the national spotlight will be as well.

But the questions she has raised don’t figure to go away so easily. There may not be a lot of support for her demand that all U.S. troops leave Iraq immediately, but polls indicate Americans are becoming increasingly anxious to know when our commitment to and involvement in Iraq will end.

They recognize we have a job to finish there, and that we need a strategy to win, then exit, not merely to exit. We have to help Iraqis establish a government at least as stable and capable of delivering everyday services as the one we destroyed. We have to leave the place with secure borders, rule of law, an international diplomatic presence, adequate infrastructure and real, meaningful sovereignty. It makes no sense to leave and have Iraq become as big as -- or bigger -- a security threat than it was before we went in.

They recognize also that President Bush wouldn’t be wise to announce a timetable for our departure. Insurgents could -- and probably would -- plan to disrupt the withdrawal or capitalize on it by attacking during or after key deadlines.

But as much as his supporters hate to admit it, Iraq is taking on the look of a Vietnam-type debacle in the eyes of many quite reasonable people. As in Vietnam, we’re on the side of right -- opposing communism there, opposing Muslim extremism here. As in Vietnam, we’re winning convincingly. We’ve lost fewer than 2,000 soldiers; our various enemies have lost 20 times that many or more. But as in Vietnam, it doesn’t look like we’re winning or, more critically, that we’re accomplishing much. And, as in Vietnam, there doesn’t appear to be a definitive end in sight.

There are differences. The opposition lacks the singleness of purpose of those who fought us in Vietnam; this is not a proxy war of the superpowers of the day in the way Vietnam was; and these insurgents don’t appear to have a political agenda beyond removing the infidel from the holy land.

In other words, it looks as if we’re at the polar opposite of Cindy Sheehan’s position. We’re not only not going to pull out tomorrow, it doesn’t appear now that we have any plan to pull out. President Bush has said that as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. But perhaps the time has come for him to be more specific.

In other words, rather than set a timetable, how about a results table? How about a clear statement from the administration that we do plan to leave as soon as the items on the list are accomplished to the mutual satisfaction of us and the new Iraqi government? Then, spell out a list, complete with specifics negotiated with that government: This many troops. That much power-sharing. This degree of repair to the infrastructure.

The exercise would force us to think about what we do want out of this. Do we wait for Iraq to establish an American-style democratic republic -- religiously neutral, respectful of women, complete with a Bill of Rights? Or do we accept that a constitution truly designed by Iraqis -- with only the input from Americans that Iraqis request -- will look substantially different than our own?

What will Iraq need in terms of internal security and national defense? How many soldiers?
How many police officers? How should they be equipped? Trained? And what kind of backup are we prepared to supply in the long term? All of this must be negotiated with the new Iraqi government.

What does withdrawal mean for us? To what degree will be involved there in 10 years? In 20? In 40?

Do we want Iraq to depend on us for protection from its neighbors indefinitely? Or do we risk an unfriendly leader gaining power and using armaments we supplied against our soldiers?

What about Iran? Played right, this could be the most helpful part of this package. If, for instance, we were agree with the Iraqi government to stay until we’re convinced Iran no longer has any designs on conquering, subverting or even substantially influencing the government in Baghdad, we not only would give ourselves substantial elasticity, we would put the mullahs of Tehran in an interesting position. Certainly, they want to minimize American influence in the region. Would they be willing to curtail theirs to curb or eliminate ours? Would Iraq’s Arab neighbors not encourage them to do so? Would that prove persuasive?

The time to think clearly about these questions is now. Already, dissatisfaction with the war effort has begun to hamper the administration on a number of fronts. Even those who dismiss polls that indicate decreasing support for the war must admit that, by the time the 2008 campaign cranks up, the public certainly won’t be more enthused about our involvement in Iraq. And a president elected on an anti-war or even quick-pullout platform may not have the political latitude to orchestrate the withdrawal in an orderly way.

A successful end game may be the most important part of war-making. Because of the finality of V-E Day and V-J Day, FDR and Truman were viewed as successful wartime leaders. Because of the sloppy, dishonorable end to Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson is viewed as a failure. Will the current administration heed that lesson?

Brian McNicoll is contributing columnist for Townhall.com.
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!