How should US view Iraq government's call for US withdrawal time-table: With relief or as ingratitude?

Relief

1 of 5

by Peggy Nuckles

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

In the early 1980's then Secretary Of Defense Caspar Weinberger drew upon lessons learned from Vietnam to put together a list of things politicians should consider before committing this country to war. In the 1990's General Colin Powell refined the list, turning the statements into questions forming what has become known as the Powell Doctrine.

This doctrine was developed by wise men, and smart leaders will do well to consider these questions before taking us into war. However, under our current president, this doctrine has been ignored. We are mired in an ill-considered conflict, and the question now before us is, should we feel relieved that we have been asked for a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq?

Here are two of the eight questions contained in the Powell Doctrine

1. Do we have a clear, obtainable objective?

2. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

The second of these vital strategic questions is tied to the first. In other words - say why we are going to war and then have a plan and intention to leave after obtaining that goal.

Colin Powell, who seemingly sold his soul for a position in Mr. Bush's cabinet, assured us that we were in imminent danger from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The failure of Hans Blix and other U.N. Inspector to find any WMD's was only proof of Saddam's devilishly clever ability to hide them.

There was our clearly definable goal. Now before the war began, according to the Powell Doctrine, we should have had a plan in place to withdraw our troops upon attainment of that objective.

That, of course, never was our real reason for invading Iraq. According to Bob Woodward in his book, State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III, the Bush administration underfunded and understaffed the military unit that was to search for weapons of mass destruction as soon as the U.S. had control of the country. It was apparent that WMD's were of no real concern to this administration from the start.

But what if the real reason for the invasion of Iraq was simply to get Saddam Hussein as Paul O'Neil reported in his book, The Price of Loyalty. Even if the only reason George W. Bush had for invading Iraq was personal revenge against his father's old nemesis, that goal has also been obtained.

There are other reasons given for invading/staying in that country: revenge for 911, fighting terrorists "over there", reducing the Iran's influence in the region, etc. All of these reasons only expose us as having no real obtainable goal. It is very hard to fight a war on an emotion. Is our plan in this "War on Terror" to keep killing people until we aren't frightened anymore?

A few days ago Prime Minister Nouri al-Maleki asked us make up a plan that should have been in place before the war started. Should we be relieved? No. We should be embarrassed.

Note: The entire Weinberger/Powell Doctrine is available on many internet sites. Type either Weinberger Doctrine or Powell Doctrine into your search engine.

Learn more about this author, Peggy Nuckles.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.