Setting a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq is a terrible mistake

Disagree

1 of 80

by Gary Sacco

• 

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

President Bush, and his supporters, including candidate McCain, scoff at the idea of putting US military presence in Iraq on the clock. They tell us, the public, that a timetable for departure would be irresponsible and embolden the enemy who is, I presume, Al Qaeda. McCain is ready to stay 100 years to achieve "victory". Sorry McCain fans, he really did throw that number out there.

Though invading was the real disgrace, we've developed a very dangerous situation based on dependency. At the moment, neither the Iraqi government, nor the people, will seize the impetus to build up their country. Al-Maliki's Shiite dominated government continues to concentrate on consolidating power instead of running the country. Relying indefinitely on the United States to do the heavy lifting must stop! The time has come to prepare for American departure. Our leaders must publicly, or through back channels, inform the Iraqis when we are leaving. War planners have done little else right. To avoid the same chaotic, desperate flight from Vietnam, an orderly, measured and most importantly, well - planned withdrawal is in order.

The American public has little faith, or patience anymore, for following the Administration's version of "victory" as a mission measuring stick. "We'll leave when we win", Americans have been repeatedly told. Pathetically, no one can define winning. The image of our victorious commander declaring such, on the USS Abraham Lincoln, in front of that now infamous banner, evaporated a long time ago. A few years back, Bush and company rolled out "benchmarks" to measure the Iraqi government's progress. They missed our objectives so badly that the idea quickly disappeared from the Administration's list of talking points.

Our leaders continue to stress that the solution is now political, not military. Success hinges on the maturation of the Iraqi government and attitudes of its people. A Constitution, thus, governmental structure is already in place. To make it, those in power must respect and follow the rule of law. The ruling party should protect every Iraqi's rights, whether Shiite, Sunni or Kurd. Al-Maliki needs to foster Sectarian understanding and not manipulate rivalries. Obviously, Iraq's young government has stumbled, badly, at times. One must wonder if the 100,000 plus American troops on Iraqi soil help or hinder this growing process.

Most unfortunate of all, President Bush hands resolution, of this great misadventure, off to his successor. Either Barack Obama or John McCain will inherit the tough decisions. Like lost hikers, neither will have the luxury of a working compass. One recurring theme of the war and occupation has been the absence of a confident, cohesive plan.

Who can forget President Bush's bravado laden "bring them on" taunt? War is a very solemn affair. I cannot fathom Dwight D. Eisenhower or, even John Kerry, cajoling the enemy, as John Wayne might in a movie. Unfortunately, the insurgency responded with venom and chaos. It is difficult to analyze this man's thinking process. Bush's hawks bombarded Americans with wildly optimistic predictions. Paul Wolfowitz s war financing plan hinged on his insistence that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for it all. General Shinseki estimated that at least 300,000 soldiers were required. The Bush Administration responded by chastising and forcing him to retire. They saw Iraq representing a grand strategy for the entire Middle East. America would transform the tyrannical nature of the region's nations by implementing Democracy. As summer 2008 approaches, our President's Iraqi vision remains treacherously cloudy.

During an invasion planning session, Powell and Armitage both mentioned the "Pottery Barn Rule" to President Bush. The premise of "you break it, you own it" definitely applies to Iraq, they opined. We, the occupiers are obligated to fix Iraq's ills. Many will erroneously argue that we have ceded significant autonomy to the fledgling Iraqi government. Actually, the presence of over 100,000 American soldiers represents the real power there. Our influence remains omnipotent. Yet, the Administration insists on blaming outside forces, such as Iran, for persistent problems and failures. Efforts to improve Iraqi's lives have been fleeting, at best. Many basic services remain at pre-war levels.

Accelerated reconstruction should be our priority, now. After settling on a rough timetable, American efforts must concentrate on helping the Iraqi people one neighborhood at a time. Rebuilding the electric grid, to restore reliable power, around the clock, proclaims real progress. American ingenuity must create jobs for thousands of unemployed young men. Fixing devastated cities and towns, house by house, will earn the respect of hard working Iraqis. Paving streets, turning on the power, renovating houses and putting young Iraqis to work provide a tangible going away gesture.

American leaders must show the courage to end our Iraqi involvement. Staying indefinitely will only strain our military and citizenry. Leaving the pottery barn shifts success, or failure, to Iraq's Constitutional government. The young nation cannot progress with our presence there. Our overly stretched military is stuck in Iraq, like wheels turning in deep mud. We probably do not possess the capacity to handle another global calamity. John McCain indicates an unwillingness to withdraw. Barack Obama, a staunch opponent of this war, has advocated for it. Will he have the courage and fortitude to follow through?

Learn more about this author, Gary Sacco.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.