14 of 80

Disagree

Write now Article Tools

Setting a timetable for troop withdrawal is the only way to bring this daily worsening situation to a close.

Why not a classic military victory?

There is no enemy force to sign a surrender. Therefore, there will be no peace treaty. Without a peace treaty, we have three choices for ending the conflict.

First, completely subdue or win over the population. With five years under our belts, we're not subduing the resistance - we're aggravating it. We're not winning over the people - we're alienating them. We're not going to kill them all, are we?

Second, keep fighting until our forces, our treasury, or our will is exhausted. The occupation of Iraq - according to Gen. Petraeus - would require about 2-3 times as many soldiers to be successful. It's just the math of counterinsurgency, not a political position.

Third, leave under our own power. We can do this after admitting defeat, or we can do this before admitting defeat. If you think we can "win" an occupation and withdraw, I challenge you to come up with a single example of that happening in history. Hundred year old colonies in Africa dissolved despite the plans of the colonizers.

Are there precedents for planned withdrawals?

Yes, and they're far less disastrous than the unplanned ones.

Dunkirk in World War II was an unplanned withdrawal. Britain suffered a moral defeat and loss of life and materiel at a key moment of the war.

The US withdrew from Somalia when the Republican-dominated Congress forced President Clinton to accept a timetable for withdrawal. The US suffered minimal losses in withdrawing, and ceased to stoke the fires of revolt in the Horn of Africa.

The US planned its withdrawal from Vietnam, while politicians posed with warplanes and aircraft carriers as they do now. The planning minimized force and materiel losses. Our moral defeat was due to the awful suffering of the Vietnamese people, and their determination to be ruled by Vietnamese, not foreigners. (Many did not care for the north Vietnamese, who were backed by China and the Soviet Union - and in the same spirit, and often to preserve their lives, they left Vietnam).

Is this an occupation and not a war?

Yes, the war was over with the surrender and dissolution of Saddam's fighting forces. The insurgency was a predictable - and predicted - outcome of the invasion and toppling of Saddam. Now the major fights are internecine and anti-US, and it does not serve justice or security for us to be involved in either.

Learn more about this author, Stephen Shea.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Setting a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq is a terrible mistake?
We want to hear your view. Write now!