Pull out

What happens if there is an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq?

First look at two divergent articles. The links to the original articles and a few salient quotes follow:





1. From the Washington Post on November 6, 2006.
Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results.

Quotes from this article.

"It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."

"Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated."

"If my unit left town, the insurgents would come back in and use it to stage attacks on Baghdad."

"It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave."

2. From NPR on July 29, 2006.
Exiting Iraq: Shibley Telhami's View. Telhami is Professor for Peace and Development, University of Maryland.

Quotes from this interview.

"Right now... there are only bad choices."

"Its not a failure of tactics its a failure of... policy."

"A military shift isn't going to address the problem."

"One thing they(Sunnis and Shias) are united about is that they want to see the troops out."

"The Arab-Israeli conflict unites them.(Shias and Sunnis)"

"The answer for reducing the damage lays outside of Iraq...all these countries(Syria, Iran, Turkey) have a vital interest in Iraq,... they (Syria, Iran, Turkey) are going to meddle if they have a policy against them that is confrontational."

"It requires a change of paradigm."

"Its going to deteriorate if we pull out, its going to deteriorate if we stay."

Comment: It is important to understand some of the background of the present American policy in the Middle East. The neo-conservative policy is the dominating American Middle East policy at this time. The neo-cons want regime change in Iran and in Syria. The neo-cons are presently pushing for bombing Iran. I refer you to an article I posted yesterday: Neo-con Muravchik says we must bomb Iran. The article's titles sums it up.

In this context with the American policy favoring war over diplomacy, it is easy to understand how American soldiers express dismay over pulling out. You see "cut and run" at present only exists in the context of the neo-conservative agenda or paradigm. This is the catch 22. Shibley Telhami highly salient quote is: "It requires a change of paradigm."

What does this mean. It means that the neo-conservative policy of war first, diplomacy not even on the table, must change. What must it change to? It needs to change to diplomacy first, war on the back, out of sight burner.

This is where the problem lies. We can't "cut and run" with the present policy in place. It won't work and as the soldiers express, it would lead to more and more civil violence in Iraq because there is nothing uniting Iraqis and nothing uniting the surrounding countries to win peaceful stability. All the surrounding countries are experiencing at present is the threat of war.

The neo-con war first policy can only lead to another war. Its like calling the sky blue and waiting for someone to tell you it isn't, its a predetermined understanding. So when you hear that "cut and run" will only lead to further violence that is probably correct. What we need first is another policy, a policy that promotes diplomacy. In the context of a diplomatic policy, cut and run becomes time to leave.

If there is a major failing of the Bush Administration it has been the rise of the neo-conservatives and their policies. We see the results of what a war first policy can do. It creates monstrous quagmires like the Iraq occupation.