US withdrawal from Iraq: faster is better
A intelligently-managed rapid withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq could lead to many positive outcomes. The "disasters" forecast by the US White House and conservative forces are based on half-truths and limited imaginations.
False Belief 1
Withdrawal of US-led forces would lead to instability and a bloodbath from sectarian violence.
Rebuttal
The assertion is only valid if US troops are not replaced by other forces. A multi-lateral force seen as independent of Washington (not NATO, but UN Blue Helmets, or better yet a nominally Islamic coalition including Turkey and Iran) would be less provocative, and it’s personnel less-attractive targets.
The only big real stumbling-block is funding. Funding by the US at a rate of 50% it’s current monthly expenditure would probably do the trick, as the forces of regional powers are not "supported" by over-charging contractors such as Halliburton. US forces not withdrawn should be put under non-US command, and recolored helmets, allowing a rapid rebadge of occupying forces without rushed logistics.
While there are advantages to the withdrawal of US/Pom/Oz forces from the streets, there are significant advantages to continued US provision of signals intelligence and satellite data.
False Belief 2
The loss-of-face from a seeming defeat of the US in Iraq would be bad for the West and encourage wider terrorism.
Rebuttal
The US and its allies have already lost face, and could regain face as a more co-operative member of the international community, a more mature nation capable of reflection and self-correction, and diminish the causes for distrust by the populations of other democratic nations that were previously broadly supportive of the US and its policies.
Negotiation and the reduction of military activity in Northern Ireland reduced the levels of violence dramatically, with most of the IRA (apart from small splinter groups) turning to peaceful means of putting their cases for change. This was not a loss-of-face or defeat for the British, but lead to them achieving the objective of greater peace.
Admittedly, a rapid change of the non-Iraqi forces maintaining order there would be a slap in the face for Bush/Howard/Blair teams, but if they are truly concerned with the standing of their respective states and the safety of their military personnel, they would acknowledge their errors, accept the scapegoat role, and perhaps (in time) achieve part-redemption of their personal reputations.
The West is not just the US and its deputy sherriffs, but includes many nations that have been opposed to US policies regarding Iraq since before the invasion, the tactics used during occupation, and the extra-judicial indefinite incarceration of detainees without charge or trial.
Such a turnaround would not encourage terrorists to greater violence, but starve them of the oxygen with which they inflame the disaffected. In an open letter to the US people, even Osama bin Laden stated he had no hostility to nations that did not demonize Muslims and allowed them to worship without interference, specifically naming some Nordic states.
We got caught in the quagmire because of politicians’ failures of strategic thinking. They show the same deficiencies by being bling to the opportunities of withdrawal.
Stories the server thinks are related:
Posted: by David Bath February 18th, 2007 under Iraq, United States.
Comments: 5
Comments
Comment from Alex
Time: February 19, 2007, 10:38 am
Nice post, David.
I’m wondering if you’ve heard the debate that took place between Glenn Greenwald and deranged neo-con, Frank Gaffney? Old Frank wrote an article in the Washington Post, suggesting that war critics, and those calling for a withdrawal of troops, be hanged.
An extraordinary view inside the mind of an unhinged wingnut.
Comment from Kieran
Time: February 19, 2007, 1:55 pm
Withdrawal of US-led forces would lead to instability and a bloodbath from sectarian violence.
The real assumption here is that American troops are actually stopping the blood bath now, and that a withdrawl would actually make some kind of change to the impetus for civil war.
I believe this assumption is false, American troop are not in fact keeping the peace at present.
Comment from David Bath
Time: February 19, 2007, 6:28 pm
Re Comment 1 (Alex) Thanks for the compliment. I wrote it carefully to differentiate between disdain for the belligerents (the policy makers) and comradely concern for their victims in the US/UK/Oz (the reputation of nations, the populace, and especially the military personnel). It’s easy to write an anti-US diatribe, but it is discounted too easily by the right-wingers and their dupes in the populace. And do bloggers need to be careful of how Echelon is (ab)used? Of course we do! (I was asked to head up a project at Directorate of Electronic Warfare in the late 1980s, and know what they get up to.)
Re Comment 2 (Kieran) Agree that it is a bloodbath now, but the Howard/Bush/Blair forces (and even the ALP in Oz) suggest it would be worse if the US withdrew. That’s what I wanted to question.
My positive-outcome scenarios may not be probable, but they are possible, especially with the skills of the advertising industries in the members of the Coalition of the Warring. I’m amazed that anti-war politicians haven’t searched for analogous tactics.
You’ve got to wonder why the ALP is so meekly accepting of the new US SPAWAR base.
Comment from AdamC
Time: February 19, 2007, 9:44 pm
Is that the best you guys can do?
Firstly, an effete force of peacekeepers would fail miserably in Iraq, as such deployments have done everywhere else; secondly, where on earth would you find 140,000 peacekeepers? The very idea is preposterous to an utterly deranged extent.
As is the basis of the argument. Do you seriously contend that the death rate of any class of people in Iraq, save US servicepeople who are dying — tragically, of course — at the rate of a couple a day, would fall should the US take the historically unpredented step of surrendering to nobody?
Comment from David Bath
Time: February 20, 2007, 2:09 pm
Re AdamC
(1) The current deployment HAS failed miserably. An “effete force” wouldn’t work: but robust terms of engagement would prevent them from being effete. Peacekeepers from Australia in East Timor who DID have robust terms of engagement worked fairly well to reduce Indonesian militia violence and fairly quickly (once they went in), although there was a problem later with gang/criminal violence.
(2) 140000 peacekeepers could be found if the US provided funding (as I said, 50% of current expenditure is probably all that is required). Actually, fewer soldiers from non-US-aligned nations would be less provocative and more effective. African Union forces are readily available if they can get funding. Turkish and Iranian forces would need little encouragement, and have some influence (according to the US) over those causing the violence. QED.
(3) “Surrendering to nobody”. I said “handover”, not “surrender”. The US/Pom/Oz forces have already abrogated/surrendered (”to nobody”) their responsibilities as occupying powers under international law (not just for violence, but food/water/electricity/health issues). What do you think would have happened if US/Pom/Oz forces had shown such incompetence in post-WW2 occupation of Japan and West Germany?
(4) You missed the basic point: the false assumption is that absence of US forces means that NO forces would be in Iraq.
Write a comment