The NYT’s Iraq Editorial, annotated Tom Smith

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Or at least an exit.

“

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for several hours for asign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United Statesout of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficientcause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan tostabilize the country afterward.

And in a way that looked like it actually might succeed.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq s government, army,police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try toaccomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chieflybuilding a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that thepresident had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we arguedagainst setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance tomitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

Uh, they did? Does anybody remember this?

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands moretroops. But those milestones came and went without any progress towarda stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. Or at least, that is the impression we have consistently tried to create with our reporting, and therefore it must be true.  It is frighteninglyclear that Mr. Bush s plan is to stay the course as long as he ispresident and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was,it is lost.

Far better would be to consolidate this disaster into a mess that a Democrat president would be unable to do anything about, even were s/he inclined to do so (which is, of course, very unlikely).  In this way, Democrats can blame the entire mess on the Republicans while at the same time doing nothing to try to fix it.  By not withdrawing quickly, Bush threatens to disrupt this strategy.

The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of puttingnational interests ahead of sectarian score settling. And this is something we can rightly claim to be experts on. The securityforces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias.Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failedto change anything.  Or at least, that’s our story, and we’re stickin’ to it.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers iswrong. And if we ever actually meet a soldier or somebody who knows a soldier, we plan to confirm this insight with them.  The war is sapping the strength of the nation s alliances andits military forces.  Rather,the strength of our military forces should be sapped directly, byreducing their funding and generally holding the military in contempt. It is a dangerous diversion from thelife-and-death struggle against terrorists. Whichis best fought by wringing our hands over why they hate us and tryingto convince them that we are really their friends.  Some of us, forexample, have stayed at really exquisite little hotels, not the kind ofplace you can find in guidebook, in such places as Morocco, and thinkArab food is a nice change once in a while.  It is an increasing burdenon American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs thewise application of American power and principles.  OK, the thing about tax burden is pretty over the top, but we figured we had to put that in.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. And we did simply years ago.  In fact, we have known this ever since Vietnam.  But, the majority out in flyover land is finally catching up with us.  Evenin politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longerdivide entirely on party lines. No, they divide more along vertebrate and invertebrate lines. When Congress returns this week,extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of itsagenda.  And it might as well be, as it is not going to get anything done about anything anywhere on its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Or else we shall be greatly annoyed.  Americans must beclear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier andmore chaotic after Americans leave.  You think? There could be reprisals againstthose who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, evengenocide. Butwe should not allow a little genocide to stop us from doing what is ultimately, and upon mature reflection, the truly easy thing to do.  Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan andSyria. True dat.  Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. And their record at resisting temptation does not inspire confidence. Perhapsmost important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from whichterrorist activity could proliferate.  It being a matter of incontestable doctrine that no terrorist activity was ever countenanced under the sainted Saddam.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the UnitedNations and America s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes andthey may fail. Indeed, it is all but certain that they will, should the policy we advocate be adopted.  But Americans must be equally honest about the fact thatkeeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. Thisis because, and here is where we would insert the key link in ourargument, if we had one.  But we assume the reader is not so vulgar asto demand this.  The nation needs aserious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meetsome of the big challenges that will arise.  Butnot, I guess, a discussion about how staying will make things worsethan leaving.  Well, Vietnam was better for our leaving, and Cambodia,correct?  If we had not left Vietnam when we did, there would be farfewer really good and economical Vietnamese restaurants in the City,and obviously, that would be a bad thing.

The Mechanics of Withdrawal

The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons ofmilitary gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be aformidable challenge. Military logistics being an area of which the Times has a profound understanding.  The main road south to Kuwait is notoriouslyvulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicleswill need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealiftoperations are organized. And arrangements must be made so all forms of media can record this ignominious retreat with honor.  Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded.Really, with like guns and stuff?  The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality andbacked by adequate resources.  But it must be done before the Democrats take power.  Maybe the French could help us with this?

The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in thenorth of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases andports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey hasbeen an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, itshould realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath isin its own interest.  Hmm.  This is beginning to sound like it might be really kind of humiliating.  But I suppose the Turks might find it amusing.

Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is probablyunrealistic. Or maybe not.  Frankly, we have no idea.  We are just a newspaper that merely has to print tiny corrections on page 2 if we make a mistake.  The political decision should be made, and the target dateset, now.  After all, you don’t need to know what is realistically possible just to set a target date.

The Fight Against Terrorists

Despite President Bush s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had nosignificant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it newbase camps, new recruits and new prestige.  They do now, of course, but let’s ignore that for the moment.

This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where themilitary had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda s leaders. Italienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained thestrength and readiness of American troops.  And you know how we feel about strength and readiness.

And it created a new front where the United States will have tocontinue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who rejectthe idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The militarywill need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound forthe foreseeable future.  Coordinatingthe wholesale and humiliating withdrawal of US forces from Iraq withthis ongoing fight against terrorism will present the challenges alwaysfaced by those pursuing utterly incoherent goals — but we must pushforward.

The Question of Bases

The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to createthose bases in northeastern Iraq.  Where the terrorists aren’t.  Or, the Pentagon could use its basesin countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in thePersian Gulf, as staging points.  Staging points for what, we have no idea.  Just to, you know, stage things.

There are arguments for, and against, both options. They are equally harmless.  And saying this makes it sound like we know what we are talking about.  Leaving troopsin Iraq might make it too easy and too tempting to get drawn backinto the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington s real goalwas to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Or to actually kill terrorists.  Mounting attacks from othercountries could endanger those nations governments.  And further make the terrorists mad at us.

The White House should make this choice after consultation withCongress whose profound understanding of military strategy and tactics is well known and the other countries in the region which will need to be bought off, whose opinions the Bushadministration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagonneeds enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes againstterrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.  Kind of like what Clinton did before 9/11.

The Civil War

One of Mr. Bush s arguments against withdrawal is that it would leadto civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years and many thousands of dead Iraqis toburn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiiterepublics, and American troops are not going to stop that fromhappening.  It really helps that we can see into the future this way.

It is possible, we suppose, though it is very naughty of you to press us on this that announcing a firm withdrawal datemight finally focus Iraq s political leaders and neighboringgovernments on reality.  Not to mention focus al-Qaeda on how to carry on its war after the US bugs out.  Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians totake the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlesslydiscussed but refused to act on.  And to make those travel arrangements they have been thinking about.

But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic proponents ofwithdrawal have done. The administration should use whatever leverageit gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraq s neighbors tohelp achieve a negotiated solution.  Whateverleverage you get, that is, from telling your negotiating partner thatyou, unlike your enemies, will soon be long gone, except for theoccasional air strike.

Iraq s leaders knowing that they can no longer rely on theAmericans to guarantee their survival might be more open tocompromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economicresources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate.Or alternatively, to a chaotic shit storm, as anybody with a workingMercedes piles that sucker with anything worth selling and hightails itfor the border, while every nutcase with an AK dances in the street andshoots in the air, kind of like Gaza, but on a much bigger scale, andinstead of Israel next door, you have Iran.  That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religiouscleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis fromtheir homes.  More like a really fast-moving Rwanda in the desert.

The United States military cannot solve the problem. But that’s no reason not to make it much worse.  Congress andthe White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiatedoutcome. We will have to figure out somebody to negotiate with, of course. Maybe the South Baghdad Rotary Club. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, whichMr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.  TheUN has a proven tolerance for utter disasters, and that is a qualitythat will be much in demand in this scenario.  Also, there will be muchmoney to be made.

The Human Crisis

There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syriaand Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displacedwithin their country. We might as well go for the whole enchilada, or whatever the Arab equivalent is.  Without the active cooperation of all sixcountries bordering Iraq Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordanand Syria and the help of other nations, this disaster could getworse. Andgiven that these countries hate each other, frequently abate terrorism,and hate the very idea of stable democracy, there is every reason toexpect it will get worse. Beyond the suffering, massive flows of refugees some withethnic and political resentments could spread Iraq s conflict farbeyond Iraq s borders.  So really, their all getting wiped out inside Iraq has its advantages.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees.  And the Kuwaitis are known for their hospitality to Iraqis.Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need moreinternational help. It’s not cheap supporting terrorism around the world.  That, of course, means money. Syriaespecially can be trusted to make sure the money gets to the refugees. If they don’t, they will be in trouble with the UN, and that would bereally scary.  The nations of Europeand Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States willhave to pay a large share of the costs, of course, but should also leadinternational efforts, perhaps a donors conference, to raise money forthe refugee crisis.  It is well known you can make almost any problem go away by throwing money at it and having a conference.  May I suggest Davos?

Washington also has to mend fences with allies. Which might involve letting them spank us.  There are newgovernments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate inthe fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. Andonto the great, promising vision of the future where radical Muslimsand post-Christians get along just fine, as they do in Europe now.  Butthat will still require a measure of humility like a very large measure and a commitment tomultilateral action that this administration has never shown. And a conference.  And,however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess,those nations should see that they cannot walk away from theconsequences as the US will have done in Iraq. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible toignore.  We better have a conference immediately, as soon as one can be arranged at a major resort.

The United States has the greatest responsibilities, including theadmission of many more refugees for permanent resettlement. And let’s not insult them by asking them to take off their overcoats and show us what the bulky vests are all about.  The mostcompelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courageand good will translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises andcooperated with the Americans.  We should make sure they at least have boats and refugee camps somewhere.

The Neighbors

One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling inIraq by its neighbors America s friends as well as its adversaries.

Just as Iran should come under international pressure like the sort that has proven so effective in getting them to stop making atom bombs to allowShiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future,Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to interveneon behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Syria will know they better listen to us to, or we might complain to the UN.  Turkey must be kept from sending troops intoKurdish territories.  We leave how to keep Turkey from doing that to another day.

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop hisresistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. We should have a conference with them.  Britain, France,Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility tohelp. And so they will, duh.  Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if itspills across Iraq s borders.

“

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagogueryand fear to quell Americans demands for an end to this war. And as we have shown, there is really nothing to be afraid about.  They saywithdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists.Actually, all of that has already happened the result of thisunnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.  Now it’s time to make it worse.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to dragout this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that Americantroops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage with asmuch effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.  I think I hear a slogan here — Withdrawl — As Quickly and Safely As We Can Manage!