Several months ago, as things were going from quagmire to cesspool in Iraq, I wrote a diary indicating that I thought "staying the course" had outlived its usefulness, because however awful the consequences of cutting and running might be, the consequences of staying (in a situation where it was becoming more and more apparent we'd have to cut and run at some point) were worse.
I haven't changed my mind.
This is not something John Kerry can say, of course, at least not until he's won the election. There are so many reasons--American pride--the inability of most people (voters) to face up to the idea that we're asking people to die for mistakes and lies. The American stubborness to the idea that we are not omnipotent and invincible...
But we've got to do it. It's only a matter of when, but like a gangrenous wound, let's do the amputation sooner, before things get worse. I know that we can't say such things now, but I'd feel a lot better knowing that the Kerry team has considered the possibilities.
So how could it be done?
The U.S. fallout--well, at least half the country is tired of the war anyway. Instead of branding this as the U.S. war, let's brand it the "Bush War"--and that the only people with investment in it in this country were people who had an investment in Bush. This is not our war--we don't need to keep fighting it.
The Iraqi fallout--If there were any way for the U.S. to effect a peaceful and successful transition to stable government in Iraq (not democracy--stable govt. is enough), I'd say let's stay and do it. But there isn't. Our presence there just inflames the wound and we don't have the numbers of people needed to enforce martial law--forget about whether that's a wise policy. Sure, we could just nuke the country to display our superiority, but it's the more nuanced position that we can't get to.
Of course, things will be chaotic if we pull out--but much more chaotic? I would think chaotic in a different way. It's American hubris to think that we're somehow helping. What's certain is that either way more innocents in Iraq will die. But we are so tainted by what we did that even aid that we offer is suspect. We're just going to have to let people die without getting involved or contributing to the problem. While I would wish that the UN or other countries would step in as we get out, we can't expect that to happen either. It would still be a nightmare--but potentially less of a nightmare, and certainly less of a nightmare for U.S. citizens and our military. If that sounds selfish--well, think of all the things that go horribly wrong around the world without our invervention or really even our knowing. Sudan? Haiti? Liberia? The Congo? We may be the last superpower, but we don't actually govern the world and we cannot save everyone. Iraq will just have to go back to the list of "screwed up countries"--but hopefully not "countries we're screwing up".
One way in which a pull-out would be easier for us is that this insurgency is not taking place on U.S. soil or anywhere near us. It's not in a part of the world that has any cultural significance to us. We can pretty easily walk away. This is not Palestine/Israel or the IRA. This is more like Vietnam--Senator Kerry was there--don't repeat those mistakes, please.