The Iraq war was the biggest foreign policy mistake that the United States of America has ever made. It was a war allowed by a population blinded by fear. It was a war waged by a president that exploited a national tragedy in order to enforce a new world order and to enforce American values on the Middle East. It was a war that was based on false pretenses and that was unnecessarily rushed into. It was a war that has been badly mismanaged and has cost our country immeasurably in both money and lives. The current debate in America is between two courses of action: stay or leave, but I think it’s a little more complicated that that. I also think there’s a path for America in Iraq that allows us to wind down the occupation while doing all that remains possible to leave stability in the wake of our departure.
We all know what the Republican plan for Iraq is. Stay as long as it takes to win, no matter the cost. There are several problems with this. First of all, we’ve been going along with this argument for five years and at every turn, those who advocate a "stay the course" strategy have been proven dead wrong. American invasion has led to the eruption of sectarian violence and all the while the Iraqi government has made absolutely no progress on issues that are currently dividing the country. We have been told that it’s "mission accomplished" in Iraq, and also that we are "turning the corner" and yet, the violence has continued for so long. Another problem with this plan is that it provides absolutely no incentive for the government to reach a political compromise. If we promise to stay in Iraq indefinitely, we are essentially guaranteeing that the Iraqi government will be backed by US troops no matter how long it takes to end the squabbling. That is unacceptable.
The Democratic plan is quite different, and all the major candidates for president seem to agree. If elected, they would pull out the vast majority of troops as soon as possible. They would leave some troops behind to defend the embassy and possibly to engage the relatively small Al Qaeda group in Iraq. The republicans view the idea as nothing more than a full retreat, but for the democrats, the strategy is based on the idea that the only way to force the government to compromise is to leave. If the Iraqis realize that Americans will no longer provide for their security, they will get serious about stability. This strategy does, we should honestly admit, come with certain risks. If US troops are drastically reduced in numbers beginning on day one of the next presidency, there is a risk that violence will increase due to the simple fact that Iraqi security forces are not prepared to control it. Even if the government makes some progress in the wake of our departure, there is no guarantee that stability in the country will be enough for the political changes to be realized. No democrats want to see a continuation of killing in Iraq, and no democrats want to see the situation worsen as a result of our departure. It’s not guaranteed to happen, but it is a possibility we should not ignore.
It’s for this reason that I think there is a third way that may possibly be more effective in combining a need for stability in Iraq with the realization that it’s time for America to leave. A problem that has plagued the Bush administration in its efforts to bring stability is timetables without teeth. We have constantly set deadlines for progress that have almost never been met because there is never an incentive for them to be met. The next president should go to the Iraqi parliament and essentially say "For the past five years our nation has sacrificed thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to provide stability while you have made no progress. If there is no agreement on how to share oil revenues within one month, I will pull 30,000 troops from Iraq." If, within a month, there is no agreement, the president should follow through. Faced with the withdrawal of so many troops and the possibility of weaker security, this could lead to a political solution. If the president pulls out these troops and there is still no agreement, he (or she) should go to the parliament again and essentially say, "We will no longer sacrifice our young people if you are not willing to compromise with each other. If there is no agreement within another month, I will withdraw 30,000 more troops from Iraq." This process should continue until either an agreement has been reached or until we are only left with only enough troops to defend the embassy. If an agreement is reached, we should withdraw our troops at a slower pace as the effects of political agreement are allowed to translate into stability and security and as the Iraqi police and army take over.
This approach will finally set our priorities for withdrawal right – our pace of exit will be determined by the ability of the government to compromise. If none is reached, it is no longer our responsibility to provide security. The problem with staying indefinitely is that there is no pressure on the government. The problem with immediate withdrawal is that the rug may be pulled out too fast. If we are willing to say, "We are leaving, but you have one last chance to make it work" we may just be able to return our soldiers to their families while leaving relative stability behind in Iraq. Our current candidates all have plans to provide for that first goal, but do not seem to recognize the possible risks their policies pose to the second. Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that pulling most of our troops out of Iraq will cause the country to go down in flames. My point is that pulling out all at once doesn’t allow us the flexibility to adapt our policy with changes in the government’s progress and it doesn’t account for the risk that a fast pullout could result in more violence. Pulling out quickly and completely could end the violence for all I know. I simply happen to believe it’s better to leave with a policy that gets our troops home while leaving open the possibility that things could change. If we pull out in a phased way like I’ve mentioned, the Iraqi government may continue to squabble and fail, but at least we will have given the country we ruined one last chance to get it right.