My first diary
Why we can't leave Iraq caused a tiny tremor among some members of the KOS community because I had the temerity to suggest that we could not leave Iraq. To this day I am not convinced we should leave at the moment, but an editorial
"How to cut and run" by LT. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.) in Wednesday's edition of the
LA Times has me leaning closer to a withdrawal.
General Odom says in his editorial:
THE UNITED STATES upset the regional balance in the Middle East when it invaded Iraq. Restoring it requires bold initiatives, but "cutting and running" must precede them all. Only a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops -- within six months and with no preconditions -- can break the paralysis that now enfeebles our diplomacy. And the greatest obstacles to cutting and running are the psychological inhibitions of our leaders and the public.
Until I read this editorial, I firmly believed that whether our troops are the cause or not, they must remain in Irag. The main reason I have for keeping our troops there is because I believe our presence in Iraq is a belligerent occupation and the Hague Conventions of 1907 apply to our actions there. As wikipedia says:
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
I believe that we are responsible for the public order and safety of that nation, and that through our purse and power we should uphold the conventions that we have agreed to undertake. While it is apparent that the present administration is not interested in treaties and obligations, I am, and I believe that the majority of this country agrees with me on this point. Arguably, the majority of the country disagrees with me on whether the forces should remain in Iraq or not, but morally and legally I believe we are obligated to stay until some semblance of normality can be obtained. It is obvious that a state of "normality" is not going to be reached any time soon, and it is apparent that the utter disaster that is the occupation of Iraq will not be corrected in the near future. In my eyes, there is no good exit strategy: run, cut and run, stay the course, change the course, etc..
Odom continues:
But reality can no longer be avoided. It is beyond U.S. power to prevent bloody sectarian violence in Iraq, the growing influence of Iran throughout the region, the probable spread of Sunni-Shiite strife to neighboring Arab states, the eventual rise to power of the anti-American cleric Muqtada Sadr or some other anti-American leader in Baghdad, and the spread of instability beyond Iraq. All of these things and more became unavoidable the day that U.S. forces invaded.
On the other hand, I do believe there are obvious directions that should be taken. In my diary Why we can't leave Iraq I felt that apologies were needed, and in the comments, I suggested that reparations were in order. Since posting that diary, I have continued to contemplate our situation in Iraq, and with each passing day, and the continuing lack of answers that suggested to me some kind of solution to our problem, my despair over our place in the nations of this world has mounted. So it was to my great relief that I came across General Odom's opinion editorial in the LA Times today. In the brief biography of the general at wikipedia, his previous remarks about the occupation of Iraq demonstrated a continued concern about our affairs in the middle east. In the editorial published in the Times however, I found an argument that confirms my belief that apologies are called for, along with reparation in some form, and describes a manner of withdrawal that is acceptable to me:
Some...are ready to change course but are puzzled as to how to leave Iraq. The answer is four major initiatives to provide regional stability and calm in Iraq. They will leave the U.S. less influential in the region. But it will be the best deal we can get.
First, the U.S. must concede that it has botched things, cannot stabilize the region alone and must let others have a say in what's next.
As I have quoted General Odom's editorial liberally, I will not bring you his four ideas, except for part of one: "The price for success will include dropping U.S. resistance to Iran's nuclear weapons program." That a retired LT. Gen. - who served under Ronald Reagan not only as the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Headquarters, Department of the Army, but also as the director of the National Security Agency - believes that we must accept Iran as a nuclear power suggests that the direction the present administration has taken this country is not one that should be taken lightly.