Okay, Iraq is a quagmire, right? Over the past several days I've seen numerous deep and insightful discussions about what needs to be done now. I think we at dKOS are united in the view that we can't 'stay the course' but divided over what should happen. And of course there is that dissonance between what can be done now from the sidelines, what the Dem party leaders should put forth as policy resolutions and campaign on and what the options may be once in power with a sitting President and a majority in the Senate.
Any stance taken by political leaders has consequences in elections and consequences in how you may govern once elected. Campaigns that may win may also create distrust if suddenly the new US government sets out on a course different from the one broadcast y the candidate. Positions need to be workable with congressional swing voters and internatinal allies. With that in mind, what should the position of the Democratic congressional leadership and the Kerry campaign be.
I'm not asking what is likely ... or what you'd do if made king or queen of the USA. I want to know what you would advise as a key advisor balancing political election strategy and best policy within real-world constraints.
Here are some very rough categories, but please elaborate on these with comments.
A. Cut & Run: fast version. Basically load up the transports, let the Iraqi leaders and public know that we're getting out. We took care of Saddam and now it's up to them. We need to get out within 90 days. We can't afford this. We're just meddling and wasting limited resources.
B. Cut & Run: slow version. Create an exit strategy to be all the way out by April 1st, 2005. Begin withdrawing now, but leave a strong enough force to be a deterrent to anyone trying to consolidate power by force. Eliminate plans for any major US presence. Let the Iraqis know we're leaving. Let them know we will support them down the road. Encourage the UN and the Arab League to fill the void as we withdraw, but we're going whether they come in or not. Agree to contribute maybe 10,000-20,000 US troops to a UN force after 4/1/05.
C. Lower expectations & pull back: Internationalize. Work with the UN or the Arab league to internationalize this. Become more flexible in the handover of administrative power to Iraqis in order to make sure that whatever comes to be is more truly democratic and well planned. Reduce our presence very slightly as a gesture of goodwill. Mainly though, make this international. It's not our probelm anymore, but we will do whatever it takes to fulfill our responsibility.
D. Lower expectiations & pull back: Iraqicize. Emphasize that we've been arrogant in our approach, but the focus should be on the handover of power to Iraqis, not to internationalize this. Reduce our presence and telgraph our intent to get out and not use Iraq as a US base in the middle east. Allow for the possibility of some UN involvemnet under US leadership - at least fro the next 18-24 months. Consider options that may involve a loose federation of three regions or different forms of government that would allow for more local autonomy.
E. Stay Strong but Change Course: Internationalize. Work with the UN or the Arab league to internationalize this. Become more flexible in the handover of administrative power to Iraqis in order to make sure that whatever comes to be is more truly democratic and well planned. Increase our presence if necessary to get this done. We cannot protect the true long term interests of the Iraqi people from a position of weakness ... and we also can't do it alone. Make the transition of power more flexible and realistic to achieve truly democratic goals.
F. Stay Strong but Change Course: Iraqicize. Emphasize that we've been arrogant in our approach, but the focus should be on the handover of power to Iraqis, not to internationalize this. Strengthen our presence if necessary, but make it clear that we're there to rebuild Iraq and repair both the damage of Saddam and the damage we've done. Abandon plans for multiple US bases, but work so hard to build a new Iraq that we may be invited to stay long term. Consider options that may involve a loose federation of three regions or different forms of government that would allow for more local autonomy.
G. Stay the course. We need to follow through with the the basic course we're already on. Radical changes will bring blowback in terms of international opinion and belief that the US can be taken seriously as a power in the future. Replace Bremer with a savvier, less arrogant transition leader and place a higher emphasis on avoiding collateral damage, but we need to be there both for the Iraqi people and our own long-term interests in the region.
- - - - - - -
Once again, please elaborate in the comments. I know these options are cartoonish, but they do seem to boil down the general views I've seen & heard here and elsewhere.