This debate is an echo of the old Out Now vs. Set the Date argument that occurred during the Vietnam War.
I remember heated discussions in the Vietnam anti-war movement on this very topic.
The mass independent anti-war movement consistently organized marches under the slogan 'Bring the Troops Home Now'.
What was behind it? I think it was much the same as what is behind the current debate about 'orderly' withdrawal vs. immediate withdrawal.
- there is a fundamental disagreement over principles... those who support immediate withdrawal recognize that the United States has no right to occupy another country for even one minute in order to pursue an illegal and unjust war
- there is a disagreement over the wisdom of what can be achieved by continuing to occupy by force and against the wishes of the occupied population... those who support immediate withdrawal recocnize that things will only get worse, not better for the occupiers
- at root of disagreement are two opposing beliefs... those who support immediate withdrawal reject the original purpose of those who sent us to war and look underneath the hyperbole to point out the real motivation which is always to dominate and control the target region economically and politically
- finally, those who support immediate withdrawal believe that not one additional life of a soldier or of an innocent civilian should be sacrificed and also recognize that the first nessecary step to stop the carnage is to stop the aggression.
As far as the logistical and practical objections some folks take against calling for immediate withdrawal I'd like them to consider what Scott Ritter said in a recent interview by Seymour Hersch:
MR.HERSH: How do you get them out, how quickly?
MR. RITTER: The quicker the better. I mean, I'd leave it up to military professionals to determine how you reduce perimeters. There are some areas of the country where you can just literally up and run. But we have a significant force in place, we have significant infrastructure in place, and we have an active insurgency that would take advantage of any weaknesses. But I guarantee you this, if we went to the insurgents--and I do believe that we're having some sort of interaction with the insurgents today--and said we're getting out of here, all attacks would stop. They'd do everything they can to make sure that the road out of Iraq was as IED-free as possible.
Here's a link to the entire interview in case you're interested: Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh: Iraq Confidential - The Nation October 26, 2005
My concern with 'orderly' withdrawal vs. immediate withdrawal is that no one is defining what they mean by 'orderly'.
Does it mean lengthy negotiations? An Iraqi army stood up? A defeated insurgency?
It could mean a lot of things to a lot of people... and meanwhile the war drags on.
On the other hand, there is no question, no distraction, no spin, and no confusion about what we mean when we say BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW.