How do we disengage from Iraq, and when?
Many Americans find themselves in an awkward position regarding the war in Iraq. Whether they oppose the war on principle or continue to support the mission but are disappointed with the apparent lack of progress, they would like an answer to two questions. How do we leave, and when?
The rhetoric from both sides is counter-productive to a solution. If one supports the mission, they’re “warmongers.” Opposed to the war? You don’t “support the troops.” There is little truth to either argument. I supported the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and still do. I believe, then as now, that our troops are fighting to protect our nation from those who have done us grievous harm, and given the opportunity, would do so again.
I am pro-mission, not pro-war. A fine distinction to some perhaps, but an accurate description nonetheless. Does that mean I feel the opponents of the war in Iraq are failing to support our troops? No, of course not. Opposition to war and failure to support those fighting that war are two very different things.
Many Americans have based their arguments against our continued presence in Iraq on what they view as the unnecessary sacrifice of our servicemen and women. This hardly seems appropriate to consider non-supportive of the troops.
Sadly, the argument has become so bitter that we’ve stopped listening to each other's points of view. We’ve allowed ourselves to be divided into two camps defined by empty catch phrases, “cut and run,” or “stay the course.” In doing so, we have willfully ignored the wide but largely unacknowledged middle ground. The view point that recognizes the heroism and sacrifice of our military, desires their safe return home, and understands the necessity to provide for stability in the region before our troops can fully withdraw.
The Iraqi people have braved many hardships in the past, they lived in fear under a despotic dictator, found themselves drug into wars they didn’t want which took many of their best and brightest young men, and have shown strength, resilience, and the desire to live in peace. In throwing off the chains of that dictator and attempting to stand as a new nation, they find their efforts violently opposed by a heartless insurgency largely manned and funded by non-Iraqis, and by internal strife between Sunni and Shiite militias.
Bringing these parties to the table and making them part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, is the aim of a group founded by Rosemary Palmer and Paul E. Schroeder. Their son, Marine Lance Corporal Edward (Augie) Schroeder, was killed in action near Haditha, Iraq in August of 2005. Families of the Fallen for Change, a non-profit organization, was begun to foster a bi-partisan solution to the Iraq war, and spare other parents the grief they feel. The group seeks to break the stalemate in Congress by offering a compromise plan calling for measurable benchmarks to be met by the Iraqi’s themselves to determine the rate and timing of American withdrawal.
Article comments
1 - Franco
Donnie,
I spent time over on the Families of the Fallen for Change website you linked. I would like to post their 4 goals here for reference in discussion.
1. A workable, bi-partisan plan to end the war in Iraq as soon as is reasonably prudent.
This is clear an apparent and I believe Washington wants this to happen just as much. On bipartisanism, I think it will be easier to stabilize Iraq. I’m not joking.
2. No expansion of the conflict beyond Iraqi borders.
I will post on this below.
3. Fully-paid medical, prosthetic, and psychological care for as long as is necessary for those injured as a result of military service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I fully agree 110%. It should be made part of the constitution of the United States and costs should be included in all defense budgeting. If that comes to 10% of that war effort, then that is what has to be there for this men and women when they return to civilian life.
4. Congressional pressure on the Bush Administration to achieve these goals. Members of Families of the Fallen for Change will support Congressional Representatives and Senators who actively pursue these goals.
I really can not see how this differs from the first goal because Washington DC and the Bush administration are just a frustrated and want it stabilized and with drawls to commence.
Now to address Goal #2. This is clearly logical in context to how most of us see the war now. Talking about planning (as their first goal dose) I want to through out the following thoughs.
We all know that the Bush administration did not tell us why the US went to war in Iraq. We all know the WMD story. Although, something could still be buried somewhere in the deserts of Iraq, Syria or the Bekaa valley in Lebanon. But lets not get off on that right now. We can debate it latter if it is important to you.
If you look at a map of Iran, Afghanistan is clearly bordering it on the right, and Iraq is clearly bordering it on the left, which also puts a checkerboard square between Iran and Syria.
Do you think that is just a quincedence?
I don't happen to think so. In fact I think Iran has been on the drawing board for over 15 years now. It's part of a long-term plan that came in to existence following the Gulf War. To get this plan started, the US needed a key to re-enter Iraq, thus WMD.
What does the long-term plan entail exactly, I don't have all the details, but in general it would have the interests of the Untied States, Middle East Arab countries (who do not relish another major regional state rattling the cage of insanity), and of course Israel. The major interest being Iran. Such a long term plan would surly have the goal of containing Irans visions of Middle East dominace, or at least its rising attempt as negive influance.
Now you might ask, what Middle East Arab countries? It should not come as any surprise to you that in fact most feel this way if you have been reading about the past 50 years in this region. They just can not go on record saying so in public when the US is involved. These Arab states need to remain in control of their countries and when another regional maniac raises up it ugly head, they get nervous. We have seen what just cartoons can do.
Iran has long has been in the making of trying to become the hardcore state religious leader to all Shiite Muslims throughout that land, and they even hold some respect with Sunni Muslims. Not a pretty thought when your are Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Lebanon as they just experienced from direct Iran intervention in supporting Islamic Imperialist.
Long-term is the key here. Democracy is something many Arab states are going to have a hard time getting into. This happed to Mother Russia when democracy came upon them too fast, they could not establish something they had never truly experience. Things went wild and Putin is still reeling in the fallout while balancing the appearance that Russia is not fully regressing on its heavy handed clamp downs of freedoms.
Where is all this going............I just wanted to start the ball rolling and see what other minds have to say on all this. If there is in fact a greater over all plan in play, and we are focussing on poppy fields, and the next name of the next terrorist group out of Iraq, then we are perpetuation the "I can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome. Opening up a discussion on the possibility of a greater over all plan, is just a way of stepping out of that for a bit and discussing it.
2 - Dave Nalle
I agree with Franco's point - which I've been making for 3 years, that the real reason for going into Iraq is to surround Iran with US forces and keep them under pressure. That does not, however, mean that the war as such would ever need to expand into Iran, because the point of this whole exercise is to pressure Iran withot having to actually invade Iran.
Dave
3 - MCH
Re #2;
Interesting. So Bush and Cheney were lying about the WMDs...?
4 - Donnie Marler
Franco, I'd like to state firstly, that I am not a member of Families of the Fallen for Change.
My purpose in citing their proposal was to bring another option up for discussion beyond the two entrenched positions I referenced in the body of the article.
Personally, I am still supportive of the mission in Afghanistan and Iraq. I see a great deal of room for improvement in the prosecution of the war on both fronts, but I do not believe we can, with any degree of conscience, simply leave.
I will say again, I am pro-mission, not pro-war. Believe me, there IS a difference folks.
As for the positions advocated by FOF, I agree 1 is something everyone desires, and 3 is a point we should all have no difficulty agreeing on.
I think you and Dave bring up an interesting and valid point concerning applying pressure to Iran by a heavy presence in the region. I don't see any way to make guarantees not to expand the fight beyond the borders. That is not entirely up to us to decide. I would say the FOF is primarily addressing Iraq in their stated plan.
As for item 4, that's been, I believe, ongoing for some time.
5 - steve
MCH. you don't make sense. The Bush Administration was fed the same information that was passed onto us. By the time that we found out that there were no WMD's; we were deep into the Iraq conflict. What were we supposed to do? pack our bags then and there? We made a big mess up to that point. It takes time to sweep up such a mess; while at the same time bring stability to such a fragile country. Hopefully one day Iraq will look at the US as a solid ally; thankful for our contribution for their freedom exercised by millions.
6 - Donnie Marler
Re #3,
This is an example of the statemate rhetoric I spoke of. Out of the article and Franco's detailed observations the only comment you were moved to make was, 'so Bush and Cheney were lying about WMD's?'
Does this contribute anything at all to the discussion over the present situation?
7 - Baronius
"the plan calls for a quantifiable reduction in violence"
I have no idea what you mean by this.
8 - Donnie Marler
Confirmable reduction in violence resulting in injury or death before another stage of the draw-down is implemented, Baronius.
The plan is calling for a percentage agreed upon by the parties to be used as the benchmark.
9 - MCH
"Re #3,
This is an example of the statemate rhetoric I spoke of..."
Than you and I will have to agree to disagree on the definition of "rhetoric."
In my viewpoint, rhetoric is the chickenhawks credo, spouting bellicose, macho war-speak and boastfully proclaiming to "support" the war....all from the safety of their homes, while sending someone else overseas to fight their battles for them.
I'm in agreement with my fellow vets who are against the invasion and occupation. See Veterans Against the Iraq War, www.vaiw.org/vet, and Iraq Veterans Against the War, www.ivaw.org/.
MCH, Navy vet '70-74
10 - Donnie Marler
MCH,
As I said in the article, I don't see a shortage of rhetoric from either side. It makes me wonder if we would take on a good solution if we saw it, or if we'd continue to squabble and miss the opportunity.
Have you checked out the organization I wrote of? As I've noted, I'm conservative in my politics, but for the sake of our guys fighting we need to make every attempt to rise above the partisan bickering and do what's right for them.
Thanks for the links. I will check them out. Conservative doesn't mean closed minded. I hope. lol