Features

The election of a new Iraqi Assembly is a milestone in the occupation and, therefore, an opportunity for Americans to consider our options in Iraq: one would be to stick with the Bush “plan” to tough it out, another to withdraw our troops, and a third to proceed in some novel direction. This analysis considers the second option, a speedy withdrawal. 

Pundits have observed that George W. Bush’s brand of religion is closer to Manichaeism than it is to mainstream Christianity, as it is dominated by images of a battle between good and evil, and judgments such as “You’re either with us or against us.” Whatever it is called, Bush’s belief system causes him to paint America’s policy choices as either black or white. His penchant for radical simplification makes for convincing sound bites and has greatly helped create an image of Bush as a man who makes up his mind and sticks to it. 

As a result of this Manichaeism, the Bush administration has cast the occupation Iraq as having only two faces; those who support the president’s stance of “staying the course” are portrayed as being on the side of righteousness; on the other hand, those who suggest that we ought to withdraw are described as terrorist sympathizers. This aggressive Bush posture has been so effective that most Democrats have adopted the tactic of only questioning administration policy at the margins, by arguing, for example, that we need more troops or we should fight smarter. Over the holidays Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman was in Iraq visiting the troop and observed, “Morale is high. [U.S. troops are] serving with a real sense of purpose and they’re proud of what they’re doing. They are contributing in a difficult circumstance to a historic transformation.” Translation: “I support the troops and don’t have the slightest idea how to get out of this mess.” 

Yet there are plausible alternatives to the obdurate Bush Iraqi strategy. They begin with the observation that the occupation has been characterized by gross incompetence and, as a result, many policy choices have been rendered unfeasible by administration bumbling. Among these lost options is that of relying upon the United Nations or NATO to provide peacekeeping forces so that the United States can gracefully withdraw from Iraq. The few choices that remain viable might be termed triage tactics, for all of them have a painful down side.  

With notable exceptions, such as Congresswoman Barbara Lee, few Democrats have had the temerity to call for one of these difficult alternatives, an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but such a move has obvious advantages: The swift removal of U.S. troops would bring an end to American casualties. It would also be viewed positively by much of the world, and, thereby, restore some of America’s credibility. For many Americans, it would belatedly recognize the immorality of the invasion. 

But the longer the occupation continues, the more unlikely it is that an immediate withdrawal would be a viable option. Saying that America should abruptly depart from Iraq is comparable to the situation where a well-intentioned friend or relative advises a battered wife that she should immediately leave her husband; It’s morally correct but, usually, operationally impractical advice, as most battered women have no resources: no housing, money, job, or childcare—none of the essentials they would need to make a safe break from an abusive relationship.  

A unilateral withdrawal may be the morally correct stance, but it is now operationally impractical. The United States overthrew the Hussein regime and occupied Iraq; in the process we destroyed the country’s infrastructure. Therefore, we have an obligation to rebuild Iraq and to do what we can to establish the social foundation for an enduring democracy. This would not happen if the U.S. were to abruptly withdraw. Instead, Iraq would fall further into chaos.  

There are many other considerations that argue against a total withdrawal: America has guaranteed the safety of the fledgling Kurdish state, and to a lesser extent, the prospects for democracy among Iraq’s Shiite population; both of these efforts would be jeopardized if we left now. The administration has touted Iraq as the cornerstone of an American initiative to bring real democracy to the Middle East; many would see our departure as not only a U.S. failure, but as evidence that democracy will not work in the region. Finally, observers of all political persuasions argue that removing our troops from Iraq would only serve to encourage terrorists, to remind them of previous retreats in Beirut and Mogadishu, and thereby increase the probability of attacks on American interests in the Middle East and Central Asia.  

The Bush administration is famously adverse to constructive criticism. They have stubbornly clung to the position that there is only one correct way through the Iraq maze, and that is the path that America is plodding down. Such a perspective does not encourage creative thinking, but that is what is needed if our nation is to escape this quagmire; progressives must think outside the box and propose a novel solution.›