The question continues to be ask, "What's the exit strategy? Here's

[hangloose]

the answer!

Ending the U.S. War in Iraq:
How to Bring the Troops Home and Internationalize the Peace

Those who advocate “staying the course” or “internationalizing the war” are too busy digging deeper. A real solution to the Iraq War must start with ending the U.S. occupation. Then, and only then, we can talk about internationalizing the peace.

<snip>

The U.S. Military Should:
Cease all offensive actions and depart from population centers. While moving out of the country altogether, U.S. troops should immediately redeploy toward the Iraqi borders, where Iraqi troops in a reconstituted Iraqi army, including most of the former soldiers demobilized by Paul Bremer, would work to secure the borders. The actual U.S. withdrawal should be carried out as quickly as possible to minimize the dangers for both U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians who may be endangered by continuing violence.

Close the 14 or more permanent and/or long-term military bases the U.S. has established in Iraq . A parallel congressional resolution should assert the principle of non-interference and non-intervention for the U.S. in Iraq , and support the full and complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq .

<snip>



The U.S. Administration Should:

Insist that the U.S.-dependent “interim government” in Iraq immediately postpone the scheduled January 30th national elections. Calls for postponement are already coming from Iraqi government officials, including the interim president, and numerous international and U.S. military officials. Once the U.S. troops are on their way out of the country, the UN should be encouraged, and provided with the requisite financial, political, and international military support, to work with Iraqi institutions to prepare elections for local and provincial governments within a brief period. The goal should be to allow an immediate devolution of local decisions, including humanitarian needs, education and reconstruction priorities, to local governments, while delaying the election of a national assembly and the beginnings of a national government until the U.S. occupation is completely ended.

Announce that the U.S. embassy in Baghdad will be reduced to “normal” size and authority. All U.S. advisers currently seconded to Iraqi ministries will be withdrawn. Once there is a truly independent government in place in Baghdad , the U.S. should pay for international advisers chosen by that government to assist in government ministries or other areas of work.

Declare that it has no intention of maintaining control, officially or through surrogates, over Iraq ’s oil, oil fields, or oil production capacity. While the administration has announced this before, the claim could never be taken seriously while the U.S. occupation remains in control of Iraq .

<snip> more.....


http://www.fpif.org/papers/0501occupation.html

[welshTerrier2]

1. fan-damn-tastic !!! great article ...

this lays out the only strategy that makes any sense ... thanks for posting it ...

look, here's the bottom line ... you cannot IMPOSE democracy with military force ... got that ??? let's go around one more time just to make sure: you cannot IMPOSE democracy with military force ...

does anyone believe the "insurgency" is slowly but surely being suppressed? or do you believe the continued U.S. occupation is not only swelling the ranks of the "insurgents" but alienating more and more Iraqis everyday? it's that simple ... it really is ... either there's a real basis for hope or there isn't ... which do you believe ???

and if there's no basis for hope with bush in power continuing the current military solution, it makes no sense to argue for staying the course ... arguments about "our obligation to help" make no sense in the current military context ... we're not "helping" just because we're there occupying the country ... in fact, continued U.S. military presence is very clearly destablizing Iraq ... "we have met the enemy and they are us" ... U.S. military presence is causing violence and instability ...

is it possible that civil war could result if the U.S. withdraws ??? you're damned straight it's possible ... but occupation and destabilization doesn't change that reality; it just postpones it ...

the policy called for in the article makes the most sense ... ALL interested parties in Iraq should be offered a place at the "international table" ... the U.S. has no credibility any longer to broker a deal ... and we certainly don't have any credibility while our military occupies the country ... conditions for the average Iraqi are getting much worse everyday ... little things like food, potable water, safety, electricity, housing and hope are become less and less assured as combat against the American occupation continues ...

the only policy is to get the hell out NOW ... all possible financial and humanitarian resources should be transferred to international organizations ... the U.S. cannot take the lead on this ... the goal is, of course, to encourage "peace talks" and negotiations among any and all interested parties ... job one is to stop the violence and initiate a discussion ... it can't happen with the U.S. military in place ... and, no, there's no guarantee ... a peace process might fall flat on its face ... and it might not ...

when real aid is offered, when real power is apportioned by negotiation and when the U.S. contribution to the violence ends, perhaps there will be at least some hope for progress ... doing more of the same will only yield more of the same ...

it's time for American voices for peace to be heard ...

[hang a left]

2. Fat chance.

But damned good ideas.

[welshTerrier2]

3. skeptical ??

well, that's certainly understandable ...

i mean, does anyone even know which Democrats are calling for withdrawal ??? they're all so "responsible and mature" ... gotta do the right thing ... can't leave those poor Iraqis in a destablized state ...

well, that's fine ... it's fine if there's reason to believe things are becoming more, not less, stable ... have you heard Democrats say that ?? i really haven't ... i hear them saying the "training of Iraqis" is a dismal failure ... so what exactly is the point of remaining there? they seem totally stuck in the mud, er quagmire, unable to have their policies match their own opinions ... have they been drugged or hypnotized ??? it's just not rational behavior ...

and what's this got to do with skepticism ??? truthfully, i'm not too hopeful either ... but there's this one little "tinkerbell sparkle", this one very faint ray of hope, that reasons that when our entire Party, or most of it, is being this fucking stupid, someone will awaken in the poppies, rouse the others and lead us all out of OZ ...

[hangloose]

4. They don't have an exit strategy because there is no exit planned

Were building with US tax dollars large military installations throughout Iraq. Most of the reconstruction funds are being diverted to this purpose. I know this because the company i work for has several contracts to build these bases.

I don't believe our intent is to leave, we will certainly reduce our presence in terms of personnel. But will not pull out. In time when and if things quite down and the puppet government can squash the uprising we will slowly and quietly increase our forces again. We are in it for the long haul. The only ting that could derail this plan is the public. But I feel, if our casualties drop, the public will lose interest-in part because Bush will divert attention to another hot spot and then another hot spot always moving the ball and our attention along with it, kinda like trained monkeys.

[progressiveright]

5. we can't win in iraq

but iraqies can. what do terrorists tell them? - hey, we are fighting evil usa that wants to take over your country. bush admin claims there are 140 thousand trained iraqi security forces, at condi hearing biden eloquently reasoned that number down to 4 thousand. we should start withdrawing immediately, and announce it, but it should be partial withdrawal, that could last to up to a year or so. We should spend twice as much on training iraqi police and security, provide them with weapons and equipment, let them secure areas and provinces by themselves as we keep pulling out. we should focus on local elections as well, working with local town elected officials. these bombings have killed tons of iraqies already, its incredible that they don't turn on terrorists, and our idiotic policies is one of the biggest reasons.

instead of letting foreign companies run the 'rebuilding process', we should invest into iraqi business, provide them with materials and training to do their own rebuilding, they have to have something to lose in order to fight for it.

the biggest problem to solve here is shiite-sunni conflict. shiites are the majority that was upressed by sunnis during saddam's rule. there needs to be a government that is structured so that kurds, sunni and shiites have to compromise with each other to get anything done, otherwise iraq will follow the path of most young democracies - despotic rule of majority which disintegrates into civil war and dictatorship.

we have to realize that most people would rather live poor and with less security than to be the 'stepping stone to expansion of american influence in middle east' as rumsfeld, wolfovits, cheney stated in their papers before bush got elected. the best option we have to settle for is a stable government that is not violently anti-american, its pointless to say that 'we' have to win here, with that kind of mentality nothing will get done.

[radfringe]

6. the "exit" plan

is to exit troops from Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran...

meanwhile the Iraq-mire is all Saddam's fault----
Vice President Cheney admits "miscalculation'' in Iraq
http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=64452
By Associated Press -- Thursday, January 20, 2005

WASHINGTON - As he enters his second term, Vice President Cheney is admitting ``a miscalculation'' in the Iraq war.

On the Don Imus radio show this morning, Cheney said he thought Iraq would recover more quickly after the U-S invasion.

In the interview, Cheney had been asked to identify mistakes in the U-S war plan. The vice president said Saddam Hussein's brutality in putting down a revolt in 1991 "made the situation tougher'' than the administration expected.

Cheney says he'd "chalk that one up as a miscalculation.''