National Libertarian Party: Exit Strategy for Iraq

[Guest $iLk]

http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf

It's worth reading, and makes a good amount of common sense.

[John Prezioso]

An interesting plan. I think it MIGHT be implementable, but I have concerns:

1) The claim that the insurgency is made up resistance fighters and not terrorists could be true. The problem is, how can this be verified? Furthermore, how is the exorbitant number of suicide bombings explained by the "resistance to occupation" theory? What happens when the terrorists continue attacking innocents in Baghdad and elsewhere once the coalition leaves? We have to be ABSOLUTELY sure that the Iraqi army and special forces are capable of fighting the terrorists when we leave.

I fear the country descending into chaos 10 times worse than what we are seeing in New Orleans right now. I would maintain a special forces presence and an intelligence contingent at the very least to help deal with terrorist threats.

2) One thing I have heard repeatedly about why we should leave immediately is the mounting casualty numbers.

To be sure, one American soldier's death is a tragedy. When I hear that a GI is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, it really hurts. I mean, it REALLY gets to me. I think about what my wife and kids would have gone through if I had been killed while I was in the military. The sacrifice of these brave souls (and their loved ones) must NEVER be forgotten.

Having said that, ending a war based on a casualty report is a very dangerous proposition. It sends a message to the enemy that our will can be broken if they bloody our nose enough. If anyone has ever studied the Pacific Theatre in WW2, they know that this was the strategy of Imperial Japan. it is for this reason the Japanese fought to the last man on every island (that, and the perceived dishonor in surrender), hoping to inflict such grievous casualties on the US that the cost would be too much to bear, and we would seek a settlement long before we ever approached Tokyo.

If the war in the Pacific were ended after 1800 casualties, we would have stopped at the first Island. We never would even made it to Tarawa. If the invasion of France were to have been stopped after 1800 casualties, D-Day would have lasted all of about 4 hours.

In the interest of preventing more brazen enemies with misguided judgements on our resolve, the exit must be done on OUR TERMS. It cannot be perceived as cutting and running, or there WILL be more violence in the future as our enemies will think they have found an exploitable weakness.

3) The part about sending 30,000 troops to 'other Muslim nations ' is cause for concern in my view. I noted that Turkey was listed as one of the possible countries for this relocation. Last I looked, Turkey has recently taken a decidely anti-American stance. Regardless of the country they are relocated to, what we would have is a spread out, diluted, piece-meal force in several palces instead of a concentrated, solid force as we have in Iraq, possibly making them even juicier targets for terrorist attacks. Would we pulling the troops out of the line of fire in Iraq, only to place them in the line of fire somewhere else, where the possibilty of a strong counter-attack is diminished due to limited forces?

All in all, none of these are deal-breakers to the Libertarian plan, but they are worth considering. I for one want our troops home as soon as possible, too. What I don't want is for the terrorists to win by plunging the country into hell after we leave, making the sacrifice of 1800 American heroes an empty one.

[Guest $iLk]

1.) As noted in the document, not all of those fighting the United States are resistance fighters. But most are. 20,000+ Iraqis are dead. There are husbands,wives,sisters,brothers,children,etc. who are quite angry. Whether or not we are the cause isn't the point. We are a target.

Look no further than New Orleans for verification of this theory. Iraqi troops and police should be handling their internal security. It is, in the ned, their problem. We should leave as soon as they are ready. (Which shouldn't take more than a year).

2.) Being stubborn so as not 'to embolden the terrists' is secondary to whether or not we are doing more harm than good in my opinion. If our very presence is increasing the costs to everyday Iraqis - they are going to love us less, no matter how long we stay. I look forward to the Iraqi government telling us to leave.

3.) Our troops would be safer in 'friendly' nations who would take us voluntarily than in a country that we have kicked it's ass and held it under our boot for 3 years. (in their view)

[Guest $iLk]

It's the Shiite's, not the Shia's who are in love with Iran.

[Guest $iLk]

Good to know. Thanks nomad.