Getting out of Iraq

Today's debate about leaving Iraq is something we needed before we invaded. The daily news about Iraq is a constant reminder that I live in a country that has been reeling toward intolerance, incompetence, aggression and all of the distasteful things that seem to accompany an occupation. These problems are particularly transparent, from the petty to the horrific.

The shredding of our civil liberties at home, the official support for torture, secret (but not that secret) overseas gulags, the appalling situation at Gitmo, the discussions of bombing al-Jazeera and in today’s New York Times, this report by John Burns on how the US and Iraqi officials cut off cameras in the Saddam Hussein trial, in order to prevent his criticism of the occupation to be heard on television. The US even finds it necessary to take away a poem he wrote, saying "truth is our characteristic. . . lying is theirs."

In the same edition of the NYT Dexter Filkins reports on the evidence that Iraqi security services are engaged in extensive executions of Sunni civilians. "Some Sunni males have been found dead in ditches and fields, with bullet holes in their temples, acid burns on their skin, and holes in their bodies apparently made by electronic drills." This is apparently how we are making "progress" in Iraq. It is also how we are creating a legacy that will haunt us for many years to come, and undermine so many other things that the United States could do in the world.

Journalists like Judy Miller, Bob Woodward and their colleagues are shocked at the hostility of the public toward them, but what is her or his or their friends' role in promoting or inconveniencing the militarization of foreign policy, and such a hideous transformation of our country? Indeed, what do any of us do to really oppose these terrible things?

Congressman Murtha's call for a relatively quick exit from Iraq has now made it politically safer for members of Congress to actually talk about the future of this occupation, and to insist that we are not planning for a permanent occupation.

If we had insisted on an exit plan before we invaded, it would have required someone somewhere to think through the consequences of the military actions, toward the end game.

Today is a confrontational debate over how fast to exit Iraq, or if there should be a time table at all. I suggest the debate should be not on the need for a single plan, but rather on the need for several exit strategies - one for 6 months, one for 2 years, one for 5 years, for starters. None of these plans need be mandatory to execute, but they should be mandatory to have. The idea is that the public should look at a variety of options, all involving getting out of Iraq, and see which options are the most attractive.

It may be the case that a 6 month withdrawal is not going to look pretty. But it isn't necessarily the case that the longer occupation looks better. In any case, by creating options, that are at least feasible and fleshed out, you can have a real debate of a future that does not involve the US trying to annex by force Middle Eastern countries. It is rather astonishing that we don't have any real plans to get out at this point. That needs to change.

James Packard Love