Withdrawal Is Not Retreat

By William M. Arkin
The Washington Post

Friday 18 November 2005

How to get out of Iraq.

Congressman John Murtha's speech on Iraq yesterday is another turning point in the Iraq debate. The President and Vice President may argue that politicians are playing politics and their feelings may be hurt that their competence and motives are called into question, but when one of the Pentagon's best friends speaks out against continuing the Iraq enterprise, the voices at the White House seem ever more puny and defensive.

So it isn't surprising that all White House spokesman Scott McClellan could say yesterday was that Murtha was "endorsing the policy positions of ... the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."

McClellan challenged Murtha to explain "how retreating from Iraq makes America safer."

Step one would be for the P.R. and spin warriors at the White House to stop using the language of "retreat" to describe a needed change of course. They are making the inevitable ever more difficult.

John Murtha, certainly one of the most hawkish senior Democrat leaders in the US House of Representatives, retired Marine colonel and Vietnam veteran, said yesterday that "the US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring [the troops] home."

Murtha calls:

* To immediately redeploy US troops consistent with the safety of US forces.
* To create a quick reaction force in the region.
* To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
* To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

He says he wants US troops out of Iraq as soon as they can be withdrawn safely. He estimates that should take about six months.

I have already written in these pages that I think the United States should leave Iraq.

The serious arguments I have gotten generally follow the same pattern: if we withdraw, sectarian violence will increase, civil war will erupt, and Iraq will become another "ungoverned space" like Taliban era Afghanistan and an even bigger breeding ground for terrorism.

These are all valid concerns, and withdrawal from Iraq would be a huge risk. Given these risks then, how would withdrawal make America safer?

First, the announcement of a timetable for withdrawal of US forces, and the plan to do so requires clear articulation that rejects the language of "retreat."

Second, an American plan for withdrawal and a change in course, needs to be taken advantage of to have the immediate effect of deflating the insurgency and of creating a greater gulf between the insurgency and the public in Iraq. Gen. George Casey, the commander of US forces in Iraq, told Congress in September that "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." And Gen. John Abizaid, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the same day that "reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy." Without a US military target on the roads of Iraq everyday, or the justification of US military occupation as the reason for violence, casual public support for the insurgency will decline, and a greater sense of urgency will be created in the country to provide for common security.

Third, the US military has demonstrated that it can do little to stem the ever growing hard core sectarian violence in Iraq. Our best hope to restore some degree of peace between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds in Iraq is to remove ourselves from the crosshairs, contain the violence as best we can to inside Iraq's borders, and work internationally, diplomatically and politically to assist the three groups to find a way to live together. That enterprise might fail, but 140,000 US troops is hardly a sufficient number to contain the consequences.

Fourth, we should take advantage of withdrawal to completely transform this widespread US military presence and eliminate further American flags from the Middle East. The United States could and should permanently bring home at least 120,000 personnel, leaving what Congressman Murtha calls a quick reaction force anchored in Kuwait as well as aboard amphibious ships.

Fifth, by making the US quick reaction force more authentically expeditionary, we will have the benefit of removing the aura that we are not just occupying Iraq but also the region. Since Desert Storm, the US has built up a network of contingency bases in Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The bases, and the additional tens of thousands of US forces and contractors needed to run them, exist as much to support and sustain the US presence as to "fight terrorism."

Sixth, the withdrawal of the US military, and the consequent withdrawal of the protected US contractor class will allow the Iraqis to put their oil and electrical infrastructure back into operation to Iraqi standards, not international gold standards. In my trips to Iraq in the 1990's, when Saddam Hussein lived under sanctions, I always marveled at Iraqi ingenuity in keeping its power plants going or finding clever duct tape to keeping the oil flowing. Despite the gazillions we've spent and all of that "help" from Halliburton and Company, oil and energy production are still below pre-war levels. Let's just get out of the way.

Will the withdrawal from Iraq be another Somalia, where we signal to bad guys that we don't have the stomach for combat? With a stronger military not bogged down in go-nowhere operations in Iraq, we would be able to focus our counter-terrorism efforts. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should pack up and go home. But we just need to frankly admit to ourselves that the Iraq war - justified or not - has lit a flame that is inspiring thousands to take up arms. We are building the ranks of those who want to fight America because we are a physical and real military target. It is the uniform that calls out for war-making.

Supporters of the war in Iraq insist that we are turning the corner there, that the US military and US intelligence is doing better, that Iraqi public opinion is turning against the insurgents and their attacks on civilians, that a government will soon be in place, and that Iraqi security forces are making progress.

Congressman Murtha partially sidesteps these war supporters by focusing on the immediate health of American military: the 2,100 American military deaths and almost 16,000 injuries, the devastation of families, the fatigued soldiers on their second or third deployments.

"This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft," the Congressman says. "The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden."

Murtha isn't calling for a draft, or arguing for mobilization, or for increased taxes or rationing. In this regard, I take it he is rejecting the Bush administration's argument that the war on terrorism is the new Cold War, that it is a clash of civilizations that demands our sacrifice. I believe it is neither and I look forward to the debate doors that will open as we increasingly put the failed Iraq enterprise behind us.