RETIRED NSA CHIEF SAYS CUT AND RUN

LT GEN WILLIAM E. ODOM [RET] - The United States upset the regional 
balance in the Middle East when it invaded Iraq. Restoring it requires 
bold initiatives, but "cutting and running" must precede them all. Only 
a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops - within six months and with no 
preconditions - can break the paralysis that now enfeebles our 
diplomacy. And the greatest obstacles to cutting and running are the 
psychological inhibitions of our leaders and the public.

Our leaders do not act because their reputations are at stake. The 
public does not force them to act because it is blinded by the 
president's conjured set of illusions: that we are reducing terrorism by 
fighting in Iraq; creating democracy there; preventing the spread of 
nuclear weapons; making Israel more secure; not allowing our fallen 
soldiers to have died in vain; and others.

But reality can no longer be avoided. It is beyond U.S. power to prevent 
bloody sectarian violence in Iraq, the growing influence of Iran 
throughout the region, the probable spread of Sunni-Shiite strife to 
neighboring Arab states, the eventual rise to power of the anti-American 
cleric Muqtada Sadr or some other anti-American leader in Baghdad, and 
the spread of instability beyond Iraq. All of these things and more 
became unavoidable the day that U.S. forces invaded. . . 

Some lawmakers are ready to change course but are puzzled as to how to 
leave Iraq. The answer is four major initiatives to provide regional 
stability and calm in Iraq. They will leave the U.S. less influential in 
the region. But it will be the best deal we can get.

First, the U.S. must concede that it has botched things, cannot 
stabilize the region alone and must let others have a say in what's 
next. As U.S. forces begin to withdraw, Washington must invite its 
European allies, as well as Japan, China and India, to make their own 
proposals for dealing with the aftermath. . . Rapid troop withdrawal and 
abandoning unilateralism will have a sobering effect on all interested 
parties. . . 

The second initiative is to create a diplomatic forum for Iraq's 
neighbors. Iran, of course, must be included. Washington should offer to 
convene the forum but be prepared to step aside if other members insist.

Third, the U.S. must informally cooperate with Iran in areas of shared 
interests. Nothing else could so improve our position in the Middle 
East. The price for success will include dropping U.S. resistance to 
Iran's nuclear weapons program. This will be as distasteful for U.S. 
leaders as cutting and running, but it is no less essential. That's 
because we do share vital common interests with Iran. . . 
Accepting Iran's nuclear weapons is a small price to pay for the likely 
benefits. Moreover, its nuclear program will proceed whether we like it 
or not. Accepting it might well soften Iran's support for Hezbollah, and 
it will definitely undercut Russia's pernicious influence with Tehran.

Fourth, real progress must be made on the Palestinian issue as a 
foundation for Middle East peace. The invasion of Iraq and the U.S. tilt 
toward Israel have dangerously reduced Washington's power to broker 
peace or to guarantee Israel's security. We now need Europe's help. . .  
less.

[Odom was the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan 
administration]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-odom31oct31,1,7826686.
story?ctrack=1&cset=true