Rocks and hard places
Cindy Sheehan's demand that we withdraw from Iraq and Bush's claim that we'd be stupid to do it has me in an uncomfortable position. Withdrawing from Iraq would be a mistake at this point, a big one. I greatly regret the circumstances that got us to this point, but ducking and running is not a viable option for getting out of this with a modicum of face.
The only moral obligation we have right now is not to root out terrorism in Iraq, but to provide the security services to the Iraqi people that we removed from them when we invaded. Until such time that the Iraqi government says 'get out', or their own security services are such that they can handle the problem, leaving is a non-viable option.
We do have our own limitations, though. Recruitment is still down for the year, though recent months it has barely met quota. Couple that with the stop-loss orders that can't stand for much longer and the corresponding decrease in the retention rate, and we have a real problem on our hands. That's the point where the choice between enacting a draft, increasing the re-up and enlist bonuses to staggering levels, or withdrawal will have to be made. The first is impossible in our current environment, the second is doable but will be subject to major debate and may not stop the leak, and the third will be very tempting since it'll be the cheapest of the three.
So when Bush said that withdrawal would be caving in to the demands of the terrorists, he was correct. Democracies do have a weakness in that we do have a soft stomach when it comes to some things, and armed conflict with no apparent gain is one area where that's the case.
You can already see the Administration's efforts to speed up our withdrawal with good face. The pressure to get the Iraqi military up and running effectively is quite visible. The pressure to get a solid government in place is also quite visible. We seem to have given up on 'rebuilding' for the time being, as everything we try to build gets blown up again. Once the first two are in place the third becomes easier, and we can start troop draw-downs. The trick is seeing if it can be done before our own military cracks under the strain.
The only moral obligation we have right now is not to root out terrorism in Iraq, but to provide the security services to the Iraqi people that we removed from them when we invaded. Until such time that the Iraqi government says 'get out', or their own security services are such that they can handle the problem, leaving is a non-viable option.
We do have our own limitations, though. Recruitment is still down for the year, though recent months it has barely met quota. Couple that with the stop-loss orders that can't stand for much longer and the corresponding decrease in the retention rate, and we have a real problem on our hands. That's the point where the choice between enacting a draft, increasing the re-up and enlist bonuses to staggering levels, or withdrawal will have to be made. The first is impossible in our current environment, the second is doable but will be subject to major debate and may not stop the leak, and the third will be very tempting since it'll be the cheapest of the three.
So when Bush said that withdrawal would be caving in to the demands of the terrorists, he was correct. Democracies do have a weakness in that we do have a soft stomach when it comes to some things, and armed conflict with no apparent gain is one area where that's the case.
You can already see the Administration's efforts to speed up our withdrawal with good face. The pressure to get the Iraqi military up and running effectively is quite visible. The pressure to get a solid government in place is also quite visible. We seem to have given up on 'rebuilding' for the time being, as everything we try to build gets blown up again. Once the first two are in place the third becomes easier, and we can start troop draw-downs. The trick is seeing if it can be done before our own military cracks under the strain.
posted by Corwin at 8:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home