Withdrawing from Iraq one of only two options left says Andrew Sullivan

[beachmom]

This was what I've been waiting for. I have been reading Andrew for a LONG time, and I was wondering when he was going to finally accept withdrawal as a feasible option. This latest NIE put him over the edge:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/the_nie.html

The NIE further concludes that our continued ineffective presence in Iraq is spawning more terrorism, and that our departure would also be a huge morale boost to the Jihadists and foment even more hell. Great. (What the war has done to increase Iran's power and potential danger is not addressed in the sections I've read. But it surely adds to the negatives.) What's clear to me is that we therefore have a gamble ahead of us: do we withdraw from Iraq in some way - either completely or to Kurdish areas - or do we seriously try and get the occupation right? At this point, I'd say the argument is very finely balanced. Obviously, the first step must be to get rid of the people so far responsible for the Iraq disaster. Until Rumsfeld is dismissed, we have no hope for any improvement. General Casey needs to be fired as well, along with several other military leaders who have presided over this mess. For the first time in this administration, we need some accountability. Then we have a decision to make. Do we have the troops necessary to make this work? Or do we not? If we need a draft, do we have the guts to say so and debate it?

My own view is that we should either drastically up the ante in Iraq - by adding tens of thousands of new troops in a serious, concerted attempt to provide order for the first time; or we should withdraw. Anything in between continues the same worst-of-all-worlds nightmare. We knew occupying a Muslim country would be a very high-risk venture. Which is why it had to be done with overwhelming force, meticulous planning, and an equally painstaking political strategy for the aftermath. We know now that Rumsfeld and Cheney just wanted to bomb the crap out of the place to prove they had more testosterone than the Democrats and to scare a few leaders in the Middle East. But the time for their amateurism is over. Either get serious or leave, guys. And make up your mind soon.

Now I highlighted the part where he said withdrawing completely or to Kurdish areas. I had e-mailed him a month back to say as far as Baghdad and the Sunni triangle went, withdrawing troops to Kurdistan or to Kuwait would make no difference. The point was that our troops would be withdrawing from the main battlefield. I didn't argue for either side, because I was just trying to get him to think that Kerry's plan was not so different from conservatives wanting to go to Kurdistan MILITARILY. But, now that it looks like he has conceded my point by lumping the two options together, POLITICALLY speaking for the region, withdrawing completely from the country is the better option of withdrawal. Another post he shares proves that point:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/polling_iraqis.html

A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the US military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the US made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on US-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

A withdrawal to Kurdistan would NOT alleviate that perception of the Iraqi people. Therefore, we must withdraw from Iraq completely to our existing bases in the region. Al Qaeda in Iraq can act as euphoric as they want. The truth is that their "victory" will be short lived. The Iraqi government and its people will feel more emboldened to stand up for themselves without an occupying force and launch reprisals against them, not to mention that our special forces and air power will continue to hunt them down (Zaqawi was taken out from troops not based in Iraq). The civil war may get worse (which is where the summit Kerry advocated for will come in); but to suggest that al Qaeda will long term be able to be dominate in Iraq is laughable on its face. Foreigners of ALL stripes are looked on with distrust and suspicion by the Iraqis.

As far as the McCain option (more trooops), that'll never happen, nor will a draft. The American people simply do not have the political will to do that. Andrew, over time, will end up supporting a withdrawal. That's the next thing I'll be waiting for.

And as far as '08 politics go, do you see what this means?

This is not McCain vs. Hillary, or McCain vs. Edwards or McCain vs. Warner or McCain vs. Bayh.

This is McCain vs. Kerry, and I think it's a good and honest debate to have about Iraq. We need a person to represent our party that isn't going to mince words and has thought this through. That's John Kerry. And I think he can win that debate with McCain quite easily.

[blm]

1. Really admirable work, beachmom.

Smart of you to help Andrew along the way you are. Funny how so many "journos" need better facts than they get.

[wisteria]

2. Great, keep up the good work. Maybe, with your help, we can

get him to support Kerry's direction, if not all the other Democrats.