December 7, 2005
A Fourth Position on Withdrawal
By Ed Koch
There are at
least four positions currently being advanced as to the timing of
a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.
President
Bush, supported by Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain
(R-AZ) and others, sums up Position One by saying "As Iraqis
stand up, we will stand down." In his November 30 speech
at the Naval Academy, the President said, "We will continue
to shift from providing security and conducting operations against
the enemy nationwide to conducting more specialized operations
targeted at the most dangerous terrorists. We will increasingly
move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which
we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys."
How long
it will take for Iraqis to attain the capability to defend themselves
against terrorists and insurgents is impossible to predict. Last
September the commander of our forces in Iraq, General George
W. Casey, testified before the Congress that only one Iraqi battalion
is capable of combat without U.S. support.
The December
issue of the Atlantic examines the state of readiness
of the Iraqi army in an in-depth article by James Fallows, who
writes, “In short, if American troops disappeared tomorrow,
Iraq would have essentially no independent security force. Half
its policemen would be considered worthless, and the other half
would depend on external help for organization, direction, support.
Two-thirds of the army would be in the same dependent position,
and even the better-prepared one third would suffer significant
limitations without foreign help…America’s hopes today
for an orderly exit from Iraq depend completely on the emergence
of a viable Iraqi security force. There is no indication that
such a force is about to emerge. As a matter of unavoidable logic,
the United States must therefore choose one of two difficult alternatives:
It can make the serious changes -- including certain commitments
to remain in Iraq for many years -- that would be necessary to
bring an Iraqi army to maturity. Or it can face the stark fact
that it has no orderly way out of Iraq, and prepare accordingly.
Position
Two, which is increasingly supported by Democrats in Congress,
including, most recently, Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D-CA), was first enunciated by Congressman John Murtha
(D-PA). The New York Times characterized Murtha's position
as calling for "a troop withdrawal, perhaps by next summer,"
with American troops stationed near, but outside of, Iraq. His
resolution called for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq
"at the earliest practical date," and provides for "a
quick-react U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S.
Marines shall be deployed in the region."
Position
Three, which is advanced by Senator Hillary Clinton, (D-NY) is
best summed up in her November 29 letter to her constituents in
which she stated, "I believe we are at a critical point with
the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow
us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while
leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater
intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance
our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests
of the Iraqi people...If these elections succeed, we should be
able to start drawing down our troops, but we should also plan
to continue to help secure the country and the region with a smaller
footprint on an as-needed basis. I call on the President both
for such a plan and for a full and honest accounting of the failures
of intelligence - something we owe not only to those killed and
wounded and their families, but to all Americans."
Then there
is my position. I believe we should state formally before the
UN Security Council that it is our intention to totally withdraw
our military forces in Iraq within the next six months, with orders
to withdraw to be announced as soon as possible. The withdrawal
would take place unless our NATO allies and our allies in the
Gulf region -- Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and
others -- immediately commit combat troops to Iraq in proportion
to the size of their military and agree to pay their fair share
of the cost of the war.
Our representative
to the UN, John Bolton, should state that while the UN Security
Council was divided on whether to enforce by military means the
unanimously-adopted Resolution 1441, it was unanimous in supporting
Security Council resolutions authorizing our remaining in Iraq
to stabilize it.
Bolton should
state we have tried to stabilize Iraq and are willing to continue
to try, but not alone. U.S. forces have suffered 2,125 deaths
and 15,881 injuries since hostilities began. The deaths, casualties
and costs are too much for the U.S. to bear unaided. We have 160,000
troops there. Our closest ally, Great Britain, has around 8,500,
and other coalition forces have as few as several hundred. Some
coalition forces have already entirely withdrawn their troops,
e.g., Spain. Others have stated they are reducing their number
or totally withdrawing their troops, e.g., Italy and Bulgaria.
Unless our
allies and the UN Security Council are willing to participate
and sacrifice proportionately by providing troops and money, we
should leave. If our allies and the UN Security Council are not
prepared to join us in seeking to create an atmosphere where a
democratically-elected Iraqi government can function and prevent
a civil war among the three major factions -- Kurds, Shiites and
Sunnis -- we should not remain in Iraq.
Many have
told me that this proposal sounds good, but it won't fly. Other
nations simply won't provide troops at this time. I disagree.
The reason I believe they will come in is that they have as much
or more to lose as a result of our leaving. In the event of civil
war, Iraq’s regional neighbors will be sucked in with Saudi
Arabia, Jordan and other Sunni-dominated countries, afraid of
Iran taking over the Shiite-dominated areas on Iran's border,
and Turkey seeking to dominate the Kurdish areas to squelch any
idea of an independent Kurdistan. The pressure to prevent the
consequences of a civil war would compel many of these countries,
including Russia, to enter the fray at this time to prevent one
from starting. It would be far less burdensome for them to come
in while the U.S. is still in Iraq, then to have to do so after
we've left. When we leave, there is no assurance that we will
come back. That is why I believe our allies, who should have stood
with us originally even if they disagreed with us -- and certainly
since the UN Security Council and the newly-elected Iraqi government
have asked us to remain -- will join us now rather than see us
leave. Let's give it a shot. The U.S. deaths and casualties are
simply too great to bear alone.
If the rest
of the world doesn't think it is in their interests to join us,
then it is still right for us to leave. We've more than paid our
dues in blood and money.
Ed
Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.
