Asked to Leave

In the last couple days multiple Iraqi government officials, including Prime Minister al-Maliki have begun saying aloud that any Status of Force Agreement, which would almost certainly have to be approved by Iraq’s Parliament, would need to include a timetable for withdraw of U.S. forces. It, as always, includes the caveat that actual timing would be contingent on the situation on the ground, but this is perhaps the most explicit indication from the Iraqi government that our time in their country as an occupying force is on the downslope.

Our State Department met these reports with some spin. According to Reuters, “In Washington, John Sullivan, a spokesman for the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs bureau, said: ‘We believe that the prime minister's statement and the national security adviser's statements reflect shared goals of the United States and Iraq.’”

I find this statement by Mr. Sullivan hard to believe. It seems that the high-ranking members of the Iraqi government are asking for withdrawal. It should also be noted that the recently quiet, but highly influential Shi’ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has been consulted on this matter.

These public statements from the highest levels of Iraq’s government and the gentle pushback from our government begs a very important question. If we are being asked to leave, why aren’t we preparing to leave?

Let me qualify that statement slightly. It has long been assumed that troop levels will decline in 2009, both from strain on the military and personnel changes at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I am also assuming that behind closed doors (where the current administration does far too much of its work) talks of withdrawal aren’t taking place. Taking these assumptions into consideration, I still can’t help but wonder why we wouldn’t seize upon this opportunity. No withdrawal would be an expeditious withdrawal, but perhaps we should let Iraq handle its own affairs completely and totally.

As I am apt to do, I will play devil’s advocate for a moment and ask some of the questions I would suspect reside in the minds of those that would insist we stay a while longer in Babylon.

Won’t our departure simply lead Iraq into chaos? Won’t militants simply lie low until we’re gone and then seek to overthrow the duly elected government?
Our departure may lead to chaos, but we can’t hold a foreign country together. In the Balkans we, with the extensive help of NATO, helped buy the oppressed time to disengage and uproot and divide. One can debate the merits of the ethnic countries that sprung up in the aftermath, but no similar effort is being made in Iraq. In fact, it would appear that Iraq policy has been adrift in the sea of status quo for over a year now. Things are holding together, tenuously at best, but they are holding together so why mess up a good thing?

And even if the current situation is tenuous it is becoming clear that our prolonged presence is doing little more then perpetuating an untenable state. I ask the question, so what if Iraq goes to hell after we leave? The human suffering could be immense. The resulting government could be closely allied to Iran and all the bit as roguish as Saddam’s regime, but at least American soldiers wouldn’t be dying to maintain the status quo. Also, we need to remember that a violent and protracted civil war is not a forgone conclusion. We also need to remember that if you feel that civil war is a forgone conclusion, can we possibly stay there long enough to make it not so?

We have reached a point where the only choice is to disengage and hope the Iraqis impress us after we’re gone. It is becoming very clear there is little more we can do for them.

What about American business interests (read: oil) in Iraq?
The American military is not in the business of protecting by force the investments of American companies. If large oil companies want to operate in Iraq, they will and they can negotiate directly with the Iraqi government. We have been told, and I am inclined to agree, that the invasion was never about oil. Yes, I know about the no-bid contracts, but I am unconcerned as they are short-term and there are compelling reasons for them to be instituted.

Let oil companies operate at their own risk. If current prices of crude are any indication, oil has reached its peak of ubiquity in the world and now begins the long decline. Keeping 130,000 soldiers in Iraq to keep an open supply of oil is to perpetuate the oil dependency we have endured for more then a generation.

What about pride? We can’t retreat, can we?
Presumptive presidential nominee John McCain a few weeks back in response to some anti-war hecklers declared that he would never surrender. The resoluteness in his voice was frightening to me. He wants victory. Everyone wants victory. I want victory in Iraq, but about 3 or 4 years ago we lost track of what that was. Have you heard details about what victory now means? Liberate the people of Iraq. Check. Support a democratically elected government. Check. Write a new constitution, approved by the people. Check. Yet, those accomplishments didn’t achieve “victory” because there is still extensive violence. So my question to all in politics is what is victory in Iraq?

I contend that “victory” such as it is has been achieved, and now all that is left is to disengage. It’s not retreat. We were not bested; we have simply exhausted the work which we can do.


There have never been easy answers in Iraq and when to leave has been one of the more elusive answers to find, but we have an opportunity now. The Iraqi government has asked us to set our departure date. I say we take them up on their offer and right now really start considering how and when we will disengage. We broke, we bought it, it sounds like the Iraqis want to buy it back. It’s their country, shouldn’t we let them?