Tom,
Like you, I don't agree with 100% of the plan. But it is far better to be able to sit here and argue about whether 90 or 365 days is preferable than not to have a plan from which we may debate.
The most important reservation I have is moving troops to other mid-eastern countries.
Should, by some wild stretch of imagination, this plan is implemented, I'll be the first and the loudest to insist that we remove the rest of the casus belli.
Steve,
I agree. The LP is offering a concrete, reasonable plan to do what the American people say should be done ... and no other party is offering such a plan.
That's great -- and it's why I applaud the LP, even if I disagree with some details of the plan.
Regards,
Tom
This matter is now under discussion at libs4peace, comments having been posted by Terry Parker, Stephen Gordon, and me.
I'll briefly repeat here the main points I made in that post.
I don't see the need to specify a time period, which just makes it look like the activists are playing armchair generals. The principle to advance is that withdrawal should begin immediately, and proceed on a timetable that maximizes the safety of the troops. The details can and should be left to the professionals.
There should be no government-to-government aid or reparations. Americans may contribute voluntarily as their consciences dictate.
In any case, aid/reparations is not part of military withdrawal. The 'exit strategy' ought to be silent on the matter.
Some statements in the document suggest that withdrawal is now acceptable because 'missions' or 'objectives' have been accomplished. These seem to be implicit endorsements of the invasion/war and, to quote myself 'implicit endorsements of the next illegal, aggressive, deception-based war.'
The document also uncritically accepts the phrase 'war on terror'.
Either of the last two points would suffice to break the deal for me. I won't be supporting this document.
Specifying how many troops go where seems like more unneccesary micro-managing to me, but other than that I don't have a problem with it EXCEPT for sending more troops to the other war zone, Afghanistan.
I think the LP plan is acceptable, though I'm not sure why all the detail is needed. Why not just cite the report generated by Cato a year ago?
As for these timelines--I believe that the Iraqis have an elected government now. The "timeline" should be based upon giving them a reasonable amount of time to prepare for their own defense.
The problem I see with the administration approach (along those lines) is this notion that the U.S. is responsible for builidng up an Iraqi army and we will just take as long as it takes. (I don't trust the administration and fear that they really want a permanent presence in Iraq to threaten Iran and Syria.)
I don't believe the U.S. should pay reparations to Iraq. Nor do I think the LP should be proposing foreign aid. On the other hand, military aid to the elected government for a limited time may be sensible.
Perhaps I misread the situation in Iraq, but I don't believe interpreting it as if the Sunni Arabs make up 100% of the population (rather than 20%) is realistic or wise.
I think the LP approach does a better job of recognizing the situation than what I am reading here.
Bill Woolsey
David and Bill,
Thanks for both your comments. They constitute an interesting comparative rundown of where the "purists" and the "pragmatists" in the LP agree and disagree.
I find the plan imperfect myself, of course (as I probably would just about any proposed plan. Whether I find it acceptable or unacceptable is something I haven't decided yet. And since I am not, and don't plan to become, a party member, I don't guess my endorsement or lack thereof particularly matters (or should matter) to anyone.
What I do find heartening is that the LP is doing what "major party" politicians have declined to do -- making a concrete withdrawal proposal. Too bad the LP doesn't have a congressional delegation to propose a bill based on it.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I think the real value of the LP withdrawal proposal lies in the media coverage it generates. If the party can get some attention for the plan, then it can focus on how Libertarians were opposed to this stupid war to begin with. A detailed proposal might get some press attention that a simple news statement wouldn't.
That said, I don't think the party should be calling for "relocating" US troops to other countries, or for creating a new foreign aid program, particularly one that would cost US taxpayers $150 billion(!) above what their government has already taken from them for this debacle. I understand the sympathy here, but continuing to force American citizens to atone for the sin of a reckless president isn't the way to go. The US has been trying to stabilize and rebuild Iraq for two years already. It's time to simply end it.
1) The GOP also has a plan for withdrawal from Iraq: Victory - there's no substitute.
2) Terrorism is not caused, triggered, or provoked by foreign intervention. History is filled with counterexamples of terrorism without foreign intervention (e.g., the Sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway), and foreign intervention without terrorism.
3) The consequence of US withdrawal from Southeast Asia in 1975 was genocide. The consequence of US withdrawal from east Africa in 1993 was genocide (in Rwanda). Why should the consequence of US withdrawal from the Middle East, where genocidal terrorists have been murdering Israelis, Iraqis, and others for decades, be any different?
You're so right, Tim. Let's hear it for Team America, World Police!
Victory or Death!
Quoth Tim Starr:
"The GOP also has a plan for withdrawal from Iraq: Victory: - there's no substitute."
There's also no substitute for reality. The reality is that to even begin to think about pacifying Iraq, let alone achieving "victory" in the sense of lasting change matching the stated Bushevik goals, at least three times as many boots on the ground, and at least another decade of fighting, will be needed.
Reality also says that any party which attempts to implement those conditions for achieving victory will shortly find itself looking at the goings on in Washington -- from the outside.
Tom Knapp
1. Victory? Tell us what it means in an Iraqi context.
2. Some terrorism is triggered by foreign intervention. Other terrorism is not. For example, Timothy McVeigh, wasn't motivated by foreign interventionism. Now, maybe there are many examples where foreigners have infiltrated a society and committed terrorist acts because they just were offended by the way the natives behaved. Come up with an example.
3. The U.S. didn't withdraw from East Africa in 1993. The U.S. maintained basing rights in Kenya. Are you really blaming Rawanda on the withdraw from Somolia? Were U.S. troops in Somolia supposed to protect the Tutsis from the Hutus?
Anyway, I don't think the U.S. should remain in Iraq to prevent the Shia and Kurds from committing mass murder against the Sunni Arabs. I don't believe it is likely, but what other genocide do you have in mind? Who in Iraq (or elsewhere in the Middle East)is as crazy as the Cambodian Communists? I'm sure that if the Baathists or even the Sunni Arab fundamentalists got control of Iraq, the Shia and the Kurds would be in for some big time reprisals--maybe as bad as what happened to the Cambodian people. But why would that happen? Why can't the Kurds and Shia defend themselves? They make up 80% of the population. Why do they need the U.S. to defend them from the Sunni Arab minority?
You have to come up with something better than this argument by analogy.
The U.S. withdraws from somewhere, there is mass murder somewhere else, so the U.S. must never withdraw from anywhere?
What a joke.
Hi Tom!
I find this unacceptable as firstly it directly contradicts the platform regarding foreign aid, and secondly it is a bad strategic move.
This is compromise in advance, which is never a good move.
And incidentally, it didn't get any press that I could find.
All the best!
Greg
Commenting by HaloScan
