Iraq War: We need to talk

Sunday, November 20, 2005

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

Rep. John Murtha, prepare to be Swift-boated. "He is backing the policy positions of Michael Moore ... " said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.


It's an idiotic comment from a mere flak about a decorated Marine Corps veteran of the wars in Korea and Vietnam. But no matter how much hostile fire Murtha may take over his call for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq, he's at least moved the discussion from finger-pointing over why we got into the war to the far more important topic of how we get out of it.

Few options are without merit or risk.

Staying the course relies on the premise that an occupying force can win against an entrenched insurgency. History argues against it. Standing pat also relies on hopes of mitigating the longstanding tribal enmity among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Immediate withdrawal is founded on the premise that Iraqis -- and other nations in the region -- will never accept a government husbanded by the United States. But will democracy somehow spring to life in the vacuum left by America's departure? More likely is a civil war, won by Shiites, with the help of Iran, and the potential of a new, oil-rich fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Also, a U.S. pullout could send a damaging message to the rest of the world about our resolve. But even the hurried House vote Friday should not foreclose this discussion.

Setting a timetable for withdrawal offers Iraqis a double incentive. It gives them a deadline to develop their own security forces and a definitive schedule for the end of the loathed U.S. occupation. But it might also offer insurgents incentive to keep up the fight, and the stage could still be set for civil war.

The urgent task lies in crafting the future, not rewriting the past.

© 1998-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

posted by Stash @ 12:02 PM