May 16, 2007
Don't Make Me Come Back There
Couldn't we pull the troops out of Iraq, see how it goes, and then go back if needed? Sure there's a cost of moving the troops around, but there's also a cost associated with leaving them there. What's the ratio? Maybe it's something like bringing the troops home and then redeploying them later costs as much as leaving them there for a year. Right now the war seems kind of open-ended -- it could go on for another 4,5, or even 10 years as far as I know.
To lessen the costs of moving the troops around, maybe we could leave all the equipment there. Let the Iragis use it for a while, for themselves. When things calm down, we bring the equipment back. Or they can rent to own.
Using this method, when we leave we should have explicit reasons laid out for going back. An example might be an exact amount of casualties. Let's say that after we leave, violence escalates. Maybe the rule would be something like: When the average amount of daily casualties increases by 100% after the date of withdrawal, we go back. There could be several different reasons. The point is that they should be explicit. They should be the things that people are worried about happening if the troops all left today.
One criticism I've heard about withdrawing from Iraq is that the bad guys will think that they've won. They'll think that they scared America away. So what? Let them think that if they want. Why can't we just say: "Look, this has been going on for a long time and no one is really getting anywhere. We're tired of all of the killing, and we want to bring our people home. If that's 'winning' for you, fine. You win. Oh, but we'll come back if things get out of hand. So if you want to live your lives in peace like the rest of us, you'd be smart to just let everyone get back to their daily lives. Thanks."
Posted at May 16, 2007 09:46 AM
I like it! Especially the RTO (Rent To Own) bit. But seriously, you are right on the mark!
I think you may be misreading the actual strategy involved in declaring this occupation a "war". It's looking more like a state of permanent war to me, where the point of being there is to be there. There's no point at which troops would withdraw because they're not there to secure any accomplishment beyond being there.
Posted by: Binder at May 17, 2007 08:44 PM
I guess that's why we hear so little about what the goals actually are.
Posted by: randomlife at May 18, 2007 02:31 PM
Yeah...I think of it as a cold war. Much like Viet Nam! In fact, way too much like Viet Nam. Scary. I have talked about it with some of the Viet Nam people I know who live in this country now and they feel the same way...it is like a deja vu according to their experiences.
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, .Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)