The methods of exiting Iraq

All the hoopla and politicians talking past each other show an appalling ignorance on the part of many of our national leaders. It is as if things are all or nothing, zero or one-hundred, or even just invented today vs. on-auto-pilot anyway. Then there is another appalling ignorance about whether D.C. is the center of the universe or is it somewhere else away from D.C. And last the finger pointing about getting out of Iraq is somewhat akin to what many of us observed in our high school days. The lack of experience (in this case how to win the peace and leave) has become gamesmanship about keeping up appearances, feigning expertise, and hiding ignorance. Oh, and of course, and being popular.

No citizen of this country expects the U.S. to be in Iraq in 100 years. We expect to have exited somehow and someway. The process for doing so is called a strategy. While many preferred a strategy that would have already had us out of Iraq, the subject was debated, and decisions were made, and we have the present situation today. In other words, we have a strategy, just many people don’t like it or their perception of it. Many think it is a mess worthy of U.S. political debate and an opportunity for political advancement, too.

There is some ethereal principle of life that has not been defined, but suggests that many claim credit for actions that are on auto-pilot anyway. This sounds too much like politics for too many. While there is no known reversal of this principle, a well intentioned citizen can bore through this fog and see the U.S. and its allies exiting Iraq and leaving it to them to sort out winning the peace, their way. Other strategies and timings suggest having won the war, we impose the peace in our way. But that strategy was superceded by what we have today, and so be it. And do keep in mind, strategies are all encompassing … they have elements of the military, politics, finance, and public well being. Any exit means more or less of each, with time-phasing brought in. Time-phasing is a military expression that means we will probably be in Iraq a long time for part of the exit strategy.

The D.C. centric world is understandable with one main caveat. There is yet to be any explanation of the alternatives, or consequences, of just cutting the cord completely. Until this happens, critics are weak in their failure to offer alternatives. At least the pacifist and anti-war types are up front about being against all wars, to include Iraq. That our society can breed and support such idealistic types who still do not recognize 911 for what it was still astounds me. Thank goodness they are a small minority, like 17% of the population, I think.

So we are where the voters lead, not the politicians. We are National Interest driven, not poll and popularity driven. We have an executive with a strategy that will take some few months, not long in world history. The enemy is relatively paltry and pitiful, with one exception being the leaders ability to keep recruiting suicide bombers, and a second exception being the use of oil profits. That the leaders are not willing to die is a good hint that they are morally bankrupt, and on the wrong side of history. Combine all this and the auto-pilot idea, and perhaps politicians should tone down for a while. We Americans have our interests, too. They are National, and not Party.