Why
We should Exit Iraq Now
Bill Richarson on a fact-finding mission in North Korea
By
Bill Richardson
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested
that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not
true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed
to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.
In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how
many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes.
I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect
a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for
years, they will stay for years -- a tragic mistake.
Clinton,
Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that
a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would
be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest
that a rapid, complete withdrawal -- not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like
process -- would be the most responsible and effective course
of action.
Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand
the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with
many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced
that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the
politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that
has been killing so many people for so long.
Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with
courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's
civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation
among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables
the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence.
And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations
to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the
war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda
of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil
and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses,
and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country.
Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the
terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered
along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.
Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight
months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of
Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during
major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed
nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy
even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route
out through Turkey.
As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage.
Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq's
neighbors will face the reality that if they don't help with
stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq's collapse
-- including even greater refugee flows over their borders
and possible war.
The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and
regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that
which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security
negotiations among all of Iraq's neighbors and discussions
of donations from wealthy nations -- including oil-rich Muslim
countries -- to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen
until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence
of U.S. forces in Iraq.
My plan is realistic because:
? It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable.
Would we need another surge to protect them?
? It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us
for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000
to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have
not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq
so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on Sept.
11.
? By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged
bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S.
forces slowly from Vietnam -- with disastrous consequences.
Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000
more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them
civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished
nothing -- the communists took over as soon as we left.
My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove
all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq
and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to
end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without
hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.
Let's stop
pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American
people deserve precise answers from anyone who
would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave
in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should
be asking these questions of the candidates, rather than allowing
them to continue saying, "We are against the war . . .
but please don't read the small print."
Bill
Richardson is governor of New Mexico and a candidate for the
Democratic presidential nomination. Its views
are not necessarily those of PETROLEUMWORLD.
