ASK THE IRAQIS, THEN LISTEN TO
WHAT THEY SAY

Nicholas Kristof, in The New York Times:
"First, a poll this spring of Iraqis -- who
know their country much better than we do --
shows that only 21% think that the U. S.
troop presence improves security in Iraq,
while 69% think it is making security worse. . .
We simply can't want to be in Iraq more than
the Iraqis want us to be there. That poll of
Iraqis, conducted by the BBC and other news
organizations, found that only 22% of Iraqis
support the presence of coalition troops in
Iraq, down from 32% in 2005. . . .when
Iraqis are begging us to leave, and saying
that we are making things worse, then it's
remarkably presumptious to overrule their
wishes and stay indefinitely because, as
President Bush termed it in his speech on
Tuesday, 'it is necessary work.'"

Tom Friedman, also of the Times:
"Obviously, Pres. Bush's stay-the-course
approach is bankrupt. It shows no signs of
producing any self-sustaining -- and that is the
metric -- unified, stable Iraq. But the various
gradual, partial withdrawal proposals by many
Democrats and dissident Republicans are not
realistic either. The passions that have been
unleashed in Iraq are not going to accommodate
some partial withdrawal plan, where we just
draw down troops, do less patrolling, more
training and fight al Qaeda types. It's a fantasy.
. . . Staying in means simply containing the Iraqi
civil war, but at the price of Americans and Iraqis
continuing to die, and at the price of the U. S.
having no real leverage on the parties inside or
outside of Iraq to negotiate a settlement, because
everyone knows we're staying so they can
dither. Today, U. S. soldiers are making the
maximum sacrifice so Iraqi (and U. S.) politicians
can hold to their maximum positions.
(Parenthetical comment mine). Getting out, on
the other hand, means more ethnic, religious and
tribal killings all across Iraq. It will be one of the
most morally ugly scenes you can imagine. . . ."

Friedman may or may not be right about the
horrific consequences of our departure. As I
recall, he was one of the boosters for the Iraq
fiasco at its outset, expecting a cake-walk.
Perhaps the Iraqi majority, who want us gone,
have also thought about these consequences
and have a different expectation.

Friedman continues: ". . . getting out has at least
four advantages. First, no more Americans will
be dying while refereeing a civil war. Second,
the fear of an all-out civil war, as we do prepare
to leave, may be the last best hope for getting
the Iraqis to reach an 11th-hour political
agreement. Third, as the civil war in Iraq plays
out, it could, painfully, force the realignment of
communities on the ground that may create a
more stable foundation upon which to build a
federal settlement. Fourth, we will restore our
deterrence with Iran. Tehran will no longer be
able to bleed us through its proxies in Iraq, and
we will be much freer to hit Iran -- should we
ever need to -- once we're out. Moreover,
Iran will by default inherit management of the
mess in southern Iraq, which, in time, will be an
enormous problem for Tehran."

Both Friedman and Kristof make a lot of sense.
Let's hope the people in power are listening!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net