Libertarians Offer An Iraq Exit Strategy

[Frodo]

What do you all think of the merits of this plan presented by the Libertarian Party?  Do you think it could work?

Iraq Exit Strategy: Troop Withdrawal

The first step is immediately to begin the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. Currently American troop levels are at about 140,000. Troops would leave gradually, in increments of approximately 11,600 per month, resulting in a complete withdrawal in one year’s time. This will bring the troops out of harm’s way quickly, preventing more unnecessary loss of life. Allowing a year for the withdrawal will give the Iraqi government time to train and deploy a sufficient security force in trouble areas.

As the United States removes troops from Iraq, 30,000 will be relocated to other Middle Eastern countries. Ten thousand troops will be placed in Afghanistan for peacekeeping purposes. Decisions regarding troop reallocation will be based on the locations of existing U.S. military bases in the Middle East. The most likely candidates would be Turkey, Bahrain, Egypt and Oman. These countries were chosen based on current foreign military base information in the Department of Defense Base Structure Report.  All of the previously mentioned countries have U.S. military bases that possess additional acres to house more troops. The remaining troops, numbering approximately 100,000 would return home rather being relocated to other Middle Eastern countries. This would help reduce the strain on military reserves and free up military resources for the War on Terror.

Those against the immediate withdrawal of American troops believe an American departure will create a significant power vacuum. They assert that Iraqi security forces are ill-equipped to stand alone. It is feasible that, given a year for training, the Iraqi security forces would be able to control the insurgency.  As of January 2005, the Iraqi Army had a total of 68 operating battalions which includes the Iraqi National Guard that was incorporated into the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi government as its own Special Operation Forces, including a counter-terrorist force to combat insurgents. As of January 2005 there were approximately 55,000 trained Iraqi police officers. Furthermore, there are five police academies that together train approximately 3,500 police officers a month. Using these numbers, approximately 42,000 officers could be trained in one year, almost doubling their current numbers. At the end of the troop withdrawal process, the Iraqi government could have 97,000 police officers trained and placed on the streets.

By removing our troops from Iraq and relocating them to various bases in the Middle East, we remove the insurgency’s common enemy. The insurgency consists of many different factions with no central leadership. One faction consists of leftover remnants of the former regime, such as the Ba’ath party, Republican Guard and the paramilitary Fida’iyin. A second faction consists of religious groups who wish to turn Iraq into an Islamic state. Some of these groups are trained overseas or are foreign nationals, the latter including Syrians, Saudis, Yemenis and Sudanese.  Another faction is comprised of nationalist groups who oppose American troops being stationed in Iraq and were against Saddam Hussein’s regime.  According to the Strategic Studies Institute, most of the armed opposition has been Sunni. Even though major Sunni political parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iraqi Islamic Party are participating in the political process, many Sunni clerics have strongly opposed the American military presence. “Without the occupation as an outside enemy, those much smaller sectors of the resistance that are motivated largely by religious extremism and who are responsible for some of the worst violence against civilians, will likely become isolated from the broader sectors of the resistance,” the Strategic Studies Institute authors noted.

Negotiations with nationalist groups not tied to the former regime should take place in tandem with the withdrawal of U.S. troops. “We are not going to win the unconditional surrender from the insurgents and have no choice but to somehow bring them into society,” said retired Army Colonel Paul Hughes, an Iraq war veteran who is now at the government-funded U.S. Institute for Peace. There is evidence suggesting that these groups would consider surrendering in exchange for immediate and complete U.S. withdrawal and major political concessions to the Sunnis.  Removing the Sunni nationalist groups will help to isolate the more extreme elements of the insurgency. Divisions between secular Iraqi insurgents and Muslim extremists are becoming more evident; insurgents native to Iraq have denounced the brutal tactics of the extremists. It is hoped that a negotiated settlement with the mainstream faction of the insurgency will help to further polarize the extremists.


Direct-Aid Program

After U.S. troop withdrawal begins, a direct-aid program will begin for the Iraqi government. The U.S. government will disperse funds directly to the Iraqi government to be used strictly for the creation of viable infrastructure. The Iraqi government will exercise complete control over the spending of funds and the contracting of projects. Giving Iraqis complete administrative and fiscal control over rebuilding their infrastructure will allow them to tap into local “know-how” that only Iraqis possess.

Safeguards will be put in place to ensure U.S. aid is spent efficiently and effectively. Strict accounting guidelines promoting transparency and accountability must be in place prior to the disbursement of aid. An independent third-party auditor must be hired to perform an audit every six months until the program has ended. These audits will be made available to Congress and to the American public. If fraud is detected, aid monies will be withheld until the problem is corrected. 

The Iraqi government will be required to choose and hire a private firm to perform oversight on private contractors. The firm’s mission will be to ensure that all contract work is completed in a timely and efficient manner and to prevent fraud, waste and inefficiency. The overseeing firm will be required to furnish reports to the Iraqi and American governments. Additionally, these reports will be available for full public
disclosure.

Even though the direct-aid program will be a substantial cost to American taxpayers, the United States is now obligated to make sure Iraq becomes a stable, independent and functional country. Substantial progress has been made in rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure, but this does not satisfy the need for additional aid. A conservative estimate by USAID projects a total reconstruction expenditure of $150 billion.  Based on current estimates, oil sales alone will not provide adequate funding for reconstruction projects. A Centre for Global Energy Studies report states that if Iraq were to pay all financial obligations without any outside assistance, the nation would continue to run a deficit into 2016. Additionally, Iraq has not met the projected 2.5 million barrels per day (MBPD), with their average output in the second week of June a 2.16 MBPD. Iraq’s oil revenues for the entire year of 2004 were $18.1 billion.

Iraq’s national debt is estimated to be between $119 to $135 billion before any debt forgiveness has occurred, and the country owes an estimated $50 billion in war reparations stemming from the 1991 Gulf War. Many debt forgiveness initiatives are already underway. Paris Club members have agreed to forgive a total of $42 billion of Iraq’s debt. Iraq is still obligated to repay the Paris Club nations almost $8 billion. The United States has agreed to forgive $4.5 billion of Iraq’s debt. Other countries will not provide debt relief until a freely elected government is in place. It is still unclear whether or not Kuwait will forgive Iraq’s debt, estimated at $16 billion, or the outstanding war reparations. It is probable that, even with the institution of debt-forgiveness programs, a direct aid program administered by the United States will be required.

A direct aid program will give Iraq the best chance of becoming a stable, democratic, free-market-oriented country. It is imperative that the Iraqi economy be fully developed as quickly as possible. Vast, persistent unemployment would create a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. The direct aid program will give Iraq vital assistance while giving the Iraqi people, through their government, control over the disbursement of funds. In previous successful postwar reconstructions, such as Europe after World War II, the reconstructing governments managed the Marshall Plan funds, not the United States.

http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf

[Colin]

And another stupid foreign policy idea from a party that will never get it. It's this type of crap that keeps me from becoming a Libertarian. That party is full of a bunch of, no offence to any Libertarian on the board, foreign policy idiots.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

anything to get us the hell out of there.

[KEmperor]

And another stupid foreign policy idea from a party that will never get it. It's this type of crap that keeps me from becoming a Libertarian. That party is full of a bunch of, no offence to any Libertarian on the board, foreign policy idiots.

I echo similar sentiments.  This is why I left the party in the first place.

[MODU]

Third Party Watch's website had a good debate on this.  Basically, everyone thought it was a dumb idea, void of any realistic military consultation.  Additionally, the Libertarians (as a party) didn't negotiate this, but rather one person who wrote and posted it.

[John Dibble]

I agree, but I don't feel the need to abandon the party - I'm gonna try to change it, because I don't see much chance of changing the bigger parties.

[The Duke]

I only read the first paragraph, but that's all it took to realize this is a stupid idea.  A full withdrawal is not a "strategy", its a retreat.  Despite the pained assertions by the writer, it is most certinly not feasible that Iraq could stand on its own two feet within a year.  I haven't heard one expert say it will be able to do so, Republican or Independent or Democrat, no one.

They can call this whatever they want, but in reality its a full blown retreat with a sink or swim attitude towards the New iraq.

[David S]

Well lets see. What were our reasons for going there?
1)"Saddam must disarm" Well it seems he was disarmed.
2)"Saddam was working on weapons of mass destruction." None were found.
3)"Saddam was an evil, evil man".  No argument there but there are plenty of evil rulers around the world and besides he's out of the picture now.
4)We have to create democracy in Iraq. (This argument was added after the others fell flat)  Whether democracy will prevail among people who didn't ask for it remains to be seen. But it is not the job of the US to overthrow every screwball dictator in the world and install a democratic government. The effort has cost us many lives and billions of dollars.

I was more or less in agreement with the LP plan up to the point about providing $150 billion in aid. I can't believe any Libertarian would propose that!

Seems like most of you don't like the LP exit plan because it entails leaving. Somehow I always thought that's what exit meant.

[The Duke]

4)We have to create democracy in Iraq. (This argument was added after the others fell flat)  Whether democracy will prevail among people who didn't ask for it remains to be seen. But it is not the job of the US to overthrow every screwball dictator in the world and install a democratic government. The effort has cost us many lives and billions of dollars.

This is simply not true.  I quote to you from the President Bush's speech on , the night we began the attack on Iraq:

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Democracy in Iraq was always a central goal of the invasion, and to say otherwise is to mistate the facts.

[David S]

4)We have to create democracy in Iraq. (This argument was added after the others fell flat)  Whether democracy will prevail among people who didn't ask for it remains to be seen. But it is not the job of the US to overthrow every screwball dictator in the world and install a democratic government. The effort has cost us many lives and billions of dollars.

This is simply not true.  I quote to you from the President Bush's speech on , the night we began the attack on Iraq:

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Democracy in Iraq was always a central goal of the invasion, and to say otherwise is to mistate the facts.

I don't recall Bush saying that but if you say so I'll believe you, but the point remains that the Iraqi's didn't ask for this. Are they really better off now than before? The 20,000 or so who were killed by our bombs probably aren't better off. How many others were maimed or disfigured? Are they better off? How about those who had their homes destroyed? Are they better off? How about the people who live in constant fear of bombings  in a country which is constantly subject to attacks? Are they better off?

Yeah they show some Iraqi's on TV who say they appreciate our help. But how many other Iraqi's are running down the street with an AK47 yelling "death to the infidels"?  Those guys don't usually get interviewed on Fox news.

[ilikeverin]

I don't even need to read it to say this:

It takes them that long to say "We want to leave Iraq immediately, never mind the consequences."?

[The Duke]

4)We have to create democracy in Iraq. (This argument was added after the others fell flat)  Whether democracy will prevail among people who didn't ask for it remains to be seen. But it is not the job of the US to overthrow every screwball dictator in the world and install a democratic government. The effort has cost us many lives and billions of dollars.

This is simply not true.  I quote to you from the President Bush's speech on , the night we began the attack on Iraq:

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Democracy in Iraq was always a central goal of the invasion, and to say otherwise is to mistate the facts.

I don't recall Bush saying that but if you say so I'll believe you, but the point remains that the Iraqi's didn't ask for this. Are they really better off now than before? The 20,000 or so who were killed by our bombs probably aren't better off. How many others were maimed or disfigured? Are they better off? How about those who had their homes destroyed? Are they better off? How about the people who live in constant fear of bombings  in a country which is constantly subject to attacks? Are they better off?

Yeah they show some Iraqi's on TV who say they appreciate our help. But how many other Iraqi's are running down the street with an AK47 yelling "death to the infidels"?  Those guys don't usually get interviewed on Fox news.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis voted in the election, thus ratifying popular support for our objective.  I'd be willing to estimate that the safety of the average Iraqi is greater today than during the days of midnight raids and torture rooms, and that current US polict towards Iraq is safer for civilians than the 12 years of sanctions.

As for your suggestion that Iraq didn't ask for it, this is more than a little silly.  When you Presidential ballot looks like this:

[ ] Vote for Saddam
[ ] Death of my family

You don't often have your voice heard to begin with.

[12th Doctor]

4)We have to create democracy in Iraq. (This argument was added after the others fell flat)  Whether democracy will prevail among people who didn't ask for it remains to be seen. But it is not the job of the US to overthrow every screwball dictator in the world and install a democratic government. The effort has cost us many lives and billions of dollars.

This is simply not true.  I quote to you from the President Bush's speech on , the night we began the attack on Iraq:

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Democracy in Iraq was always a central goal of the invasion, and to say otherwise is to mistate the facts.

Beat me to it, but I would also suggest the 2003 State of the Union, where Bush specifically lays down four seperate goals for the War in Iraq.  1) WMD  2) Get rid of Saddam 3) Fight Terrorist  4) Establish a viable Middleeastern Democracy

Trust me, I have spent the last year and half studying this.  Bush mentions Democracy in Iraq as a goal no less than 13 seperate times in the lead up to the war.

[David S]

4)We have to create democracy in Iraq. (This argument was added after the others fell flat)  Whether democracy will prevail among people who didn't ask for it remains to be seen. But it is not the job of the US to overthrow every screwball dictator in the world and install a democratic government. The effort has cost us many lives and billions of dollars.

This is simply not true.  I quote to you from the President Bush's speech on , the night we began the attack on Iraq:

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Democracy in Iraq was always a central goal of the invasion, and to say otherwise is to mistate the facts.

I don't recall Bush saying that but if you say so I'll believe you, but the point remains that the Iraqi's didn't ask for this. Are they really better off now than before? The 20,000 or so who were killed by our bombs probably aren't better off. How many others were maimed or disfigured? Are they better off? How about those who had their homes destroyed? Are they better off? How about the people who live in constant fear of bombings  in a country which is constantly subject to attacks? Are they better off?

Yeah they show some Iraqi's on TV who say they appreciate our help. But how many other Iraqi's are running down the street with an AK47 yelling "death to the infidels"?  Those guys don't usually get interviewed on Fox news.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis voted in the election, thus ratifying popular support for our objective.  I'd be willing to estimate that the safety of the average Iraqi is greater today than during the days of midnight raids and torture rooms, and that current US polict towards Iraq is safer for civilians than the 12 years of sanctions.

As for your suggestion that Iraq didn't ask for it, this is more than a little silly.  When you Presidential ballot looks like this:

[ ] Vote for Saddam
[ ] Death of my family

You don't often have your voice heard to begin with.

The founders of our own nation faced a similar situation; support the declaration of independence and face death. The king wasn't at all fond of the colonists who wanted freedom. Yes we got help from the French and I'm sure the founders were thankful for it. But it was our war. An American (well future American anyway) wrote the declaration of independence and other Americans signed it. It would have been a different story if Napoleon wrote it. How would the founders have reacted if the French just came here and told us they were going to liberate us with or without our consent, and then set up a government for us modeled after their own?

[MaC]

David S - please stop being so logical. It only pisses people off!

Heh, a quote from John Dibble "Quiet! No questioning with your 'logic'

Yeah, I agree with David S, we gotta get them boys home.
No big argument from me, but I will say this:  At the rate of Iraqis and Americans dying since we've been in the war, we've lost more people than if Saddam Hussein was in power right now.  This alone should be reason to exit.

[MODU]

The founders of our own nation faced a similar situation; support the declaration of independence and face death. The king wasn't at all fond of the colonists who wanted freedom. Yes we got help from the French and I'm sure the founders were thankful for it. But it was our war. An American (well future American anyway) wrote the declaration of independence and other Americans signed it. It would have been a different story if Napoleon wrote it. How would the founders have reacted if the French just came here and told us they were going to liberate us with or without our consent, and then set up a government for us modeled after their own?

The big difference that jumps out at me on this is that our "king" was weeks away from us, and months away from actually piecing together a military force to come get us.  In the case in Iraq, Saddam and his goons were just hours away, and would snuff out a revolt in a heart beat.  This is why the Kurds lost so many people when Saddam gased them.  Fortunately, following the first part of the Gulf War, the Kurdish regions were under US protection (no-fly zone), allowing them to develop an autonomous region and prosper.

[David S]

The founders of our own nation faced a similar situation; support the declaration of independence and face death. The king wasn't at all fond of the colonists who wanted freedom. Yes we got help from the French and I'm sure the founders were thankful for it. But it was our war. An American (well future American anyway) wrote the declaration of independence and other Americans signed it. It would have been a different story if Napoleon wrote it. How would the founders have reacted if the French just came here and told us they were going to liberate us with or without our consent, and then set up a government for us modeled after their own?

The big difference that jumps out at me on this is that our "king" was weeks away from us, and months away from actually piecing together a military force to come get us.  In the case in Iraq, Saddam and his goons were just hours away, and would snuff out a revolt in a heart beat.  This is why the Kurds lost so many people when Saddam gased them.  Fortunately, following the first part of the Gulf War, the Kurdish regions were under US protection (no-fly zone), allowing them to develop an autonomous region and prosper.

The current crop of rebels are willing to fight a much more powerful adversary, us. Was there no one there before brave enough to stand up to Saddam? or was there no one who had an interest in doing so?

BTW the new government controls the military and the police and allegedly has the popular support of the people, so why can't they take care of their own damn country? Who is there who has sufficient power to overthrow them?

[The Duke]

The founders of our own nation faced a similar situation; support the declaration of independence and face death. The king wasn't at all fond of the colonists who wanted freedom. Yes we got help from the French and I'm sure the founders were thankful for it. But it was our war. An American (well future American anyway) wrote the declaration of independence and other Americans signed it. It would have been a different story if Napoleon wrote it. How would the founders have reacted if the French just came here and told us they were going to liberate us with or without our consent, and then set up a government for us modeled after their own?

Again, you work from the assumption that no one in Iraq wanted us there, which is not true at all.  You also work from the assumption that the philosophy on foreign affairs used by the founders is applicable today, which is also not true at all.  Finally, you work from the premise that the Iraqis were capable of defeating Saddam which again is simply not true.

The evidence that we are wanted there?  The Iraqi election turnout, which overwhelms any notion of Iraqi discontent.  The evidence that Saddam could not be overthrown by his own people?  The several failed coup attempts over nearly a quarter century.  The evidence that the world the founders knew has funamtenally changed?  The fact that Afghanistan, a country with a per capita GDP of just $800, killed more Americans on American soil on 9/11 than any foreign army since the War of 1812.

The founders of our own nation faced a similar situation; support the declaration of independence and face death. The king wasn't at all fond of the colonists who wanted freedom. Yes we got help from the French and I'm sure the founders were thankful for it. But it was our war. An American (well future American anyway) wrote the declaration of independence and other Americans signed it. It would have been a different story if Napoleon wrote it. How would the founders have reacted if the French just came here and told us they were going to liberate us with or without our consent, and then set up a government for us modeled after their own?

The big difference that jumps out at me on this is that our "king" was weeks away from us, and months away from actually piecing together a military force to come get us.  In the case in Iraq, Saddam and his goons were just hours away, and would snuff out a revolt in a heart beat.  This is why the Kurds lost so many people when Saddam gased them.  Fortunately, following the first part of the Gulf War, the Kurdish regions were under US protection (no-fly zone), allowing them to develop an autonomous region and prosper.

The current crop of rebels are willing to fight a much more powerful adversary, us. Was there no one there before brave enough to stand up to Saddam? or was there no one who had an interest in doing so?

BTW the new government controls the military and the police and allegedly has the popular support of the people, so why can't they take care of their own damn country? Who is there who has sufficient power to overthrow them?

The Iraqi government, while it has the support of the people, does not have the means (yet) to withsatnd the insurgents.  It takes time to build these kinds of isntitutions.  Public opinion does not translate into hard firepower.  No matter how popular the Iraqi government is, they will only be able to stand if they can go toe to toe on the battlefield with hardened Islamic radicals, which they can't do yet.  While the government does control the military and police, it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of these men are not even done with their rudimentary training (although the exact figures are classified, probably because of the fact that they'd show how few Iraqis really are combat ready).

David S - please stop being so logical. It only pisses people off!

Heh, a quote from John Dibble "Quiet! No questioning with your 'logic'

Yeah, I agree with David S, we gotta get them boys home.
No big argument from me, but I will say this: At the rate of Iraqis and Americans dying since we've been in the war, we've lost more people than if Saddam Hussein was in power right now. This alone should be reason to exit.

You are certainly welcome to justify this comment, as I doubt it could withsatnd very close scrutiny.

[Erc]

The founders of our own nation faced a similar situation; support the declaration of independence and face death. The king wasn't at all fond of the colonists who wanted freedom. Yes we got help from the French and I'm sure the founders were thankful for it. But it was our war. An American (well future American anyway) wrote the declaration of independence and other Americans signed it. It would have been a different story if Napoleon wrote it. How would the founders have reacted if the French just came here and told us they were going to liberate us with or without our consent, and then set up a government for us modeled after their own?

The big difference that jumps out at me on this is that our "king" was weeks away from us, and months away from actually piecing together a military force to come get us.  In the case in Iraq, Saddam and his goons were just hours away, and would snuff out a revolt in a heart beat.  This is why the Kurds lost so many people when Saddam gased them.  Fortunately, following the first part of the Gulf War, the Kurdish regions were under US protection (no-fly zone), allowing them to develop an autonomous region and prosper.

The current crop of rebels are willing to fight a much more powerful adversary, us. Was there no one there before brave enough to stand up to Saddam? or was there no one who had an interest in doing so?

BTW the new government controls the military and the police and allegedly has the popular support of the people, so why can't they take care of their own damn country? Who is there who has sufficient power to overthrow them?

Because Saddam, unlike us, did not care about civilian casualties, and was willing to gas his people to death.  And also had a nice big army and nasty intelligence forces on the ground which we don't have to the same extent.

And now you have the foreign fighters and terrorists which you didn't have before, which are there just to attack the US.

Besides, the current insurgency is not an insurgency, it's various delocalized bands of people carrying out pure terrorism.  If they actually wanted to lead a revolution, they couldn't, regardless of the presence of US troops or not (although it certainly would get very nasty if we weren't there, and the possibility of a big explosive Middle East war would be very likely).