The Mix  
comments_image Comments

Word matters on exiting Iraq

Is "orderly departure" the new "can't cut and run"?
 
 
Share
 

From my comrades at TomPaine.com by David L. Mack: "The road out of Iraq begins by shedding our illusions. An abrupt end to the U.S. military presence would probably lead to an upsurge of violence, but so would staying too long. The administration needs to embrace modest, but achievable, expectations for Iraq that envisage an orderly departure." Later on there's a call for "a gradual reduction of an already overextended and under-resourced adventure into the political quicksand of Iraq."

There's something amiss here. Modest? Orderly departure? Gradual reduction?

Why not "sudden, massive, complete withdrawal, and reparations?"

There's no mention of the fact that the biggest destabilizing force in Iraq is -- gasp! -- the presence of American troops.
And while Mack calls for a "shedding of our illusions," it is he who has some shedding to do. For Mack, "insurgents" are still something other than the Iraqi people, resisting American occupation: "The administration should continue providing training, logistics, air cover and back up for Iraqi forces in their fight against insurgents and their efforts to regain control over borders."

If Mack hasn't figured out who's behind the insurgency, I suggest he read the work of the War Nerd, Gary Brecher ( here, here, and here).

This is from a piece that says some things I agree with, such as, "The U.N. or an ad hoc international coalition should be asked to set up an Iraqi contact group of its neighbors and other governments to support Iraq’s reconstruction."

But there's a lot of couching, needless conformity to a DC mindset, and vagueness.