A Rose-Colored Exit Strategy

A showdown looms between Democrats in the U.S. Congress and President George W. Bush, who has promised to veto any attempts to set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. But in their drive to win the domestic debate, those arguing for a U.S. exit are painting a rosy picture of an Iraq that is more likely to fall apart than to come together.

... a withdrawal announcement is much more likely to drive more Sunnis into the arms of the insurgency than it is to compel the insurgents to the negotiating table. As in many other ethnic conflicts, security and survival will increasingly come to be seen as one and the same thing, with the insurgents the only ones who can be relied on to deliver both. If anything, being seen by their community as the "last line of defense" against Shiite atrocities will ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Subjects: World, U.S.
Topics: Iraq, War in Iraq
Member Tags: And the option is?
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Apr 24, 2007 - 6:06 PM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Fabrice Florin - Apr 25, 2007 - 8:06 PM PDT


Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Fabrice Florin
by Fabrice Florin - Oct. 1, 2008

This opinion piece makes some reasonable points about drawbacks or an early withdrawal from Iraq, and presents its views fairly and logically. A worthwhile read, regardless of whether you agree with its conclusion. Here's a salient quote: "In their quest to win the policy argument, those who favor heading for the exits in Iraq shouldn’t dismiss as mere political rhetoric the idea that a sectarian blood bath—not reconciliation—is the most likely outcome."

See Full Review » (10 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008

This opinion piece, written by a terrorism expert from King's College in London, offers a clear, realistic argument for not withdrawing US troops early.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Yul Baritugo
by Yul Baritugo - Oct. 1, 2008

This is an opinion based on the jaded concept of Sunnis battling Shiites...a manufactured spin right from the start with US special forces and surrogate Iraqi death squads killing Sunnis one night and then exploding some Shiite market etc. the next -- to fuel a low intensity conflict. Nothing is further from the truth. There is a third force inside Iraq that is neither Al Qaeda (Islamist) nor nationalist Baathist but indeed a force to reckon with once its real power is unleashed..Its the Iraqi Communist Party who celebrated its anniversary recently...I hope armchair analyst like Mr. Neumann expand his intelligence sources so that he will not be victimized by spin doctors from both sides of the Atlantic. Better still, why not ask an Iraqi?

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Michael Savuto
by Michael Savuto - Oct. 1, 2008

This is good journalism in that it gives exposure to a source of opinion outside of the US, and thus not colored by US politics. That is not to say that the UK, by virtue of their support with troops, doesn't have something at stake, but Blair is already on the way out, so his successor has to deal with the war now. Perhaps this is an attempt to try to get the new PM to stay the course as well. On the other side what he offers is no option. His basic position, whether or not he states it, is that troops need to stay to see some kind of outcome that the West can find satisfactory. That doesn't look to be in the picture for the foreseeable future, at least not based upon the events and conditions we read or hear about. This open ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Jami Dwyer
by Jami Dwyer - Oct. 1, 2008

Well-argued, lots of sincere thought and concern. But Democrats have already considered the serious implications of immediate withdrawal, and that is why the bill they passed doesn't call for that. They've also considered staying the course with the Republican plan to Israelify Iraq. It hasn't worked very well in the past four years.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Keith Campbell
by Keith Campbell - Oct. 1, 2008

The purpose of the withdrawl date is to get the Administration's attention. What the Administration has been doing for 4 years has not worked and will not work in the forseeable future. The author is worried about seasoned terrorists starting trouble in other countries; the will do that anyway. Unless we capture and kill them, they will run away and fight again. We won the war and lost the peace. It's time to cut our losses; we couldn't possibly look worse. Keith Campbell

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Steve Terry
by Steve Terry - Oct. 1, 2008

This is an opinion piece, not journalism.

See Full Review » (5 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating



from 8 reviews (50% confidence)
# Reviews
# Views
# Likes
# Emails
How our ratings work »


(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!