recently, one question that’s been batting around the left-wing blogisphere is the “should we stay or should we go” question. the question, of course, refers to iraq. most, if not all, of the blogs i’ve been reading on this issue were against the war before it started, but they seem evenly divided on the “what do we do now that we are there” question. some want to pull out immediately, and others–the “you break it, you bought it” crowd–argue that once we destroy the government, we cannot leave until we put a viable government in its place. atrios recently voted that we go. howard dean, the anti-war democratic presidential candidate thinks we should stay.
i actually, think that this is a false dichotomy. its not really a question of whether the u.s. leaves or stays, but rather how long the u.s. stays before it leaves. indeed, even the “stayers” agree that we will leave at some point. no one is advocating making iraq a permanent u.s. territory like puerto rico. they just don’t think iraq is ready for the u.s. to leave right now.
and the “leavers” acknowledge that by leaving, they do not mean they want to ship everyone home this afternoon, but rather they advocate beginning an organized pullout leaving some kind of provisional iraqi government or u.n. administered transition authority in its place. thus, their leaving is premised on the fact that something will be ready to take over in our absence. no one claims that anything like that exists today.
so the stay vs. leave question is really a question of how long do we stay. when people talk about “staying” they mean a long-term project of nation building. when they talk about “leaving” they mean a quick turnover to a provisional authority, but even that could take a few months. viewed in that light, everyone is really for “leaving.” i mean even the bush administration (who everyone assumes is the epitome of “stayers”) have said that they will leave “as long as necessary, but not a day longer”. if you take them at their word, i don’t think many people disagree with that. but like many of this administration's pronouncements, the statement is fairly empty, punting the critic question of how long i necessary.
in my mind the question is not “staying” or “going,” it’s having some sort of exit strategy. the administration tries to give the impression that it has one. but has never publicized any specifics. if they have a plan, i want to know what it is: when exactly the iraqi constitution will be complete, when will the first elections be held? when will the u.s. be totally divested from the power structure in that country, when will it have its own armed forces, etc. there should be a date on which we expect to accomplish each step. obviously the timetable will not be anything more than tentative; dates will change as things inevitably go wrong. but we at least need some kind of plan.
given this administration’s love of secrecy and their tendency to frame everything in terms of simpleminded absolutes, i doubt if they will ever give anything so substantive to the american public. but what if one of the presidential candidates touts his own timetable. maybe that would embarrass the administration into giving something that resembles a plan. or maybe not. its worth a try.
so on the “should we stay or should we go” question, i’m just for having a plan to go.
