I don't usually link to subscription-only articles, but if I come across one that is especially helpful, then I post an excerpt. I just read an article by John B. Judis — "No Alternative" — that takes establishment liberals to task for not advocating withdrawal from Iraq. It's timidity, according to Judis, that keeps them from speaking out.
I've basically come to the conclusion, as you can see from looking at my Iraq posts, that the best option for the U.S. is to withdraw from Iraq. As far as I can tell, our presence in the country does more to inflame the populace and motivate the insurgency than our military efforts can do to defeat the insurgency. Such a calculation makes withdrawal the only reasonable option.
Here are two paragraphs from Judis' article that are worth citing in light of my previous paragraph:
If there is one thing that the United States should have learned from Vietnam, and from prior interventions in the Philippines, Mexico, and the Caribbean, is that countries with a history of colonial rule will resist any attempt to impose an American-defined order, even if the United States is deposing an unpopular dictator. In Vietnam, this nationalist resistance took a Marxist-Leninist coloration; in Iraq, an Islamic one. Staying the course will not resolve this contradiction between American aims and actions, but aggravate it. The British military historian Michael Howard, who had earlier supported the American intervention in Vietnam, was asked at a conference several years ago whether he still thought the American intervention was a good idea. According to a participant at the conference, Howard quipped that it was fortunate that the United States had lost the war, because if it had "won," it would still be there.In considering the alternatives to the present policy, one can conceive of coupling a phased withdrawal from Iraq with bold diplomatic initiatives that might mitigate the possibility of a civil war that could draw in Iraq's neighbors. One reason why the American withdrawal from Vietnam did not lead to a major defeat in the larger Cold War was that Nixon coupled an announcement of a phased withdrawal with dramatic steps to change America's world situation. Nixon called it "making the big play." He went to China and signed a SALT treaty with the Soviet Union. If the United States wants to withdraw from Iraq, it would also have to make the big play. That would involve, at a minimum, restoring American relations with Iran, but would also include renewing European and United Nations interest in establishing a peaceful and stable Iraq. Such a strategy could fail--the future is always uncertain--but it's got a better chance of succeeding than whatever the administration currently seems to be doing.
As I've said several times before, it's ultimately up to the Iraqis to decide whether or not they're going to live in peace. We have to withdraw sooner or later. Consequently, we need to think about how to leave Iraq in a way compatible with our goals. Judis offers some suggestions that are as good as we're going to get in the midst of the sorry mess that the Bush administration has made.
