Get Out: When?
As Congress began taking stock of the surge, we asked more than 50 policy and military experts their opinions and predictions on when the United States could—and should—start withdrawing from Iraq.
The sooner the better
"From the standpoint of all the American interests involved, getting out sooner and more quickly is better than getting out slower and less quickly. There will be more killing as we leave, and that will be true whenever we leave. And there will not necessarily be less killing by leaving later rather than sooner." —Paul Pillar, former top CIA official
"I think the quicker we get out militarily, the better. I've suggested a six-month withdrawal period." —George McGovern, coauthor, Out of Iraq
"We should begin to withdraw by bringing home two brigades by the end of 2007." —General Wesley Clark (retired), former supreme allied commander, Europe
"I would start tonight because the fact is that this extraordinary experiment by General Petraeus of converting the Army and Marine Corps into the Mesopotamian constabulary has failed." —Edward Luttwak, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Come spring
"[Being out by March 1, 2008] allows us enough time to safely redeploy our troops and to hand over power to the Iraqis on the ground." —Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)
"Withdrawal will start in a limited sense next spring simply because that is the end point at which the surge can no longer be sustained at its present level." —David Isenberg, British American Security Information Council
"[Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] General Peter Pace's thinking that we can basically pull out a brigade a month—that's clearly bullshit. You could have everyone out in a relatively orderly way in six months." —Andrew Bacevich, author, The New American Militarism
One year
"The generals who seem to be dragging their feet will argue 18 months to two years. Frankly, I think that if you made the decision to completely withdraw and you made some prudent choices with regard to the equipment you're retaining and shipping back, you certainly could be completely out within 12 months at the most. What I am worried about is that we will not make the decision to leave. We will postpone the inevitable requirement to get out to the point where we are swimming in a sea of constant hostility, and then we will make a lot of bad decisions." —Colonel Douglas MacGregor (retired), military analyst
"I honestly don't foresee a major flight from Iraq between now and next November. But the Army cannot sustain this level of commitment without really straining it to the breaking point." —Colonel Gary Anderson (USMC, retired), Pentagon consultant
Just say when
"Delaying getting out for two years is actually more dangerous, whereas if you announce that you're getting out, you dominate the battle space, just like you did going in. If you want to see the Iraqis shape up, tell them you will leave in a year and then the ball is really going to be in their court." —Lawrence Korb, Center for American Progress
"Don't forget that the Iraqi Parliament has actually passed a resolution requesting that a date be set for the end of the occupation." —Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser
"The cutting-edge question is not whether we leave in 4 months versus 12. You begin to get the benefits and begin to alter the environment inside of Iraq as soon as you say, 'We're leaving within this short timeline.'" —Carl Conetta, Project on Defense Alternatives
Stay the course
"Will [the current] strategy prove adequate to this very complex, daunting, and difficult task? I believe that certainly it does have a very strong chance of succeeding if we possess the will to see it through." —Colonel H.R. McMaster, adviser to General David Petraeus
"I believe it will be in the interests of the United States to ensure security and stability in Iraq for a very long time." —Lt. Colonel John Nagl, collaborator with General David Petraeus on the Army counterinsurgency field manual
"I don't think [staying in] is as impossible as people think it would be, because we've already seen the Iraq narratives begin to swing back in a positive direction." —Thomas Donnelly, American Enterprise Institute
"I heard that some of the neocons were saying that if we were willing to suffer these kinds of casualty rates for about 10 years we could prevail. Well, give me a break. That just is not sustainable. And it's not victory in the end." —General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), former centcom commander
Parting shots
"The one thing we've always forgotten is that the enemy always has a vote. It can really screw up a lot of things that you initially had planned." —Major Daniel Morgan, School of Advanced Military Studies
War Of The Wonks
|
|
|---|---|
| Center for American Progress (Left) |
Withdraw in 12 months, taking only essential, sensitive, and costly equipment. Leave behind 8,000 to 10,000 troops in Kurdistan for an additional year, Marines to protect the embassy in Baghdad, plus additional troops in Kuwait. "Diplomatic surge" with Iraq's neighbors to engineer a political solution. |
| Center for a New American Security (Middle) |
100,000 U.S. troops out by end of 2008, leaving behind a 60,000-strong transition force for five years to fight terrorists, train Iraqis, and prevent regional war and genocide. Focus on local security rather than propping up the central government. "If we go out on our own terms, we are more likely to leave something that is not going to totally unwind." —James Miller, senior vice president of cnas |
| Brookings Institution (The Wavering Middle) |
In July, Brookings scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack went to Iraq for eight days, then wrote a New York Times op-ed titled "A War We Just Might Win" that was criticized by congressional Dems and emailed around by the White House. "As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with." —O'Hanlon and Pollack |
| Council on Foreign Relations (Left, Right, and Center) |
cfr's experts are all over the map: Top military analyst Stephen Biddle says "go deep or get out"; his conservative colleague Max Boot wants more time for the surge. cfr President Emeritus Leslie Gelb has argued for a "soft partition" of Iraq. In his report "After the Surge" CFR fellow Steven Simon argues, "Better to withdraw as a coherent and at least somewhat volitional act than withdraw later in hectic response to public opposition to the war in the United States or to a series of unexpectedly sharp reverses on the ground." —Steven Simon, cfr fellow |
| American Enterprise Institute (Right) |
Home to the intellectual architects of the surge, among them Frederick W. Kagan, aei argues that the U.S. should maintain a maximal presence in Iraq indefinitely. Worried that cnas' "Phased Transition" report would appeal to moderate congressional Republicans, aei hauled in military experts (including some cnas advisers) to "tabletop" how such a phased withdrawal might play out. aei determined that a smaller force would be consumed with protecting itself. "This is a situation where you are either in or out. There is no dividing the baby." —Thomas Donnelly, aei fellow |
Click on an image below to see related charts and maps:
Page 1 of 1 
General Petraeus declared before Congress that American troops would have to remain in Iraq for years to come because Iraq is unable to provide security by itself, which was one of Bush’s benchmarks for his so-called surge.
Six weeks prior to the 2004 Presidential election, this same General, Petraeus, who by the way was in charge of training and equipping Iraq’s security forces, wrote and op-ed article, claiming “tangible progress” in Iraq and how the Iraqi forces were “developing steadily.” Petraeus’ appraisal, which helped swing some voters, has since proved to be false.
Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., the chief of staff of the Army and General Petraeus’s predecessor, contradicted his underling’s testimony before Congress. Casey stated recently at a Government Executive magazine event that Bush’s surge had produced “a temporary tactical effect” and expressed disbelief that Iraqi leaders would overcome differences.
Let’s face reality. Bush and some military officers are more concerned with spinning then in telling the truth. Over 3800 American soldiers have died, and over 100,000 Iraqi women and children have perished in Bush’s quagmire. Americans deserve the truth and not more lies or spinning from their president and/or military officers.
The truth is that there exists no forceful reason why America should ever have invaded Iraq in the first place, and definitely none that can be connected to the September 11th attacks. It’s time to put an end to Bush’s and General Petraeus’ “staying the course” in Iraq.
how about sending the troops to new stratagy such as secret standby. try reorganized forces that this needs replaned new tech such as mine finders or smarter invetions. Or make a new us state?
Your article in November and December about U.S. out now, Page 35 to and include Page 51. We need a copy sent to all congress person. Maybe we can wake them up so both parties start working for us.Keep up the good work, THANKS
Now! Now! Now!
Did I forget to mention, get out now?
"Jack Miles" calls it correctly, "Bagdad to Bush, you have 14 monts"!
Let's not forget, Bush and the neocons invaded Iraq for the oil resources and economic domination. We will never get the oil resources and have economic domination. We need to get out now. History will judge us as barbaric as we judge the Nazis. Getting out now will Historians to write that in the end the American people came to their senses and drove the perpetrators out of office.
The Goverment and the Military;;
Lost the war in Korea
Lost the war in Vietnam
Is losing the war in Iraq
Is losing the war on drugs
Is losing the war on Poverty
They are now dithering about getting out of Iraq the same way they dithered about getting out of Vietnam..The sad thing is that while they dither many lives are being lost ..
Well more to the point. The war to end all wars was laughed at by the doughboys when they arrived on the frontlines in 1917. Just as it was laughed at by the Prussian German, British, and French Imperialists empire builders. Our cdn. first div. intelligence of the soldiers councils said, well doughboys you ought to have scrapped the war machine before you got here, then youse would't have to face the certain death and destruction of Imperialist aggression. What you say? No No No we fight only to end aggressive war globally finally and forever as against the planets livability. Oh they said , we ain't for that, were here to kill the Germans and win the war. cdn. first div. guy says let me ask you a question then doughboy 'How can you win the very thing we are here to abolish forever??? LAUGHING AND LAUGHING. You canadians are different. Were here to win what you are going to abolish. Thats correct and America will become truly free and genuine when it abolishes the war in every country rather than causing aggressive wars and financing them. Not before will you win full freedom in this upside down world. So long doughboys see you losers when you win and live up to your revolutions theory of full freedom and independence. Soldiers Councils, first Canadian Division.
bush is really being unfair to the U.S troops. ithink its time he realize that and should send home the troops immedietly. im not saing as soon as possibile because that soon will never come.
