Which Way Out of This Quagmire?

Nicholas Kristof has a dream:

The New York Times
November 15, 2005
Op-Ed Columnist
Iraq in the Rear-View Mirror
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

As we puzzle over how to end our nightmare in Iraq, the central question is the one raised by The Times on Aug. 7: "How much longer are valuable lives to be sacrificed in the vain endeavor to impose upon the Arab population an elaborate and expensive administration which they never asked for?"

Not this Times, though. It was The Times of London on Aug. 7, 1920, as a ferocious insurgency threatened the British occupation of Iraq.

The British had also started out thinking that they were liberators, only to find that they had catastrophically underestimated Iraqi nationalism. They ended up being sucked into what Lawrence of Arabia described as "a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor." Yet, ultimately, the British did manage to extricate themselves, providing lessons for us.

In my last column, I looked at two options for Iraq and found both wanting. Immediate withdrawal would risk abandoning the country to civil war and chaos. But President Bush's approach - grimly staying the course indefinitely - inflames nationalistic resentment and feeds the insurgency.

So what should we do?

My vote is to set target dates for withdrawing our troops. I suggest that we announce that we intend to pull out at least half our troops by the end of 2006 - and the very last soldier by the end of 2007. We should also pledge not to keep any military bases in Iraq.

Democrats are beginning to rally behind this strategy, mostly, however, on more hurried timetables than mine. Senator Russell Feingold was among the first to call for a timetable, and Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have since signed on to this approach, as has former Senator Tom Daschle.

Will this work? I'm not sure. We could invest tens of billions of dollars more in Iraq, and hundreds more lives, and still see the country fall apart. Moreover, I have to acknowledge that the big disadvantage of target dates is that they can encourage insurgents to think, "We just need to hang on for one more year, and then Iraq will be ours for the taking."

That's a legitimate concern, but a tentative timetable does avoid the worse pitfalls of the other two approaches. And target dates and a renunciation of bases at least show some sensitivity to the resentment of our presence, while giving the Iraqi political system and Army more time to coalesce.

I met last month with three visiting Iraqi journalists, all of them anti-insurgency and pro-constitution. All three favored a target date for withdrawal.

"I would like the American troops to get out of Iraq because I don't want my country occupied," said Muna Muhsin Muhammad from Radio Baghdad (the only one who dared to be named).

Another groused that American troops stole gold and money when they raided houses, opened fire when they got nervous, and blocked roads in ways that created incredible inconveniences. Driving from Baghdad to Mosul used to take four hours; now it can take 20.

"The Americans said that they came to overthrow Saddam Hussein," she said. "They did so and Saddam Hussein is gone, and they are still there. So they are there for their own reasons" - she was apparently alluding to stealing oil and setting up bases.

The insurgents have traction only because many ordinary Iraqis (particularly Sunnis) share this hostility to American troops. If we can make it clear that we're headed for the exits, that'll make it harder for the insurgents to portray themselves as nationalist heroes.

A target date would also light a fire under all Iraqis to work out a modus vivendi. Time and again, deadlines have proved the only way to get Iraqi politicians to do anything.

The British finally calmed the insurgency of 1920 by installing King Feisal, who created enough trouble that he didn't come across as a puppet. Afterward, the British managed to muddle through their mess, and Iraq found greater stability than the pessimists had expected.

Likewise, our exit strategy needs to focus on healing nationalist resentments, not inflaming them by settling our troops in for a long haul.

President Bush said last month that "we're making good, steady progress" in Iraq. That sounds delusional because we may be in the early stages of civil war.

All the Iraq options are bad. But this is the least bad.