Getting out of Iraq

I don't understand why no one is talking about a practical way of getting out Iraq. I don't mean the current administration, they're nothing but a bunch of nimrods. They wouldn't handle leaving Iraq any more competently than they've done anything else, even if they wanted to leave Iraq - which they don't. Look at what it's done to the price of their oil company stocks. (Don't forget how many in the Bush administration were oil company execs or board members before they came to work for ol' Shrub).

Even the presidential aren't talking about leaving Iraq in what I think is a practical way out. First McCain, at least when it comes to the Iraq war, is just another Bush president; he doesn't really want out either. But neither of the Democratic candidates do more than give numbers of how long it will take to get all the troops out - then hoping you won't read their website to see that they'll both remove COMBAT troops but leave behind other types of security troops (50,000 to 70,000). That's just too much like three-card monty - sorry.

First of all I should be up front and say that I'm Quaker. As such, I am against war, period. I'll write about that some other time, but this exiting Iraq issue has been on my mind so I'm writing about that today. Secondly I should say that I have one nephew who has already served one tour in Iraq. He has nearly 2 years of obligation left to the army because of ROTC, so will likely be there for at least one more tour - assuming he isn't stop-lossed which would mean he could be there as long as the army wants him there. His specialty is military police, so the current plans of the Democratic candidates won't change the likelihood of him going back to Iraq, since they'll be needing security forces there for years or decades to come. Third, I have at least one other nephew who wants to join the army too, also through ROTC paying for his college. So all of that taken together means that my opinion may be colored, but that doesn't mean I don't GET an opinion.

If you're going to be practical about leaving Iraq, you have to admit that this a regional conflict not just an Iraq war. More than 2 million Iraqi citizens have left the country since the start of the war. They went SOMEwhere. Wouldn't the countries who had to absorb these refugees (that's what they are now) be willing (maybe happy) to talk to the US about how to stabilize the country? If Iraq is stable, maybe the refugees would return to Iraq. That's leverage that we still have and could use, but aren't. And many of the refugees were middle-class people with skills Iraq will need again when the violence is curtailed.

So, why not a regional peace conference? That will mean talking to all of Iraq's bordering neighbors - even Iran. The thought of a regional peace conference during a time of war wasn't so unusual in any other war we've waged. Of course, we had competent presidents and secretaries of state then too, unlike now. But a peace conference would put all the affected parties (including the Iraqi government, such as it is) all in the same place talking about a way toward peace. Maybe some sort of federalist plan for the Iraqi government for the short term, with a long term goal of dividing the country - like what was done in Yugoslavia 10 years ago. But with all affected countries at the table making the decision, you'd have a better chance of avoiding violence down the road. Unlike the way that modern Israel was established by the UN. That is NOT a model to follow.

I guess my underlying concern is that no one is talking about the importance that diplomacy will play if we ever hope to get out of Iraq completely and permanently. I know that Bush won't talk diplomacy and that's just as well. His idea of diplomacy is "we'll sit down and talk with you only if you give us everything we want before we talk." But Bush's time in office is coming to an end. It's past time for the candidates to get serious about their Iraq plans. And in my opinion, peace will only come through diplomacy.