Leaving Iraq

07/08/2007

Paul Munnis


The New York Times has been candid about the need to extract our troops from Iraq. I do not disagree with them. They have touched upon the problem of egress.

My chief concern in doing that is that we assume a skillful State Department use of diplomacy as a compliment to the withdrawal efforts and yet I have low confidence in that matter.

Condi Rice has not even been seen or heard from in weeks. There is no reason to think that she has been developing a playbook for handling the Iraqi neighbors once withdrawal begins.

Also, what to do about the War in Afghanistan is not being discussed. Do we divert the troops to Afghanistan on the way home to clean up that mess or do we just clear out of the whole region?

Do we try to leave behind a U.S. Embassy or just abandon the palace we are trying to bring online at a cost of millions?

Getting contractors out is another complication. It is said that we now have more contractors in Iraq than we do troops. If we pull the contractors are our troops able to be self-sufficient or do they rely on gas, ammunition, food, medicine and supplies to be delivered by contractors?

Britain is also mounting a withdrawal. This must be coordinated.

Withdrawal itself is a tricky maneuver exposing the rear guard to life threatening attacks when they are reduced in numbers. This maneuver can be done but a careful plan to do so is needed and it helps if the neighbors allow our troops to exit through their territory. Many can remember the trouble that we had getting troops into Iraq through Turkey and they are not likely to let us out using their seaports unless our State Department can cut some deals. The fastest form of withdrawal is via seaport yet there is not much dock space in Iraq making Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait key departure locations.

I am sure the Navy is concerned about Iran and its long coastline in the Persian Gulf. They will not want that to come under fire.

I’m thinking that the first 50% to be extracted is the easy piece of redeployment but that the last 50% gets progressively trickier. How to get them out without loss of life is a major planning effort needed by the Pentagon and the State Department working in concert.

Then there is the matter of refugees already a huge problem and one sure to become worse.

There is more to come out than people. There is an embassy to be vacated, the contractors whom we have mentioned, certain people who befriended us and who need to be extracted to protect their lives, then there is equipment, and yes, even money we have in large amounts in that country. There is also communications equipment and other elements of a command and control structure to be destroyed or removed. Heavy equipment like tanks and artillery is yet another logistics matter.

We need to get out carefully and with good planning up-front. Based upon his track record there is no reason to think that Bush will demand that this be well thought out and carefully executed -- more likely he will sit and sulk.

I am worried about this phase of the war. It will be incumbent on Mr. Gates and either Rice or Negroponte to assure the nation that they can control egress.