The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation's alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America's allies must try to mitigate those outcomes -- and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.

The Mechanics of Withdrawal

The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.

The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.

Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is probably unrealistic. The political decision should be made, and the target date set, now.

The Fight Against Terrorists

Despite President Bush's repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.

This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda's leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.

And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.

The Question of Bases

The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.

There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy -- and too tempting -- to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington's real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations' governments.

The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.

The Civil War

One of Mr. Bush's arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening.

It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq's political leaders and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused to act on.

But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraq's neighbors to help achieve a negotiated solution.

Iraq's leaders -- knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival -- might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.

The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.

The Human Crisis

There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displaced within their country. Without the active cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq -- Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria -- and the help of other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the suffering, massive flows of refugees -- some with ethnic and political resentments -- could spread Iraq's conflict far beyond Iraq's borders.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors' conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.

Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore.

The United States has the greatest responsibilities, including the admission of many more refugees for permanent resettlement. The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will -- translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers -- whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans.

The Neighbors

One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors -- America's friends as well as its adversaries.

Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq's borders.



President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened -- the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage -- with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

Well, you sure won't read THAt in the NYT. Why do you supppose that might be? Stupidity? Envy? Traitorousnessossity? I will continuue to fart in Sulzberger's general dyrection. Hear that sound? Trumpets? Drums? Marching feet? All hail, George Bush, the conquering hero cums!

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion-- The NY Times

What a lie.

Bowa

As the kids say you are so OWNED!

^5^5^5^5^5 Zap

Larry

As the kids say you are so OWNED!

Oh please spare me.

I read the NY Times everyday. They have a lot of gall saying they have put off till now concluding that we must leave Iraq.

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion-- The NY Times

What a lie.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-07-08 06:24 PM | Reply |

Bowa, with your passion for the truth, kindly tell me when and where the New York Times is lying here.

"I read the NY Times everyday. They have a lot of gall saying they have put off till now concluding that we must leave Iraq.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-07-08 07:13 PM

The sports page doesn't count.

Oh please spare me.

I read the NY Times everyday. They have a lot of gall saying they have put off till now concluding that we must leave Iraq

Posted by Bowa

You're pleading to the wrong party.

Everyday, I'm sure right after the NY post and the Journal, opinion section only obviously. I give the Gray Lady deserves a lot of credit. Although it's been obvious for a long time. I think General Petraeus saying September would only be a 'snap shot' was the final straw. More Bullshit never ending war.

The sports page doesn't count.

Posted by Bill_OReilly


If it were only that simple. He keeps looking for the comics.

"He keeps looking for the comics."

Posted by Zap



The Sunday crossword puzzle is pretty good.
My late mother-in-law used to call me "arrogant" for doing it in ink; When I could get it first.

My late mother-in-law used to call me "arrogant" for doing it in ink; When I could get it first.

Posted by Zatoichi

LOL

Zat, She might have a point.

Of course we should listen to the NYT - they're so 'just news'/impartial.

Ink in crosswords is only allowed for corrections.

I nailed the Sunday Times crossword four weeks in a row. Long long ago. No ink.

My late mother-in-law used to call me "arrogant" for doing it in ink; When I could get it first.

Pencil Puzzlers are only guessing.

Inksters know wot they're about.

unbossed

Good stuff T&C.

The AEI think tank's special "secret" meeting of journalists making up the strongest rationale possible for war was a bit of an eye opener.

The fact that a few names are slipping out now is fascinating to Spud.

Most of the names are no suprise, of course.

See: Ajami. et al.

In terms of leaving Iraq completely?

Retreat back to the permanent bases with enuff troops to hold 'em. Ship a whack back to Afghanistan and try to do some good there.

Bring the rest home.

Ferget the god-awful embassy idea.

Be Well.

PS: Canada will be out of Afghanistan in '09 it looks like.

New York Times: It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Only about 5 years late.
Way to go, guys.

Yes, America is bored with the war in Iraq. It is time to pull out and start a new war with Iran. Afghanistan can still fund the war with its record opium crop.

Nice try on NYT's part, but I honestly believe that if Congress finally got tough and told Bush, "End it now or SEND THE TWINS," Jenna and Babs would be in fatigues so fast it'd make your head spin.

Bush's stubbornness will be the death of many more people.

This is actually an important story, the Times taking this editorial stance. The Times is obviously not a neocon rag but -- and I suspect this may account for some of Bowa's petulence, expressed above -- it is part of The Establishment. The Times is not now, and never has been, in the vanguard of any truly anti-Establishment movement in modern times. It's part of The System, defends The System, is linked to The System. It may be somewhere on the Left side of The System, which means it's still quite conservative, pro-capitalism, all that.

What this editorial says is, the train has now well and truly left the station.

All that's left stading on the platform is The Base, composed of poorly tended, well handled delusionaries.

If we have a military role in Iraq, it is to guard the border to prevent additional arms and insurgents from coming in to stoke the civil war that the Iraqis will must have.

A civil war will be a blood bath but wars are like that. In a sense, it will be a cleansing; it will cleanse the population of many thousands of people that have a grudge to settle. Once these "grudge seekers" have been cleansed, politics will have a chance of success.

"we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause"

Bush didn't create this disaster all by himself. The New York Times helped out. I notice there is no mention of their reporter Judith Miller or Chalabi or all the information that the administration selectively leaked to Miller and they published verbatim which helped sway opinion in favor of the war.

All those neocon assholes who got us into this disaster were bragging "Look, even the New York Times agrees with us".

Miller said "[M]y job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal." Her job and the New York Times's job was not to act as stenographers but to dig further, get other opinions from other intelligence analysts, figure out that they were being fed bullshit by the administration and Chalabi and the like and publish the dissenting opinions. If they did do any of that they sure buried it deep where it made no impact.

"What this editorial says is, the train has now well and truly left the station.

All that's left stading on the platform is The Base, composed of poorly tended, well handled delusionaries."

I guess the Times neglected to check with THIS reporter WHO WAS THERE.

"These Anbar [province] sheikhs who are cooperating with the United States have made an enormous difference in what was the most dangerous province in Iraq," said New York Times reporter John Burns in a recent interview on PBS's "NewsHour." "I was out there today at the capital, Ramadi . . . and it's gone from being the most dangerous place in Iraq . . . to being one of the least dangerous places."

"These Anbar [province] sheikhs who are cooperating with the United States have made an enormous difference in what was the most dangerous province in Iraq," said New York Times reporter John Burns in a recent interview on PBS's "NewsHour." "I was out there today at the capital, Ramadi . . . and it's gone from being the most dangerous place in Iraq . . . to being one of the least dangerous places."

What about the withdrawal of the "Private Contractors"?

"Iraq is all Sunshine and Puppies isn't it?"

I doubt it, but I also doubt that it's as bad as YOU would paint it either. You put NO credibility in what the NYT reporter ON SITE had to say???

Jest,

I'm not denying that certain areas have seen an improvement, however, other areas have seen a drastic increase in violence as the enemy (nebulous as that term is because the enemy is a little bit of everybody over there) changes tactics in response to our tactics.

You cannot ignore the facts here.

If things had been done right to begin with we would not be facing the GINORMOUS obstacles we now face in Iraq. It's been a clusterfuck from the get go, so please pardon us for not rejoicing and fawning over the fact that a few neighborhoods are seeing better times, in the big picture, my friend, it's still an untenable situation and our bravest are still dying for it.

A few neighborhoods being a little better coupled with huge increases in violence else were is at best a zero sum gain.

It is time to get out. If the Iraqis aren't willing to support their own country we can't continue to do it for them, especially at the expense of more of our soldiers.

Enough is enough. Shit strategy lost this one, not the left, not the NY Times, not the Dems, not anyone but the people in charge.

How many more flags have to be draped over how many more coffins before you say bring them home? What number is too many? How many more families have to bury their loved ones before you say enough to Bush's folly?

"That turns out to be just what the Democrats are afraid of."

Yup, the fact that Republicans proffered these wars, Republicans engineered these wars and Republicans prosecuted these wars, to this writer at the NYSun it can mean only one thing: The Democrats!

To date, no one has pointed to one concrete example where the neocon architects have wanted to prosecute these wars one way, and the Democrats thwarted it. Until then, all this desperate blame-shifting is nothing more than Republican Revisionist Stink-Wash.

though it's so much lower than, say, the U.S. Civil War

Wow, way to take a stand.

What is the next controversial stand they will take over at the NYT, that water is wet?

well i say either go in and win the damn war or get F### out

no more half measures call in the B-52's and blast the crap out insurgents or leave

btw my nephew is goin back to Iraq in september a marine,,,i hope like hell someone somewhere has something figured out by then

Violent though the battle has been these past few weeks, the level of violence is actually declining -- though it's so much lower than, say, the U.S. Civil War or the European wars

""The general is expected to warn that the army and marines need more incentives, like pay raises, to signal a priority of re-enlisting and volunteering to deploy to the theater.""

If that happens it will be the Democrats who support it and the president and the Republicans who oppose it. Then the same people will still go right on claiming it is they who "support the troops." It's just plain bull shit and America isn't falling for it again.
Asking American soldiers to referee a civil war is not supporting the troops.

I can't believe the tools of the right who call the NYT 'Leftist Dribble' and the like, and who now denounce them for calling for withdrawal from Iraq - as most are these days.

God, the righties want it every way in the book.

Make up your damn minds, eh?

Daddy said not to capture OBL. Why? Because when the Tali take over Paki, they will have real nukes, thus real enemy, thus real excuse, that's when the showdown really begins..."limited nuclear theater"....GHWB, get your seats early, tickets are going fast...sorry, front row center tickets are already sold out...you regular folks will have to wait outside in the rain...

You pay for this, but they give you that...NY

I just love "so owned." So cute!

Yeah, The Times is a little late. So are the Repub senators now deciding this Iraq thing was not such a hot idea. But better late, to coin a phrase, than never. And ever more ducks are lined up in a row. What do we do now? herm

Don't think the NYT's is being an honest broker in their call for withdrawal. They still support Miller and Gordon- the two reporters who uncritically and enthusiastically reported every lie about Iraq promoted by the Bush war machine- and they are at it again, uncritically and enthusiastically reporting every lie about Iran.

Perhaps the NYT's overriding interest is security for Israel. The war in Iraq has failed in making Israel safer. They see Iran as a greater threat- probably wrongly. It is quite possible that they want withdrawal, not for the good of America and her troops, but to create just the opportunity in the near future that would justify expanding the sphere of war against Iran if events turn catastrophic as they foresee. Trying to get at Iran through Iraq simply is not gaining traction. With troops out of Iraq, Iran is safe to strike from the air.

There are many duplicitous players surrounding the fiasco GWB has created in Iraq. International relations has always been that type of game.

Bowa: Still waiting for you to tell me when and where the New York Times lied. You state the NYT "lied" but you never believe that Bush "lied".

Let's here it.

Let's Hear it, too, lol