Now that Democrats have regained control of Congress, with a strong mandate to alter the course of the Iraq occupation, how should they proceed? This is a topic of discussion all around the world; there are elegant plans to organize the Iraqi government; its military; to split the country up into pieces using various scenarios; I suppose some people are saying we should "just leave", although I haven't heard a specific plan where we just pack up and get out. The issue of leaving behind American bases is the elephant in the room: some want them, desperately; some don't want them; some haven't really considered the issue or are ignorant of them.
I have a plan to get us out in one year that is much, much simpler than any of those, and it has the advantage that a Democratic congress can do it alone if the president signs off on it or if even 1/3 of congressional Republicans can be brought on board to override a veto.
It's really quite simple: Congress controls the purse strings. If Congress creates a budget for the next fiscal year (07-08) that has a gradually decreasing allocation for military activities in Iraq (cut 1/4 after the 1st quarter, 1/2 after the second, etc.), then we
would be out in a year. There would be no money left.
Even while Saddam was in power, during the period when he was our friend, we gave conventional foreign aid to Iraq. The zero point in this phased reduction is for military activities. The conventional foreign aid budget would be increased on the same schedule during the same time period, to a level similar to or greater than its level during the springtime of our relationship with Saddam.
Therefore, at the end of the next fiscal year, there would be $0.00 for military expenditures related to Iraq (including military bases), plus however many millions of dollars in conventional foreign aid. Our military would be gone, and that's the whole plan.
But wait! What about the insurgency? What about the Ba'ath Party? What about infiltration of Iraq by Syria and Iran? What about Muslim-on-Muslim violance in Iraq? What about their infrastructure issues? What's my plan for all that?
I explicitly reject the concept that the phased reduction-to-zero of our military expenditures should include any amount of detailed planning like that. Our military can decide where to best allocate their dwindling resources: they are realists to the last person, and are extremely good at operating under conditions like there where there is no ambiguity about where they are headed. The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people will get a wake-up call. The American occupiers will not only be gone by a certain date, but their power and influence will be waning on a predictable, fixed schedule. For the Iraqis with hegemonic ambitions, this will be crunch time: they have to make their coalitions, their deals, carve out their power bases, and so on, on a fixed, short schedule. I believe that the Iraqis are perfectly capable of working on this kind of schedule; they'd have to be. After all, once we're out of there, they are going to be running the place by themselves for better or for worse; this is just a reality of the situation.
Also, this kind of phased reduction will completely take the wind out from the sails of much of the insurgency. Now people would be asked blow themselves up, along with innocents, not to force out the infidel occupier (because he's going out anyway), but just to create disorder during the withdrawal. Some would probably still do it, I believe the violence would be reduced greatly.
The increase in conventional foreign aid is the other, equally essential ingredient of this plan. We wouldn't be abandoning the Iraqis by any means, but rather, establishing a normal, conventional relationship with an emphasis on peaceful, mutually beneficial cooperation.
I think that it's not inconceivable that we could get a number of Republicans to go along with; it's even conceivable that Bush himself would sign off on it. It would remove the albatross from around their collective necks. If they participated in the plan, then they would be able to share some of the credit, but if they united against it, then they could defeat it easily, and they would have to stay the course for at least two more years. This is something that they don't want any more. Also, on this time schedule, American forces would be down to zero just in time for the 2008 election season, and both parties would be in position to refer to their success in Iraq. If we "stay the course", then the Republicans will still be receiving the entire blame for it. So, I think that the Democratic congress could get considerable Republican support for such a plan.
Now, the budget for the following fiscal year would have to figure out what to do with the savings from this reduction, but that's a completely different topic.
Greg Shenaut