What policy choices do we have for fixing Iraq?

I was on MoxieGrrrl again, and it appears I have gotten involved in another debate there. The individual that I'm debating is certainly not the religious wing-nut that Kirk was in my previous debate posting, but he did ask me an interesting question to tickle my mind. This individual asked me a simple question here:

[a]nd why not take a look at the consequences of a us withdrawal, do you think there would be NONE? or will you instead harp on all the undefined lies of pres bush?

This caught me for a moment because it appears that every time I check into Kos, or any other blogsite, I certainly see a lot of criticism against the Bush administration's policies on Iraq. I see a lot of anger against the Bush White House--especially regarding the Iraq war. But I don't think I've seen any real honest debate--either here on Kos, or any other blogsite--what policies or actions we can do to extricate ourselves from Iraq. Is that true? Or are we keeping our plans secret from Republican spies?

I will admit that I'm not a policy analyst here. But I thought I would share my comments here on the choices we have regarding Iraq, and some of the positive and negative aspects for each option. Maybe this is something that we need to start talking about, considering the midterm election is coming up with the Democratic chances of taking one or both houses in Congress. Maybe we need to start talking about this so that we can have a policy option to sell to the American people for 2008--rather than listening to the Bush administration's "stay-the-course" message. Because this mess in Iraq is going to be with us in 2008 and beyond—we had better start thinking about what we can do to clean this mess up.

So you ask me what to do about Iraq? I see four choices that the U.S. can take regarding Iraq. The first choice is the Bush administration's choice--stay the course! Maintain the current situation, with the current troop levels--don't increase troops and don't withdrawal troops. This is pretty much a meat grinder approach of men and money for the administration, as they can wait it out for two years until 2008. Then hand off the entire mess to the next President--whether that president is a Democrat or Republican.

The second choice is to pull out immediately. Establish a one-year timetable to pull the troops out. The positive aspect on this is that we stem the bleeding from Iraq, and free up resources to commit towards fighting terrorism in other theaters--Afghanistan for one. The negative aspect is that once we pull out, Iraq goes into a full-blown civil war between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. Then again, Iraq is in a full-blown civil war anyways. We might see Turkey invade northern Iraq to take control of the Kurdish region, so that the Kurds will not have their own country. We might see Iran invade in the southeastern part of Iraq to take control of the Shiite region. An immediate pullout would also mean that both the Bush Doctrine and the PNAC Doctrine was a complete failure. I'll admit that this is another lousy choice.

A third choice is a combination choice of creating a U.S. timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, while allowing United Nation's peacekeepers to take control of the country. I will say I'm certainly open to this idea. We're able to get out and stem the blood-letting, and a true international coalition is brought into Iraq to keep the peace. The problem is will the U.N. and Bush White House go along with this? Any nation that is willing to commit troops, will also want something in return--such as reconstruction aid, and possibly oil exploration and drilling contracts to go to their own respected companies. Say goodbye to the no-bid Halliburton, Exxon, and KBR contracts that were handed out like Christmas presents from the Bush administration--President Bush would never accept this. And I'm talking all the contracts here. This is going to be a hard pill for the Bush White House to swallow. The UN can afford to wait on sending peacekeepers into Iraq until they extract serious concessions from the U.S. regarding reconstruction aid, and the rebuilding of Iraq’s oil infrastructure. We are just going to continue bleeding men and material during this insurgency.

The last option is a very hard pill for the American people to swallow. And that is to send more troops into Iraq--and I'm talking 500,000 or more. In order to get this troop level, we may have to institute a draft. Our budget may not be able to handle this increase of spending on manpower and the military equipment that will be needed for this troop increase, which means that taxes may have to be increased, across the board, among all incomes. President Bush is not going to raise taxes--he pretty much subscribes to the discredited supply-sided theory of economics. If we pay for this increase in troops and military hardware by printing more money, we're going to see inflation spike. If we institute the draft, the American public will probably oppose it--say hello to the new anti-war protests of Iraq that we remember watching during the Vietnam War. Our current military and National Guard forces have been used up, with some members serving their fourth or even fifth tours in Iraq. Volunteer recruitment has dropped. The only way to get 500,000 American troops in Iraq is a draft.

Of course, I'm not going to say that putting 500,000 American troops in Iraq will effectively pacify the country. I really don't know at this stage of the war--it may take more troops. At this point, the current troop level of 135,000 really can't do anything in Iraq. We no longer have control of the Anbar province and the surrounding countryside--where the Sunni Triangle is located. More American troops in Iraq would mean more fighting between American soldiers and the insurgents, which also will result in more casualties. I don't know if that is going to be acceptable for the American public.

Those are the choices that I can see for now. They are all ROTTEN! President Bush is choosing the "stay the course" option so he can hand off this mess to the next administration in 2008. And even if we get to 2008, we're still going to be left with these lousy choices--only difference will be that we spent more money we don't have on this war, and more young Americans have died as a result of this war. I don't believe in the fantasy of the Iraqi government and US-trained military will take effective control of the country, thus resulting in a subsiding of the insurgency. If that were to happen, then I'm more than happy to eat my words here. But I don't believe it. The three factions are in control of their own territories, with their own militias. Iraq is split into three countries--the Sunnis, the Shiites, and Kurds. Each country will fight to get whatever power and resources they can from the other. That is the nature of this civil war which is currently raging in Iraq.

So now I ask you, what other options do we have to resolve this war in Iraq?