Goin' Broke The Cost of War
Events
Anti-War Vigils
Wednesdays, Lincoln
StratCom Vigils
Wednesdays, Omaha
Volunteer Nebraska Peace Stratcom
The Most Dangerous Place on the Face of the Earth
Whiteclay
Updates on Nebraska's tiny reservation border town.
Dick Cheney
Impeachment is on the table.
Speaking Our Peace The World Will End in Fire
By Paul Olson, NFP President
Global Warming Right-Wing Punditry & Green Cheese Science
By Professor Bruce E. Johansen
Peace Matters
Omaha NFP Newsletter
Alexandra Svoboda
An Injury to One is an Injury to All…
StratCom Conference Space Conference
Event World Peace forum
Peace Propaganda Peace Propaganda
Peace Blog

An Honorable Exit Strategy

NFP

There are, as nearly everyone now acknowledges, no simple solutions or harm-free options for extricating ourselves from the mess the Bush/Cheney Administration has created in Iraq. But a voice from Nebraskans for Peace’s past has been promoting a very sensible — and accountable — exit strategy. Rich Littleton, a former NFP State Coordinator during the ’70s who now lives in Washington state, is circulating a proposal first floated by Rep. Dennis Kucinich during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Short and to the point, this proposal calls for the U.S. to leave Iraq as the U.N. enters, and the U.S. pays the bill. Here are the three points in detail:

A. The U.S. should commit to withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq (1) on a timetable to be determined by the U.N. after the U.N. agrees to this plan, (2) on the condition that the United Nations brings in troops from other nations to replace the withdrawing U.S. troops; and

B. The U.S. should commit to limiting all command decisions to the withdrawal of U.S. troops and to relinquishing all other control to the United Nations and

C. The U.S. should commit to paying the cost of such a U.N. peacekeeping operation and all war-related reconstruction in Iraq war until (1) the U.N. declares that the war has ended and (2) that war-related reconstruction is complete.

This strategy answers the charge that the U.S. can’t set deadlines or “cut and run” — which, according to the White House neo-cons, would surrender Iraq to the terrorists. It prevents the creation of a security vacuum inside Iraq, thus retaining some semblance of civil order and inhibiting bloodshed. And it puts an international conflict such as this back into the hands of the U.N., where it should have been all along.

Some might balk at the idea of the U.S. having to absorb the costs. But if our government believes it has the right to unilaterally — and illegally — invade other countries in order to fashion the world to its purposes, it’s hardly inappropriate to expect that the U.S. should foot the bill when it goes awry like it has in Iraq.

With the Democrats now the majority party in both Houses of Congress, we finally have an opening to examine other choices than “stay the course.” Indeed, given the results of the last election, the Democrats will be judged by the electorate the next two years precisely on their ability to do something substantive about this debacle.

As Rich expresses it, “Hopefully, this proposal is a way to nudge the elephant of political power onto the right path.”