Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.
"It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. "We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."
In fact, this is very precisely the kind of policy we ought to be pursuing, and it's consistent with the idea that we need to help Iraq see it through. I pointed to a similar Stratfor policy in May of 2004, and (last year) argued that "we need to retain a real footprint in Iraq, albeit in the southern and western areas" while negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement for the disposition of those reduced forces "while we still have leverage and influence".
How will we redeploy our troops? We ought to be able to bring many Guard and combat units back home, while redeploying some to nearby areas. (e.g., Afghanistan, Kuwait) Meanwhile, our footprint in Iraq should be minimized, with as much support as possible done from positions of obscurity — i.e., the sparsely occupied southern and western deserts.
The US should gradually shift our posture from combat to support, and, eventually, to a Status of Forces Agreement where we only act as a tripwire—a consequence multiplier—as we do in the Korean DMZ.
What will Iraqi troops do with responsibility? Iraqi troops will not devolve into brutal sectarian militias, bent on accumulating power for their group, sect or politician. I hope.
Failing that, however, there's little left for us but to wish them well storming the castle and hope the civil war doesn't last too long.
In fact, I would argue leaving US troops for emergency tripwire/support would be a far more conservative — and realistic — policy at this stage. Not to be too self-referential (I've been banging on this for awhile), but as I wrote in June of 2005...
[L]et's recognize the merit of some timetable arguments ... there's a great deal of merit to the idea that the Iraqis aren't just going to be born great in the next year or so; the Iraqis also need to have greatness thrust upon them. [...] As Kevin Drum writes, "artificial deadlines don't mean much, and Iraqis know this... Real deadlines, on the other hand, the kind that lead to real consequences, produce action.
So, sure. Give them a timetable to take responsibility, an incentive to get their house in order. So long as the timetable doesn't create a life or death/win or fail moment in time—so long as we draw back, not out—we can continue to advance, perhaps faster, down the path of Iraqi democratization.
At this point, whether Iraq will stand or fall depends upon whether it's leaders can take responsibility. If they can keep falling back on us, there's plenty of incentive to delay. Pulling back and recognizing that reality is exactly right, but it's also perfectly consistent with the mission we're trying to accomplish.
Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.
What is he talking about!?!?! A small force, at least in Germany, was the skeletal remains of an ARMY, 4 under-strength divisions, building to a force of 2 Corps and 7 divisions, with REFORGER growing to 10 divisions for war, all told 400,000 troops, plus several hundred thousand Air Force personnel. I liked Mr. Newt and all, but that first part of his statement is simply untrue. And you Jon, can PERSONALLY testify to it.
As for Korea it took a number of years for the troop levels to fall to the 2nd ID, IIRC. And even then the US planned on massively reinforcing Korea in the event of war. The US never/hasn’t come home from Korea nor deployed a small number of troops in Korea.
Newt is living in the basing his ideas on the world of TODAY, acting as if they were the world of yester-year and therefore hoary, tried and true ideas. He’s acting, here, akin to Buchanan, who dismisses the threat of Hitler, without examining the REAL historical record of the era.
I understand your argument but I think we’re past the point where such a strategy would be effective.
In the meantime, I can’t shake this feeling that the insurgency is fueled by unemployment more than anything else. Hopefully this week I’ll get a chance to compare Iraqi employment rates with insurgency activity to see if there is any correlation.
The term "cut and run" implies to me an attitude that Gingrich simply does not have with regard to Iraq. In fact, Gingrich said pretty much this same thing a decade ago, about Bosnia. It would be a far more conservative policy, but I am not sure it is more realistic — that depends on our objectives. The insurgency will not play out like Korea or Germany, because it does fall into a clearly defined geography. What would qualify as setting off the tripwire?
It is interesting that Gingrich is one who has argued loudest that Clinton never should have set the 12 month timetable in Bosnia. Setting a timetable doesn’t just tell the Iraqi government when they have to step up by; it also tells the opposition when to position themselves for a ramp-up in violence.
September 2004: Gingrich Blasts Critics of Iraq War Who ‘Complain We’re Not Winning Fast Enough’
Think Progress | April 12 2006
Yesterday, former House speak Newt Gingrich declared that the occupation of Iraq has been a mistake for the last 34 months:
It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy [Iraq] after June of 2003.
For Gingrich, it’s a dramatic reversal. In December 2003 (six months after he claimed the occupation of Iraq became a mistake), Gingrich expressed his support for the continuing operations:
I think it’s easy to go back now and second-guess. But when I look back and I think about what we felt in February and March and April, I think it was the right war, it was the right decision. [Fox, Hannity & Colmes, 12/8/03]
In September 2004 (15 months after he says the occupation was a mistake) Gingrich blasted critics who complained “we’re not winning fast enough”:
And instead of applauding this deliberate effort to minimize American casualties and to strengthen the Iraqis, we have some of our friends here at home who want it both ways. They want to complain that we’re not winning fast enough, and they want to complain if we take any casualties. You can’t have it both ways. [Fox, Hannity & Colmes, 9/27/04]
Meet the new Newt. Nothing like the old Newt.
UPDATE: Salon’s War Room finds another good Gingrich quote from 1/19/06: “I think it’s quite clear…that bin Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media, they’re monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States policies.”
