Be glad to.
Here's how I see it. It's not an "exit strategy" for anyone but me, OK?
1. We invaded a sovereign nation, something we haven't done real often, with the intent of removing the existing government from power. The "why's" of that decision have been beaten to death, so let's skip that part.
2. Since we were the "prime mover" in removing said government, it is our responsibility to replace said government, or more correctly, to enable the people of Iraq to replace that government through free elections monitored by the UN.
3. It obviously isn't going to be easy because there is an obvious underlying struggle for power in Iraq. This struggle is not based around any sort of "free elections", it is base around coercion.
4. We have various elements that have no interest in having a democratic Iraq. There are our external obvious enemies like A-Q, there are less obvious internal and external enemies like Muslim fundamentalist religious wackos that want power for themselves, there are AT LEAST three distinct internal factions that want as much power as they can grab (Kurds, Sunnis, Shias) and there are external Muslim governments that may have designs on Iraqi influence (Iran, Syria) and there are external non-Muslim governments that would like to see us fail miserably. I'll let you guess at the top contenders there.
5. So what do we have? Basically, we have all the makings of a lovely Civil War in Iraq with lots of external instigators.
6. My exit strategy is pretty simple. We're responsible. We have to stay until they have a somewhat stable government up and running with the necessary attendant supporting institutions. You'll need an Executive Branch, a Legislative Branch and a Judiciary. You'll need Army, Education, Public Health and other supporting players.
We have to provide security until they can hold elections, maybe even a few rounds of elections. We have to help them rebuild the ancillary institutions.
It's going to take our soldier's lives. A lot more of them.
It's going to take more billions. A lot more of them.
It's going to take years. At least 4-5, maybe even 10 of them.
And when we've done all that, we can leave. Oh, we may "draw down" through the years but until they get their stuff together, we have to be the one's that ensure they have a chance.
Anything else is a far worse "solution" that will rebound to haunt us for 100 years.
Cutting and running before this is done will only encourage our enemies, rouse their bloodlust to an even greater degree and endanger the US even further.
We HAVE to leave it better than we found it. WAY better. Or we'll pay far more than we're paying now in blood and treasure.
As for Kerry expecting ANY other nation not presently involved to "report for duty".......... he's forking crazier than a bedbug.
NOBODY in their collective governmental right minds would want to jump into this now. Particularly governments that fought against this all the way and are now enjoying their "told you so" moments.
The French and Germans aren't going to send their sons to die for a "free and democratic Iraq". They're not going to spend national treasure to that end either. Kerry's nutso on that plan; he probably knows that too. But hey... he has a "plan".
BTW, I spent the weekend hunting on Ft. Riley. I probably talked to a dozen soldiers that we met in the fields. EVERY single one was recently back from Iraq, some a month or two, some only a week or two. Lt. Col down to PFC ranks. I did not meet even ONE that thought the news media here was painting a fair picture of Iraq. Every single one said it's not as bad as the media portrays. Small sample, I know, but there you are.
Now, your turn Etch.
