You can't oppose redeployment because it won't be perfect

A member of a foreign policy group I'm in recently sent out an email criticizing Democrats for failing to plan for U.S. policy in a post-withdrawal Iraq. He cited this article, which, aside from a hilarious title, is mostly a collection of misdirection and outright falsehoods.

The article implicitly criticizes Democrats for ignoring the potential aftermath of U.S. redeployment. This is foolish for a variety of reasons. First of all, I would love to see a single article about how the Bush administration and Republicans are failing to plan for the potential increased chaos in Iraq if we stay the course. It's overwhelmingly likely that things will continue to get worse based on our current trajectory, even with (and perhaps especially with) the current tactics of the escalation. Where are the hysterical articles about the lack of planning for a Sadrist takeover? Or, heaven forbid, the death of Sistani? Or for a Kurdish declaration of independence? It's astonishing that people think the only way for Iraq to get worse is for us to leave.

Further, Democrats have -- and have had -- plenty of proposals and plans for post-withdrawal Iraq. Legislation has covered it, the major presidential candidates have all weighed in on the options, and there are reams of studies from left and center-left think tanks like Center for American Progress, Center for a New American Security, and the New America Foundation. There are plenty of progressive/Democratic/lefty ideas for post-withdrawal. Know why they haven't been implemented? Because Republicans, especially our current president, have no interest in working, compromising, or even talking with Democrats.

While trying to end a horrendous war that's actively harming U.S. security, it makes no sense for Congress to get bogged down in a discussion of what if. But for those of us who read the think tank reports, get on the conference calls, go to the open lunch meetings, it's obvious there's no lack of Democratic planning for "the day after."

If the argument is that the aftermath will be so bad that we shouldn't end the war, then that should be stated. But for people to wring their hands that Dems are being irresponsible, when the current legislative approach is *exclusively* a result of Bush repeatedly rejecting comprehensive, compromise, bipartisan efforts, is ridiculous.

I favor redeployment because I strongly believe the following:

1) Our current presence in Iraq is making the U.S. less safe.
2) Our current presence in Iraq is impeding the long-term development of Iraq.

The aftermath of the solution for those two problems (i.e., significant redeployment of our troops) won't be perfect, and it won't even be pretty. There are things we can do to mitigate that harmful effects of withdrawal, and we should do them. But the mere existence of potential for "chaos" (as if things are currently just fine!) is not a reason to abandon what's right for the U.S. and what's right for Iraq.