It seems to me that "a graceful exit" would be the ultimate objective of any nation conducting a war on foreign soil: unless the foreign power seeks to dominate and occupy the area of conflict. That being I wish people would stop maligning the phrase "graceful exit" when referring to the war in Iraq or any other war in which our nation becomes involves.
There is nothing wrong with a "graceful exit" from a war. Defeat certainly is not graceful, and neither is a victory which forever marks the victor as a villain in the history books, and both victors that "show no mercy" or become an occupying force have eventually been looked upon by history as some sort villain. One only has to look at history's list of victors or temporary victors to verify the accuracy of the concept that a victor can become one of history's villains: Julius Cesar, Attila the Hun, Genghis Kahn, the Vikings, the Normans, the Spaniards and British in the Americas, the British in India and Ireland,. Even Hitler initially achieved victory. The list could be added to, but the point is made. Victory without a graceful exit eventually leads to defeat on the battlefield or in the pages of history.
There is little doubt that the United States could achieve a military victory in Iraq, we already did that, but we stayed too long without bestowing the benefits of our victory on the Iraqi people as we did in post WWII Germany and Japan. Instead we allowed our leaders to continue to delude themselves and us with the idea that political freedom and democracy are what all people seek and they will be grateful to those who provide it.
Most people do yearn for freedom, but the first freedoms they yearn for are freedom from hunger and freedom from the material hardships that threaten their existence. Those freedoms we never really attempted to bring to the Iraqi people in the days following our initial victory, instead we moved to protect the oil-fields that provided for our comfort and expected the Iraqi people to use the proceeds from those oil-field to rebuild the economy that affects the lives of most ordinary Iraqis. That is the kind of victory that leads to being considered a villain and perhaps eventual defeat if not on the battlefield, then in the pages of history.
Embarking on the path to a "graceful exit" should have been planned for before we even invaded Iraq. It is still not too late for a graceful exit, but if it is to be truly graceful with some of our honor intact planning for it must include plans for helping rebuild Iraq’s economy. If President Bush does or has decided a “surge’ is necessary I hope the larger number of those troops are from the Army Corps of Engineers and the balance for to protect them as they help rebuild the factories, hospitals, schools and other parts of Iraq’s economic infrastructure.


Comments: 4
The primary issue tearing Iraq apart, or potential holding it together, are the sharing of oil wealth and the extent of regional autonomy. The US needs to protect the Sunnis, instead of fight them. Iraq will only remain a country if there is loose federalism and equitable oil sharing. Without any oil wealth, the Sunni will continue to fight, pulling Saudi Arabia and Iran more deeply into the conflict.
This article which I wrote a long time ago was not so much about the Iraq conflict itself as it was the deriding of the concept of a graceful exit by those who see anything short of military victory and subjugation of the opponent as a humiliating experience.
As for you assumption that there is something honorable about war, I do not agree. As individuals, combatants on either side may act honorably under adverse conditions, but war itself is not a honorable solution to any problem. At best war is an unavoidable, dreadful necessity and a admission of failure to find another and honorable solution to a problem, and the lack of another honorable alternative does not make a war honorable.