Getting Out of Iraq

According to Clark, the United States needs to involve Syria's President al-Assad and the rest of Iraq's neighbors in talks. "It's in the interest of all these countries to want us to leave," Clark says. "They don't want a big conflict in the region." Even Iran, which is building up influence in Iraq, might stop its meddling for a broader deal over its own nuclear program, trade and economic development. "The two countries we most need the help of are Syria and Iran," says Chas Freeman, ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. "But instead of trying to involve them, we're upping the ante by confronting them" -- a policy that is likely to widen the conflict rather than shrink it.

Withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, of course, is complicated by America's seemingly insatiable demand for fossil fuels. With oil reserves that may prove to be as large as Saudi Arabia's, Iraq will be at the epicenter of the global struggle over petroleum for the next half century. Iraq's oil wealth undoubtedly figured into the White House's calculus when it decided to invade -- and for former oil executives like Bush and Cheney, the prospect of giving up control of Iraq must seem like relinquishing a hard-won prize.

But whoever runs Iraq after the United States leaves -- whether Shiite radicals, Sunni nationalists, Iraqi military men or a democratic government -- Iraq will have no choice but to sell its oil on the world market. In reality, the only thing that can prevent the world from having ready access to Iraqi oil is continued instability or civil war -- the very conditions exacerbated by the ongoing presence of American troops. The surest way to keep the oil flowing -- and the surest road to economic growth and prosperity for the people of Iraq -- is to bring the troops home.

Bush continues to insist on staying the course in Iraq -- but if history is any indication, reality will ultimately prevail over fantasy. Perhaps former Secretary of State James Baker, Sen. John Warner and a team of wise men, such as those who approached Lyndon Johnson in 1968 after the Tet offensive in Vietnam, will persuade Bush to change course in Iraq and to adopt some version of an exit strategy. Perhaps the U.S. military, deeply unhappy with its mission in Iraq, will prevail on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to talk sense to the White House. Or perhaps Karl Rove, concerned about Iraq's effect on Republican prospects at the polls next fall, will advise Bush to end the war. Such scenarios may seem unlikely at the moment, given Bush's rhetoric. But unless the United States is prepared to remain in Iraq until a new president takes office in 2009 -- suffering thousands more in casualties and hundreds of billions more in costs -- then it will be President George W. Bush who one day signs the executive order telling American forces to come home and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

[From Issue 988 — December 1, 2005]

Robert Dreyfuss writes about national security for Rolling Stone. He is the author of "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam."