On Iraq, part two

A letter from the New York Times.

To the Editor:

Thomas E. Ricks expresses his belief that it may be necessary to extend our presence in Iraq by “several years.” He bases his argument on the belief that a force of 30,000 to 50,000 troops with a very narrow mission to advise and assist Iraqi security forces could avert a civil war.

Mr. Ricks is correct that the fundamental divisions in Iraq between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds remain unsolved as well as the issues of oil revenue-sharing and the nature of the government. But our continued presence will not serve to advance resolution of these issues and is not likely to prevent a war, since a much larger presence over the last seven years has not led to a resolution amenable to all parties. Senior military leaders have already stated in the press and in other public forums that our influence over events is waning at best, if not virtually nonexistent.

The only viable alternative is to withdraw now and quickly. Should we leave now, we can honestly say that we have invested greatly in the future of Iraq (more than 4,000 lives, billions of dollars, national prestige) and done all we could to set the conditions for a successful, peaceful future for the Iraqi people.

The rest is up to them; they will either succeed or fail. We must ensure that should they fail, they do not take us down with them.

Mark Solomon
Manassas, Va., Feb. 25, 2010
The writer is an Army lieutenant colonel who has served two yearlong tours in Iraq.