How do we disengage from Iraq, and when?Many Americans find themselves in an awkward position regarding the war in Iraq. Whether they oppose the war on principle or continue to support the mission but are disappointed with the apparent lack of progress, they would like an answer to two questions. How do we leave, and when?
The rhetoric from both sides is counter-productive to a solution. If one supports the mission they’re “warmongers.” Opposed to the war? You don’t “support the troops.” There is little truth to either argument.
I supported the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and still do. I believe, then as now, that our troops are fighting to protect our nation from those who have, and would again, do us grievous harm.
I would like to see our troops have to worry less about political fallout and more about surviving, completing the mission, and returning home safely. I am pro-mission, not pro-war. A fine distinction to some perhaps, but an accurate description nonetheless.
Does that mean I feel the opponents of the war in Iraq are failing to support our troops? No, of course not. Opposition to war and failure to support those fighting that war are two very different things.
Many Americans have based their arguments against our continued presence in Iraq on what they view as the unnecessary sacrifice of our servicemen and women. This hardly seems appropriate to consider non-supportive of the troops.
Sadly, the argument has become so bitter that we’ve stopped listening to each others points of view. We’ve allowed ourselves to be divided into two camps defined by empty catch-phrases, “cut and run,” or “stay the course.”
In doing so, we have willfully ignored the wide but largely unacknowledged middle ground. The view-point that recognizes the heroism and sacrifice of our military, desires their safe return home, and understands the necessity to provide for stability in the region before our troops can fully withdraw.
The Iraqi people have braved many hardships in the past, they lived in fear under a despotic dictator, found themselves drug into wars they didn’t want which took many of their best and brightest young men, and have shown strength, resilience, and the desire to live in peace.
In throwing off the chains of that dictator and attempting to stand as a new nation, they find their efforts violently opposed by a heartless insurgency largely manned and funded by non-Iraqis, and by internal strife between Sunni and Shiite militias.
Bringing these parties to the table and making them part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, is the aim of a group founded by Rosemary Palmer and Paul E. Schroeder. Their son, Marine Lance Corporal Edward (Augie) Schroeder, was killed in action near Haditha, Iraq in August of 2005.
Families of the Fallen for Change, a non-profit organization, was begun to foster a bi-partisan solution to the Iraq war, and spare other parents the grief they feel.
The group seeks to break the stalemate in Congress by offering a compromise plan calling for measurable benchmarks to be met by the Iraqi’s themselves to determine the rate and timing of American withdrawal.
In presenting the plan, they hope to satisfy the desires of both Iraqi and American citizens for an end to the fighting and establish a workable framework for peace between all Iraqis, Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds.
In an effort to forestall internal chaos in Iraq during and after the proposed withdrawal, the plan calls for a quantifiable reduction in violence, both militarily and civilly, after each major draw-down of American troops.
If the parties involved can not or do not meet a previously agreed upon benchmark reduction in deaths and injuries, the next large-scale withdrawal of American troops would be delayed until the goal is reached.
In a potentially controversial area, the plan, recognizing the volatility of the region and what they consider the absolute necessity for the involvement of all factions for the proposal to succeed, calls for the inclusion of insurgents, with the exception of Al Queda, in the negotiations for peace.
The United States, under the plan, would announce it’s intention to withdraw as quickly as the progress attained by the parties allowed, disavow permanent American bases in Iraq, pledge not to extend hostilities beyond the border of Iraq, and tie economic assistance for reconstruction to the Iraqi governments performance in the protection of minority rights, sharing of power, and equitable distribution of oil resources.
Closer to home, it calls upon the government to provide full and free medical and psychological care, including prosthetics, for troops injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s an interesting concept which at least attempts to reach out to those Americans who, adhering to neither “cut and run” or “stay the course,” have stood silently and sadly by the way-side.
The proposal can be viewed in it’s entirety on the organizations website at
Families of the Fallen for Change.