I'm neither for it nor against it; I just want it to be over.

I signed the Plan simply because it seems to be reasonable and logical to have an exit strategy. To have the view that we should shroud our intentions because the villains in Iraq will then know our plans presupposes that it is our responsibility to shield Iraq indefinitely. It is not, and I believe that we should honor the promises we have made and then let the Iraqis have the ultimate blessing of freedom...the burden of self-government and responsibility.

This is the best thing the LP has done in many years. This shows me that there are people within the LP who are more concerned with advancing liberty in a practical manner that we can enjoy while we are still alive and not discussing a libertopia at some point in the distant future.

I donated today becuase of this Iraq Exit Strategy Proposal and I want everyone else to do the same. It's important that the LP be seen as advancing politically possible policy according to our principles, becuase that will gain credibility with voters who not not yet libertarians. These are the people we have get to vote for our candidates, and proposals like this will help.

My thanks to everyone who participated in this at HQ. You did good. Keep thinking and doing more, and start tapping your friendly resources where you find them.

I signed it also, although I feel the only plan to end terrorism on our soil is to GET ALL OF OUR TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ NOW, AND BRING ALL OF OUR TROOPS FROM ALL OVER THE GLOBE HOME NOW! Not later, NOW!

Jonathan,

Simply bugging out like we did in Vietnam would expose out tropps to far more danger than a coordinated withdrawal, and going out over a period of time would likely lessen attacks on our forces as they would know we are leaving.

It's more responsible to get out according to a plan than to simply bug out.

No way can I sign something that advocates we stay in Iraq another YEAR and then advocates we spend our tax dollars outside our shores in foreign aid. Pull the troops home NOW.

I agree with Timothy West in that it is essential that we have policy that is not only principled and philosophically pure but also practical. Simple reason augmented by feasible strategy is our best ally, and I too plan to offer a donation as requested in the mailing that I received today.

I am totally opposed to this plan. Not only does this plan further endanger the lives of our troops, spends more US tax dollars for an illegitimate purpose, calls for continued occupation of other nations, and will extend our occupation but it makes a mockery out of Libertarian principles.

The war against Iraq and the current occupation are wrong, immoral, and must end immediately. But additionally, it is something that should NOT be funded by tax payer dollars.

The ONLY legitimate LIBERTARIAN plan for a pull-out should be as follows:

1) Admit to the world that we were wrong to invade Iraq, we have caused a disaster far worse than anything Saddam was ever able to accomplish, and apologize. Concurrently, we would tell the world we will be pulling out of Iraq immediately.

2) We would begin pulling troops out of Iraq, other middle eastern nations, and from elsewhere around the world. If a nation is not officially and directly threatening the US with an attack or invasion we have no business there. A very few military personel would be kept in our diplomatic outposts around the world, but we would bring our military might BACK HOME!

Our troops would begin pulling out in the fastest but also safest speed possible. We created a quagmire in Iraq and the best thing we can do is leave immediately and vow never to repeat this horrible mistake again. If we claim to owe Iraq taxpayer dollars and human lives in the form of our soldiers then dozens of other nations could claim the same thing. We cannot be peacekeepers, global policemen, or the tool of the United Nations. Regardless if by some international consensus we "owe" the people of Iraq anything the first priority must always be to the citizens of the United States of America.

Our government owes us an end to this tragedy, all of our sons and daughters a quick trip home, an end to the insane spending, and all of our tax dollars that are being spent back in our pockets. Those that sent our sons and daughters to die and created this huge quagmire owe the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA a bigger debt than they owe ANY OTHER NATION. Therefore, our troops must return immediately.

3) Obviously, there will be a backlash against the US from starting an illegal war on false evidence when it had no right to do so and then pulling out just to potentially let the country fall into even more choas. However, we can't sacrifice our principles to make the other nations of the world happy and pleased at our behavior. Immediately and without hesitation after our forces have returned to the USA from around the world we need to start building a true national DEFENSE to protect the USA from all potential methods of attack.

We should apologize to the world for our mistakes and intervention in their affairs, and state that we will from this day forward strive to have commerce and trade with all but form entangling alliances with none!

Additionally, we should immediately WITHDRAWL from the United Nations.

4) After such a sudden withdrawl from the middle east it is possible that the possible destabilization of the region and the disgruntled nations of the world might rally against us by disrupting our oil supply. To quickly start planning for this ALL energy funding for oil, coal, conventional nuclear, and fossil fuels should be immediately cut. But also, all funding for alternative energy sources should be cut too. With an even playing field ALTERNATIVE energy sources would quickly start gaining a footing and would more likely become useful. If the oil supply was disrupted then the economy would need to immediately and would of course naturally pursue these other energy alternatives.

In conclusion, the "Libertarian" solution to Iraq is a complete oxymoron, a farce, and is a compromise of our principles.

Now THAT is what I have been talking about. No Bush bashing, just a positive statement of policy toward a subject. Pretty damn well done.

That is the product of a leader and not a whiner!

A couple of comments from a personal perspective:

- Any plan that is adopted of this nature should be classified, with beginning and end kept secret. We give too much to our enemy.

- A good military plan is based on conditions and not time. Modification of this plan to execute phases upon reaching different objectives, such as a certain number of police units, etc. should be considered an acceptable variation.

- If, facing an identifiable external, or externally supported, threat, the legitimately elected government of Iraq requests military assistance from the U.S, we should let the world know we are willing and able to go back and defend an ally.

Nope. This doesn't work for me.

This strategy assumes that existing Iraqi government will be able to train a defense force, and argues why the existing government should be able to do that. But, what if the Iraqi's can't, or don't step up? Implied is that we go back in.

"It is feasible that, given a year fr training, the Iraqi security forceswould be able to control the insurgency." Sure, that's "feasible," but what if it doesn't happen?

"After U.S. troop withdrawal begins, a direct aid program will begin . . . to be used strictly for the creation of viable infrastructure." What is this money is just stolen by corrupt Iraqi politicians who have no interest in building infrastruction as happened with the oil for food program?

"Safeguards will be put in place . . . " Pleeeeze. What safeguards? You have to explain this part of the plan.

"The Iraqi government will be required to choose and hire a private firm to perform oversight on private contractors. The firm's mision will be to ensure that all contract work is completed in a timely and efficient manner and to prevent fraud, waste and inefficiency." OK, like the GAO prevents fraud, waste and inefficiency in Defense Department contracts; we're going to mandate an Iraqi GAO?

30,000 transferred to keep the peace in Afghanistan? Come on, no one's keeping the peace there.

A plausible exit strategy must acknowledge that it is possible bad things will happen; really bad things may happen if we leave. Remember those left behind as the American helicopters rose from Saigon as American involvement ended there? Many thousands of Vietnamese left behind to the horrors of the communists?

Still, we have to ask: What is the mission of the U.S. military. If it is to "fix" Iraq and make it over - more or less - in the image of Madison, Wisconsin, then we have to stay around, probably forever.

If instead, the mission of the American military is to protect Americans, then complete and immediate withdrawal (as happened in Saigon) is called for.

Acting unilaterally in America's best interest means unilateral withdrawal righ now even if that means suffering by some Iraqi's left behind.

Predicating a withdrawal plan on assertions that the Iraqis can or will necessarily "step up as we stand down" necessarily implies that even the LP plan is to stay forever if the Iraqi's can't perform.

Platitudes about leaving troops in other hot spots, and assertions about "safeguards" to prevent fraud and abuse, makes this "plan" almost sure to fail.

J. Mills

I think its a great plan.

J. Mills: Its apparent you didn't read the plan closely enough.

It says relocating 10,000 troops to Afghanistan, not 30,000.
The Taliban is slowly coming back there.

It says right in the plan if there is any fraud or abuse, aid funds will be withheld. So if corrupt Iraqi politicans want to steal and we find out, the aid program stops. Simple as that.

We won't require Iraq to have a GAO. It will be a private firm not a government agency like the GAO. A private firm will be liable.

I know a lot of libertarians won't sign the plan because it doesn't pull the troops out immediately and it involves foriegn aid. What they are advocating will never work in the real world. The LP is finally putting something out there that is doable, which they have never done. Its time to stop advocating these 'pie-in-sky' solutions to today's problems and start getting behind practical solutions like this exit strategy

I support the LP plan, and I have signed the petition. While I disagree with those who say it compromises our principles, I completely understand where they are coming from. The sad fact is that President Bush put our country unnecessarily at risk with his invasion of Iraq. Thus, it becomes necessary in the short-term to maintain strength in the Middle East while we carry out the careful withdrawal proposed by the LP.

I don't think that a one-year withdrawal plan is unreasonable. As Michael Badnarik said throughout the 2004 campaign, he would have instructed the Chiefs of Staff to work out a plan to withdraw our troops as safely and quickly as possible. Unfortunately, that order won't be given by Bush, so the party has had to estimate what would be safest and quickest. I think their estimates are as reasonable as any could be, without access to classified information.

Id be curious to know of anyone opposing the plan on the foreign aid issue would have allowed Japan or Germany to starve after their surrender in WW2?

In WW1, when we defeated Germany and went home without offering any help, Germany turned Nazi and we had another World War in 21 years. The historical record of cutting and running after a military victory is not a good one. It tends to make your enemy hardened and bloodthirsty for revenge.

I have always been against this war, but to cut and run would do nothing but compound the error we have made many times over. Iraq would fall into civil war and probably turn into what Bush claimed it was before he invaded - a terrorist haven, but now bent on revenge against Americans for decades.

Your LP leadership has walked a fine line here, but I think they have done it well. They deserve support for putting forth a real proposal that can be presented to non-libertarians who may be going our way on the war.

This is politics folks. This is how it works. If you dont want a *political party* to engage in politics, why are you here?

Great plan. It's about time the LP decides to participate in politics, rather than sit on the sidelines and complaing about the rules of the game. This plan is not libertarian philosophy, it's meant to be used immediately. The United States is not ready to take the entire libertarian philosophy, so we need to get there in steps. A one-year exit plan in Iraq is a big first step towards a libertarian policy than the endless occupation we currently have.

I'm not fond of using aid money in Iraq, however, this is where responsibility comes into play. If the United States was wrong to go into Iraq and destroy the infrastructor, than the United States is responsibile to make the injured party whole.

This is a great leap in the right direction. The LP won't be taken seriously when all we do is complain about past events that we cannot change. We need to look to the future and take small steps.

It boggles my mind that there are actually individuals who call themselves Libertarians that somehow believe the United States has a duty to police, maintain, and support the rest of the world. Our nation has no such duty or obligation. However, one real obligation that our government has been looked over repeatedly is taking care of the citizens of this nation!

How can they take care of the citizens of this nation? By reducing the size of government and letting them keep the money they earn!

Would I let another nation's people starve instead of spending US tax dollars? Heck yeah! I hate the thought of innocent people starving to death, but poverty still exists here in the United States. Now, I am NOT promoting using the money saved from an immediate and total withdrawl from other nations to boost appropriations to welfare programs. What I am calling for is lowering taxes and specifically abolishing the income tax so that people can have more money for themselves out of their paycheck and live in a nation thriving from a better economy.

Forcing one person to pay for another person's welfare is wrong, immoral, and outrageous. Even Jesus did not tell his diciples to go out and demand money from others to feed the poor. He said it was everyone's job to help those that were in need. True charity that helps and does not create dependency is based on love from one person to another. Individual donations to other countries in need should be supported, but stealing from citizens in the form of taxes just to support Iraq after our huge blunder is an OUTRAGE!

Also, the true LIBERTARIAN solution to Iraq is what I outlined in a previous post. It was to bring all of our troops home from Iraq and the entire world as quickly as possible, withdraw from the UN, and cut off all aid to other nations.

This idea CAN become popular and it can work. And one day it CAN INDEED be implemented.

If you don't think it will work then basically you don't think Libertarianism will ever become an active part of our government.

Look at all the money donated for the Tsunami relief fund! If we leave Iraq immediately and quickly don't you think that there are millions of Americans opposed to what we did to their nation that would be happy to donate to them?

Encouraging one person to VOLUNTARILY help another is Libertarian.

Forcing one person to help another through INVOLUNTARY taxation is TRULY TYRANICAL!

It's true. It's true!

I'm definitely a signer for this as well. As mentioned a direct and immediate withdrawel of troops (with a APOLOGY no less?) will simply never happen. Beyond the infesability and difficulty of even attempting to safely extract ourselves, teh current administration would simply never, ever accpet doing that.

Not that I expect them to accept this plan either, mind you, BUT this is a plan that does not compromis libertarian principles, instead it provides a direct means by which libertarian ideals can be feasibl accomplished. We don;t live in a vacum here. Immediate actions such as withdrawal from Iraq would no doubt have a violently forceful repercussions as the initial invasion itself was. Force was already initiated, should we repeat that force with a violent withdrawel, or would it be more libertarian to attempt a far less forceful method that should prove of greater good for both our troops and Iraqi civilians? Which is "more" libertarian?

Without assistance to help them rebuild, then we would not be accepting any responsibility for the harm we've already caused. How is not accepting responsibility a libertarian priciple?

I think this kind of plan is EXACTLY the kind of positive, direct action the Libertarian Party should be involved in. Excellent work, folks!

It would be nice if the sign up page listed the total number of signatures up front.

Tim West,

I am here because I support Libertarianism.

I believe in small government.

I believe in our rights to life, liberty, and property.

I also believe in the idea that the United States of American does not have the right to become entangled in the affairs of other nations.

But I do NOT under any circumstances believe that our party should sacrifice our principles to "play politics" or to perhaps sway the political climate of our nation a little this way or that way.

If we are willing to sacrifice on our principles to make temporary gains then how are our candidates or future office holders any different than Republicans are Democrats that "play politics"?

The truth is that they are not different at all. You may have the best Libertarian intentions at all, but if you dance with the devil you are one of his cohorts. Supporting the continuation of an occupation, giving away US tax dollars to other nations, keeping our troops all around the world, and risking our troops lives by keeping them in Iraq for another year is bowing down to the Republicans and Democrats.

It is like asking your cheating spouse who is going out spending the grocery money each night on hookers, getting in bar fights, and abusing your kids to sleep on the sofa instead of in the bed with you.

The Dems and Rep's policies don't need to be toned down, because the principled thing to do is kick such a piece of trash on the street.

If we make deals with Reps and Dems, water down our positions, or accept compromises then we are nothing different at all. Period.

The only thing keeping the Libertarian Party going is not huge numbers, not extravagent financial clout, and not a favorable political atmosphere.

What keeps the LP going is that we are one of the few political parties that are willing to stand firmly by our principles, are not scared to offend anyone, and are going to stand firm in the face of a hurricane of opposition.

Our values shock some, scare others, perplex anymore, but they do accomplish to amazing things.

1) They facinate a minority of people who realize our party is truly unique and some of these individuals join us.

2) It helps us stay the shocking, daring, and bold thorn in the side that keeps our government (at least so far) falling into a TOTAL tyranny (even though we are getting closer each month, year, and decade).

---

We must stay who we are, what we are, and we must not sacrifice our principles.

This proposal from the national LP shows we don't really stand for anything, and at least some LP'ers solid foundation of principles is starting to crumble and if nothing is done will turn to quick sand.

The LP could lose some of its more radical positions
- Open Borders
- Ending Taxation
- Privatizing Roads
- Ending public education

Other than those issues, I agree with the LP wholeheartedly

good work guys.

...and good timing. Rhetoric without a plan makes the LP look foolish. this may not be the best plan, but it is the best I've seen. And it puts the LP at the forefront of the anti-war debate. We need to really shop this proposal around to other like-minded groups and work politically to make it happen.

those who advocate immediate and complete withdrawal don't understand logistics. Further, the US caused many of the problems, and we have a duty to clean up our mess before we leave.

again, good job, guys.

William,

You wrote:

"What keeps the LP going is that we are one of the few political parties that are willing to stand firmly by our principles, are not scared to offend anyone, and are going to stand firm in the face of a hurricane of opposition."

The leprchan has the magic wand you are looking for. He just rode by on that unicorn!

The very Constitution the Libertarians worship did not come down off the mountain with Moses. It was a product of COMPROMISE finally agreed upon and ratified by men who were full POLITICAL participants of their time.

Speaking of Moses, he did not begin to lead during the best of times. He took charge, made tough decisions and showed his people a way out, fraught with risk, and led them to their promised land. Neat parallel, huh?

How does coming up with a real world plan to get our country out of what everyone I read here believes is a bad war violate Libertarian principles?

A principle is a "template" or "model" looked to for guidance is making hard decisions. When applied to the real world, they will never be pure. The trick is to stay as close as you can.

While I may have some differences of opinion, this is the first thing I have seen that is truly a real world plan to move toward a Libertarian ideal.

You eat an elephant, no pun intended, one bite at a time.

William, I admire you for standing up for LP principles...but am I a LINO?

I feel that we need the very minimum taxation and business regulation needed -- I also am against road privatization, COMPLETELY open borders and ending public schools.

I agree with 90% of what the LP stands for. Not a purist but am I Libertarian or a 'statist'

I would like to address several issues pertaining to the LP’s Iraq Exit Strategy. For purposes of fair disclosure, I would be remiss if I did not indicate that I was one of the few people “in the loop” on this project. My involvement was minimal, but I was consulted with respect to this foreign policy statement.

That said, I’d like to discuss a few areas where various libertarians are objecting the plan. To be clear, it is unlikely that anyone will ever agree with 100% of any complex foreign policy document – including the authors of such documents. I know, as I have traveled that road before, twice specifically on this issue. To add to the complexity and difficulty in writing this sort of foreign policy piece, the authors are not privy to the classified intelligence information which would greatly simplify the process.

I clearly understand the argument that libertarian principles dictate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Many of you will remember that I have taken a lot of heat (not only from the press, but also from party members) for my demands that we “get the hell out of Iraq” for the last couple of years. That I have earned my dove wings is not only indisputable, but blooded, as well.

However, there is another libertarian principle in conflict with an immediate exit strategy: responsibility. While many of us loudly protested the U.S. invasion, it happened nonetheless. Damage was inflicted upon the Iraqi people and a tort claim from them is reasonable. However, as Libertarians, we tend not to recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court or United Nations. So how do we responsibly handle these valid claims?

The answer, in a word, is reparations. It is a word that Thomas Knapp (http://knappster.blogspot.com/2005/06/lp-has-plan.html) and I both feel should be included in this document. Considering that we have created the disarray in Iraq, it is imperative that we act in some responsible manner to restore what we can over there – by providing the proper resources and allowing the Iraqis to rebuild in the manner which they feel most practical. It is their home, not ours. Our role is to give them a check for the tearing up their lawn and kicking in their door – but not to replant the grass or determine which style of door they should use. Remember all the controversy over the Oil-for-Food program? We should do everything within our power to ensure that nothing like that happens again.

I understand the arguments that reparations are welfare. The record shows (http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/29/guestoped_sg.htm) that I loudly disapprove of welfare – but welfare is not the case in this situation. We caused them damage, and we owe them. It is that simple.

A few people have stated that providing a timeline is a military mistake – and I agree. However, it is a political necessity both for domestic purposes and to sell the concept to the Iraqi people. I am a military veteran of over a decade, and have always grumbled when politics were placed ahead of the military mission – but I recognize the value of a stated timeline in this case. It provides a tangible scenario over which Congress and the media may debate, and it is a vital tool to encourage the support of the Iraqi people as we proceed to leave their homeland.

Determining the amount of days it takes to withdraw is very complicated. To begin, it took months to get the troops over there, and it takes at least as long to send them back. The logistics of coordinating simply the personnel movements are monumental. Then add the massive quantity of equipment and supplies which have been arriving in theatre for years, and one will see the logistical nightmare involved.

When drafting policy for the Badnarik and Russo campaigns, this was an issue about which many of us on both campaign teams gave much thought. From my perspective as the Russo campaign manager in a pre-nomination race, “immediate” was the buzz word, which I actively pushed. Whenever a suggestion was made about the timeline, my first reaction was “what can you do to make it shorter?” Of course, I did not have the practical reality of selling the idea to the general public to consider at that time, as my goal was to win a party nomination.

With the Badnarik campaign, initially there was a lot of support for an immediate pullout. I remember a conversation with a staffer who suggested a timeline of less than one week. I asked him to calculate the airplane flight and average maintenance time required, seats per plane, and to determine the amount of soldiers we had in the Iraq at the time. Once he had this figure, he was to determine how many airplanes were at the disposal of the military and tell me if the mission could be accomplished in such a short period of time. Needless to say, his proposal was a logistical impossibility. I never heard from him again.

Cooler heads eventually prevailed. The key debate was between a 90 day plan and a 180 day plan. My vote was for 90 days – although the people arguing for 180 days had some very valid points – such as some of the ones in this LP Exit Strategy. Would I have accepted the 180 day option, had that prevailed? You betcha!

In the latter days of the Badnarik race, it was a rare day that I was not asked practical details about our exit plan by members of the press. To not have provided reasonable details would have caused the campaign and Libertarians to appear like lunatics on the outer fringe. Fortunately, that did not occur.

As a result of that experience and the fact that another year has passed, I would probably choose the 180 day option today. But will I support the 365 day plan? You betcha!

The mission of the Libertarian Party is to move public policy in a more libertarian direction – not to impose libertarian solutions on society overnight. Three months, six months, and one year plans are all in accordance with this dictate.

The immediate withdrawal rhetoric will not practically work in the real world. The absolute and immediate departure of our troops will leave unnecessary disorder. We have demolished the old Iraqi system of trade, transportation, agriculture, utilities, etc. and have not left them time to develop reasonable replacement systems.

Also, pictures of the last helicopters leaving Saigon come to mind. A sudden and chaotic retrograde is likely to encourage a similar outcome. However, if we announce an intention to leave – and act consistently in a manner which leaves as little damage as possible in our wake, perhaps the travesty which occurred at the end of the Viet Nam War may be avoided in Iraq. Too fast a withdrawal could cost a significant amount of Iraqi and American lives and should be avoided.

Some have suggested that we apologize to Iraq. I agree, but many of our hawk brothers will not. The document was drafted with the hawks in mind, too. It clearly states that any announced or intended mission has now been accomplished and it is time to (pardon the military jargon, but it seems perfectly applicable in this situation) un-ass the AO. There are already supportive comments (http://www.lp.org/cgi-bin/plan/plan.cgi) appearing on the Support the Strategy page from self-identified hawks who now feel it is now time to leave Iraq.

The apology can wait for another day and another debate. In the meantime, let’s concentrate on the mission at hand – exiting from Iraq as quickly as reasonably and safely possible.

To be clear, I do not find the section about sending 30,000 troops to other countries acceptable. If, by some strange quirk of fate, this proposal actually becomes U.S. policy, I will lead the charge to send them back to U.S. soil. In the mean time, they will not be invading yet another country and will be stationed in places which have negotiated somewhat voluntary Status of Forces Agreements with the U.S. Some (not me) would also argue that this will dampen criticism that the exit plan is soft on terrorism.

We need to provide a plan which the American public will find palatable. While I think one year is too long, it has the considerable advantage of being a product which can be sold to a non-libertarian audience. And one year is a hell of a lot shorter than the Republican plan of �Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia’ or the Democratic plan of... (oops, they don’t have a plan at all).

When I was a Boy Scout, we were expected to always leave a campground in better condition than we found it. As there is no way to restore a lost life, we cannot do that in Iraq, but be can leave the campground as clean as possible.

Should a better plan surface, I will probably support it – as would most people (including the team who wrote this one, I’ll bet). If someone has this better plan, please offer it. I will tell you one thing – it is far easier to criticize a complicated work than it is to produce one – and empty rhetoric about a logistically impossible "immediate withdrawal" dooms the Libertarian Party to obsolescence as a political body.

Do I find this a perfect document? No! Do I support it? Wholeheartedly! And I urge you to do the same.

This comment is cross-posted at http://libertyforsale.com/?p=156

First of all, please forgive me (perhaps it is just because I'm tired from my four mile jog right now) but what is a LINO?

Also, thank you for your kind words. I consider myself to be a purist in many ways, but I don't think that only purists should be offended by this so called "Libertarian Solution" to the Iraq fiasco.

You see, this solution goes far beyond just upsetting purists and should offend anyone that is for a small federal government.

This is beyond issues such as privatizing all roads, abolishing public schools, ending all forms of taxation, etc. The truth is that this so called solution calls for the federal government to do things that are obviously tyranical.

1) It calls for our troops to occupy another nation for at least another year.

2) It calls for billions in uneeded spending US tax dollars paid for by hard-working Americans on another nation until they come home (in this plan that would be in a year).

3) It calls for billions in uneeded spending US tax dollars paid for by hard-working Americans on another nation for a period of time even after our troops have been brought home.

4) It calls for our troops to stay in various nations around the world for an unspecified ammount of time.

5) It calls for the United States of America to stay a member of the United Nations.

---

All the above are totally unacceptable!

Even if a principled Libertarian is against public roads, schools, libraries, and so fourth at least spending on these things are US tax dollars being spent here in the USA for those same taxpayers. If it is being done by the federal government it is totally un-libertarian. If it is being done by the state or local government these programs still are probably not very close to libertarian principles. However, they are all using tax dollars paid by Americans and those tax dollars are being spent here.

For US tax dollars to be spent on another nation is a tragedy! It is an abomination!

But even worse, to risk the lives of our troops occupying other nations that are not a direct and immediate threat to us is even worse!

Additionally, being all around the world makes the United States continue to be the global policemen.

Do you know what happens to global policemen? The evil criminal element seeks out for revenge. You know what we need to be? We need to be the pieceful landowner that runs a business, trades goods and services, makes an honest living, stays out of other people's business as long as we are not being bothered, and politely asks others to do the same.

Libertarian ideas (not this so called solution) can be implemented and become policy. It might take a whole lot of work, more membership, and a lot more money. But we must fight for our principles (which are NOT just generalized but specific) and see that they get implemented.

This current solution is not Libertarian. It is a sign that we are getting desperate. We are so uncertain that true Libertarianism will ever succeed that we are resorting to slashing and tearing apart our values.

What will help us succeed is our values.

If we lose them we lose EVERYTHING!

LINO - Libertarian in Name Only

Purists are what practically leave this party at a standstill. This is brilliant work of the LP to remain relevant, practical, and at the same time further the party as one of action, rather than sedation. For too long the LP has been a party of discussing philosophy rather than practicality in today's world, and as such it's seen the logical end result--low poll numbers, irrelevance, and to be honest, the "100% purity" mark is why I let my membership lapse this year.

To this end, who can honestly say they don't know someone who considers themselves a Republican or Democrat, but doesn't adhere to 100% of their positions? Practially everyone I know (that isn't already a Libertarian, that is). Let's get back to reality here; nobody but the staunchest cliques will ever agree 100% with any one political party, and that's the way life works. Get over it.

Now, I, myself, agree with at least 95% of what this party stands for, but for purists to sit there and point fingers only alienates potential members of the LP. These are people who we can count on to vote for LP candidates and to provide financial support to further the Libertarian message, NOT people we should be throwing by the wayside.

If the LP continues to demonstrate their willingness to work within the framework of modern society in order to pursue Libertarian ends, I'll have to reconsider letting my membership lapse. If it remains the LP of old, it will continue to stumble along like a drunk sailor coming on shore leave with nobody giving a damn where they end up in the morning.

Keep it up, Stephen. We worked together on the Badnarik 2004 campaign, and it's great to see your effect continuing even more intimately with the core of the LP. You keep me--and others I know--hopeful that sooner or later, this party will finally be able to stand on its two legs, shed the image of black helicopters and debate societies, and succeed in a national arena.

Bravo.

As someone who identifies myself as a black British liberal-libertarian, (according to the quick political quiz I took sometime ago), I think the discussion I have read concerning US Libertarian principles and Iraq is intriguing. When I was more convinced by socialism, it was always with the belief that one day you could reduce the welfare state as disenfranchised people pulled themselves out of poverty. So you could say my goal was always that one day minimal government would come about. It may not have been 'libertarian' but there is a nexus between the two differing beliefs.

I guess what I am trying to say is,is that with the current American situation, libertarianism must take into consideration the present realities it finds itself in. In welfare there are classes of your country who are now dependent on it, so the immediate and unilateral withdrawal of welfare would decimate some sections of the country. The same with corporate welfare and foreign-client states of the US. I believe it is no compromise to take into consideration the current political realities when constructing policies to bring about libertarianism. For example, I have an idea about education: rather than force poor people to suddenly have to find money for education, (an education that will inevitably lead to a rapid initial rise in schooling costs), why not give ownership of local public schools to the families who will use them. Yes, it is initially redistributive, but after that their on their own. These families could sell their stakes in the school, or do whatever they want, and financing of the school would then be their concern. I think this is a fair way of dealing with the rapid change in educational policy.

In closing, I am not sure what is the best for your country and mine (Great Britain) to extricate themselves from the situation in Iraq. My instincts say that to cut-and-run simply is unfair considering we caused the mess. I do agree with Colin Powell, "if you break it, you own it!" I believe that any strategy must take this into consideration.

PS. I have a question, if you support the US constitution in absolute, doesn't this same document dictate that black slaves were only 3/5s of a person? I am aware that there was an amendment to change this but my point is if you accept this amendment, (as I do hope most of you will), doesn't this validate those who have supported other amendments to your constitution, that have increased the scope and scale of government? How do you get around this!

William,

I am sympathetic to what you are saying. However, there is one key point you have not addressed. How do we withdraw the troops without putting them unnecessarily at risk? Much as we might not like this key fact, such actions as troop withdrawals take time, if our intention is to do so safely. As Libertarians, I believe we have a responsibility to effect our plans in a way that does not create havoc.

Would you have supported the plan if it called for troop withdrawal over six months instead of a year? Or do you believe that the troops should simply be ripped out and the Iraqis left to suffer the consequences of an immense power vaccuum?

Power vaccuums will always be filled. The secret is to fill them with less and less power over time. This may seem to be a contradiction to you, but it's really not. For instance, if we remove a soldier and replace him with a policeman, we have prevented a power vaccuum, but we have reduced the level of power.

Like you, I'm not happy with the idea of increasing our presence in the rest of the Middle East during the withdrawal. However, unlike you, I don't consider the LNC's position paper to be a final stance. I consider it to be a first step.

Once the troops have been withdrawn, the next step would be to formulate a plan for withdrawing our troops from the Middle East...and indeed from the rest of the world. Our critics have complained in that past that we have never laid out our plan. Their criticism had some justification. Now it has less justification.

I also would have preferred to see the LNC take a more specific stance on hunting down Bin Laden and Al Qaedda in Afghanistan. The term "peacekeeping" didn't sit well with me. Nevertheless, I consider the purpose of these troops to be to go after Bin Laden and to provide a level of stability while Afghanistan rebuilds her own police force. Our presnce in Afghanistan should be considered contingent on the development of their own police force.

The one thing I would have liked to have seen in the current LNC proposal was a long-term vision of what would happen after the troop withdrawal from Iraq has been completed. On that point they were silent. If they had spoken up and said we must then work out a careful withdrawal from the Middle East that puts our troops at as little risk as possible, would you still oppose the plan?

To summarize my position: I don't consider the LNC proposal to be a final policy. I consider it to be a first step, with future steps to be further defined. If I thought it was a final step, I'd oppose it. However, I have no reason to believe that it was intended as a final step. Do you?

"The LP could lose some of its more radical positions
- Open Borders
- Ending Taxation
- Privatizing Roads
- Ending public education

Other than those issues, I agree with the LP wholeheartedly"

Open borders would happen only after the welfare state we all know and hate is completely abolished. That's why we're afraid of people leaving and people coming in, because those who can afford the welfare state will leave so as not to pay for it, while others who want to take advantage of it will flock here in droves.

As for the roads and taxes, please go visit New Hampshire, where there is no state sales or income tax and the state turns away federal funding. The last one allows them to have a seat belt helmet law only for those under 16. I think they also still have a legal limit of .10 and if they want to, they can lower their drinking age. Anyways, the roads are perfectly fine. They still have US and Interstate highways there, but they are taken care of through private construction firms. Compare this to Michigan, where the construction is done by the state on an apparently endless funneling of taxpayer money, and the roads are all screwed up.
Public education worked just fine when run by the states and not the feds. I'm also not for all private education because I am also worried how many of these schools will be snatched up by churches. I am a STAUNCH believer of seperation of church and state. If public education is abolished, then a law mandating that an area should have one non-religious private school for every religious one should be implemented.

Jonathan,

The positions you object to represent long-term goals rather than first steps. You're discussing first steps and treating them as long-term goals.

I signed the plan yesturday and I think it is great and a good comprimise with Democrats and Republicans on the foregin aid issues and The strategy is the best I have ever seen out of a political party. I am member of the Libertarian party and I don't have any dobuts about being a member. I have suggestion to thank the National Executive Director for his hard work and effort to this plan together

Congratulations to everyone in this organization who prepared this paper.

It is pragmatic and imperfect as far adherence to pure Libertarian principles goes, however much more importantly it shows that the Libertarians can lead a public discussion on a very touchy but high profile subject (a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq), and overall it will make people take a closer look at the Libertarian Party as an alternative to the corrupt mainstream parties.

Trident

The existence of a plan, any plan, and hosting of robust discussion on important policy issues is a great idea.

What is so troubling to me about this plan is that it is bi-lateral, rather than unilateral action based on America’s best interest.

This plan starts by acknowledging that “Those against the immediate withdrawal of American troops believe an American departure will create a significant power vacuum. They assert that Iraqi security forces are ill-equipped to stand alone.”

The plan then proposes a “gradual” withdrawal and asserts that the Iraqis WILL be able to stand alone. What if, as a matter of fact, the current Iraqi government is unable to defend itself; that is, what if those opposed to immediate withdrawal are proven right? Implicit in this plan (I guess) is that we go back in.

This plan proposes an expensive government supervised financial aid program. It then proposes “safeguards” and oversight to prevent waste, fraud and mismanagement. (What aid program foreign or domestic does not claim to have such safeguards?) But what if, as happened with the oil for food program, the safeguards don’t work?

According to “Dr. Gonzo’s” post: “It says right in the plan if there is any fraud or abuse, aid funds will be withheld.” OK, we withhold the aid. But if there is a need at all for aid in the first place, and we end up just withholding it, what next? Do the Iraqis starve? Do we send back in our military?

Libertarians are often criticized (sometimes justly) for “pie-in-the-sky” plans. It seems to me this is exactly that kind of plan. Rather than just get out, admitting bad things might happen to some Iraqis if we do that, this plan really just ASSUMES or ASSERTS that nothing bad will happen if we “gradually” withdraw and reposition troops in some neighboring countries.

It “plans” for the Iraqi government to successfully defend itself. It “plans” for U.S. aid having no substantial fraud, waste or abuse.

But no one can ASSURE such optimistic results will actually occur once we gradually leave; so we have to ask, what if the rosy projections don’t materialize?

Really, this plan doesn’t address that possibility at all, except to imply that if a gradual withdrawal is met with further violence or disorder in Iraq, we send the troops back in.

It’s that part of the plan that I find objectionable.

On the other hand, if we are going to leave REGARDLESS of whether our military departure results in the rosy projections “planned for,” well then, let’s just leave and get it over with.

Many criticize the “just leave as rapidly as possible” plan as unworkable in the real world. On the contrary, it seems to me a plan which doesn’t even acknowledge the possibility that gradual withdrawal will lead to eventual chaos, violence or the rise to power of extremist religious leadership as we now see in Iran, is the real fantasy plan.

A thoughtful, “real world” plan cannot just assert or assume the end results we’d like to see. Instead, it must address what happens if things don’t go as we project.

Suppose that nine months into a “gradual” withdrawal, the current government is overthrown by religious zealots, the aid money is being stolen and spent on weapons and the flow of oil stops. Frankly, the long history of events in the Middle East suggests that this is more probable than not.

In that event, I think this plan implies that we go back to square one, send back in the American military, and start nation-building all over again. . . . and again . . . and again, endlessly until somehow we can get out without anything bad happening.

Seems to me a more “realistic” plan is to recognize that bad things may happen if we leave, and plan a departure irrespective of that fact. Then, if unexpected good things happen, well so much the better.

Mr. West asserts in his post that “Simply bugging out like we did in Vietnam would expose our troops to far more danger than a coordinated withdrawal.” I don’t understand how this squares with history.

When the helicopters left Saigon abruptly, Americans STOPPED dying in Vietnam. Our troops would have been in more danger had we stayed, or more gradually withdrawn (seems to me). The troops got out of danger precisely by leaving.

In Vietnam, eventually, America deployed the “just get out now” strategy. We did that knowing full well that bad things would likely happen to our Vietnamese friends left behind. We did that because staying around longer would do nothing except expose Americans to more danger, and because there was no prospect of our “fixing” up Vietnam by staying around militarily.

Today, the result of America’s decision to “bug out” is that Vietnam is a relatively stable country, holding most favored nation trading status, and an important trading partner of the U.S. That could be the result of immediate withdrawal from Iraq because it would leave American business, rather than America’s military to deal with Iraqis.

But, of course, whether that is the result of leaving is irrelevant. Our policy must, in the end, center on doing what’s right for Americans, regardless of whether the Iraqis ever learn to trade and interact responsibly with the rest of the world.

Stephen Gordon makes an excellent point that we have destroyed the old Iraq and have an obligation to put things right. Of course, we all agree on that. What we discussing is the best strategy for doing that. We have to ask whether leaving the American military in Iraq longer will help, rather than hurt, Iraqi prospects for rebuilding.

Proponents of immediate withdrawal simply believe that the sooner we get the military out, the sooner the real rebuilding can commence. Hopefully, that’s not some sort of radical proposition.

Mr. Gordon also correctly points out that there are logistical impediments to departure and that it took months and months to get our troops to Iraq. Correct again. But, that simply means if we adopt a plan for immediate withdrawal now, as fast as possible, we still won’t be out for months.

The fact that it took months and months to get all our troops there is not a reason to PLAN a more gradual withdrawal; it’s a reason to plan for immediate withdrawal, recognizing that it will probably never happen as fast as we expect.

Any plan predicated on the current Iraqi government “stepping up as we stand down” implies that we go back whenever it seems the Iraqis stumble. That isn’t really a plan for leaving; it’s a plan for staying around until good things happen – which might be forever.

If we leave, Iraqis will die and bad things will happen. But if we stay, Iraqis will die and bad things will happen . . . and Americans will also be dying, and bad things will be happening to American taxpayers. Once that truth is recognized, then it becomes clear our plan should be a military withdrawal as fast as can be accomplished.

As soon as the military declares victory and clears out, American business and charity can clean up the mess we’ve created.

J. Mills

J. Mills,

You make some excellent points. However, it strikes me that the crux of your argument is that slower withdrawal is riskier than immediate withdrawal. Your defense of this main point leaves a great deal to be desired. In truth, you provide insufficient evidence to back up your assertion. Let me explain.

The main purpose of withdrawal is not just to prevent a power vacuum in Iraq. It is also to protect our troops during the withdrawal as much as possible. I notice that you do not dare to project how long an "immediate" withdrawal would take. That's because none of us really knows, including you. For all you know, a year may be the optimum amount of time necessary. For all I know, six months may be enough.

Remember, the buildup and deployment oversears leading to the war took many months, and that was before we established ourselves as defacto policemen in Iraq, thereby making withdrawal even more difficult. All we do know for sure is that you can't withdraw on a dime. It takes the amount of time it takes, no matter what timeframe you project.

What you're really arguing about is the optimum timeframe we should project for our withdrawal. How much time is too much? Until you can answer that question, not just in vague terms but in terms of an actual schedule, your arguments fall short.

The LNC had to pick a timeframe. We can quibble about the timeframe they selected, but at least they did it based on the best evidence they had available to them at the time they made their decision.

I think the reason to give a specific date for complete withdraw is to give the elected Iraqi government a deadline by which it must prepare to defend itself.

The point of the deadline isn't how fast U.S. troops can safely withdraw, it is how fast can we anticipate the Iraqi government prepare for its defense.

It is simply false to argue that such a position implies that the U.S. agrees continue to protect the elected government of Iraq if they fail to provide for their defense.

Old people should have provided for their own retirement and not depend on collecting taxes from todays workers. But I don't support the "let them eat dog food" option. Farmers shouldn't get subsidies, but I thought the 5 year phase out on "Freedom to Farm" was great. I certainly didn't take that to mean that no farmer would be allowed to fail after that.

I don't believe that the U.S. is obligated to provide reparations for the damage done to Iraq.

I am not against tax-financed food aid, if necessary. And I am even more supportive of temporary military aid to the elected government.

But I don't accept any obligation for U.S. taxpayers to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. The Iraqi regime started a long war with Iran and then invaded Kuwait. They have funnelled money into the hands of the ruling class.

Sure, some of their infrastructure was wrecked by the U.S., but that isn't the whole problem.

The reality is that a dictator, with the tacit support of 20% of the population (Sunni Arabs) were violently oppressing and persecuting 80% of the Iraqi population (Kurds and Shia.)

The U.S. did most Iraqis a favor--a big favor--by defeating the Baathist regime.

Now, the Iraqis have elected a government. A government supported by the 80% of Iraqis who were oppressed and opposed by the 20% who were of the same religious and ethnic group of the oppressors. Surprise!

I don't think we owe the Sunni Arab oppressor class reparations. And I don't believe we should pay the Kurds and Shia for letting us help them out by defeating their oppressors.

We will be paying them for oil for decades, if not centuries. I don't see why we need to do anything more.

All of this "reparations" talk may help "sell" this program to the peacenik wing of the LP, but it will get out, and it will be poison with the American people.

Now, the "direct aid" stuff, isn't necessarily poison with the American people. But I don't think it is a good idea, politically, either. Generally, foreign aid is really unpopular.

P.S. I thought invading Iraq was a mistake--it was contrary to U.S. interests. While doing the Iraqi people a favor and overthrowing Saddam Hussein was nice, the costs were great. Leaving Iraq won't make those costs go away, but it is the least bad option.

Bill, I don't think that calling people "peaceniks" is going to do anything to bring the party together on this proposal. All wings of the party must learn to work together, or we will get nowhere as a party. Divisiveness leads to further divisiveness. Do you really want a divided party?

Also, I am taken aback that you seem to feel that the safety of the troops during the withdrawal is not of concern, particularly since your arguments seem to be based on what you think the American people favor and don't favor. Are you suggesting that we should not "support the troops"? Clearly, "supporting the troops" is something the American people favor. Thus, your position on this point is irrational.

You made many other good points, so I hope you'll correct my perception regarding the above two points.

Purists do hold the LP back by treating the LP as a philosophy club instead of a political organization. The LP's goal is to move the nation in a libertarian direction, which means little steps.

Would the purists oppose an LP plan to cut the federal budget by 20% next year, because they oppose the other 80%?

Since placing the withdrawl plan into blogs (our own and as in the comments section to other peoples' blogs) is the best way to build visibility that might force the mainstream media to acknowledge and covert it.

So, I've placed links to the proposed Plan on Arianna Huffington's blog.

Spread the word!

While I don't agree with blindly handing out foreign aid all over the world, we have to recognize that we (the U.S.) have disrupted the Iraqi economy and infrastructure. We caused damage to their system. More areas in Iraq are without water and electricity than before we invaded. We are the reason unemployment is 60% in many areas. We MUST make Iraq whole for the damages we did.

This plan also has merit because it places control of the funds in the hands of the Iraqi government, not the U.S. politicians. I'm guessing that the Iraqi government would rather award construction contracts to Iraqis than Americans, French, German, or any other country, where feasible. Our construction plan has been criticized as yet another corporate handout, wrought with corruption and back door deals.

The timing of this plan is also good. The public wants a solid plan, and neither the Dems or the Reps have one. The Democratic party is particularly vulnerable, concentrating (at least on liberal talk radio) on Bush bashing, rather than showing leadership and initiative. Even conservatives are wary of our potentially endless involvement in Iraq. The LP party has a great opportunity to gain recognition, votes, and elections by putting forward sensible solutions to problems.

Sorry for offending anyone by using the term "peaceniks."

The fact remains that using the term "reparations" to sell this plan internally is a major error in terms of selling it externally. How long before Boortz starts up with "the LP wants to give the Iraqi terrorists reparations?"

While I do care about the safety of our troops and would oppose any plan to withdraw U.S. troops more rapidly than would be safe for them, I don't think that is the key criterion in terms of providing a credible plan for withdrawal. I suppose it is a matter of judgement--the time it will take for the elected Iraqi government to stand up its own army is longer than what it would take to safely withdraw U.S. troops.

Anyway, I certainly "support our troops" and believe the LP should do so as well--both in reality and rhetorically. However, the comments I was reading seemed to be aimed a describing how quickly the U.S. can withdraw without danger to our troops. I don't believe that is the right way to sell a withdrawal from Iraq.

The LP position paper has the right idea. Saddam has been deposed. The Iraqis have elected a govenment. Turn responsibility for defense to the elected Iraqi government.

I would put more emphasis on the fact that it is "their" responsibility.

If there are really Libertarians who would prefer that U.S. troops remain in Iraq rather than have them leave without apologizing for violating the principle of strict isolationism, then I don't really care if they are offended and "split." That is the LP's problem on many fronts--too many seek to make a point rather than make change.

Do none of you recognize the need for a democracy in that part of the world?

I recognize a need for autonomy and non-interventionist policy over there.

RE: Van Martin comments about US Constitution

The US constitution was created mainly to address the problem of disgruntled war veterans who were not getting paid for their war services (against the 'evil empire' of Great Britain, who used military troops for 'peace keeping' occupations here). Under the 'Articles of Confederation', the government was essentially libertarian, but lacked the means to collect taxes, something which requires force and coercion.
The US Constitution is an imperfect document with imperfect ammendments. We made allot of mistakes, but to quote M. Gandhi, they were OUR MISTAKES.

Our current occupation of Iraq is like the British occupation of India. We can run their lives better than they can.

Also, Van Martin, what do you think of the Kashmir problem in India? The partition seems not to be working very well, particularly in western Kashmir (US citizens know this area as Pakistan and NE Afghanistan). It is my opinion that the British caused the Kashmir problem with the partition (late 1940's). Who now can fix the problem?
The US libertarians talk tough about going after Osama Bin Laden, but only towards countries that don't have nuclear weapons. How convenient it would be if OBL would stay put in non-nuclear Afghanistan, where we could hunt him down and punish him without getting punished back.

Van Martin-
James Madison stated that the way the Constitution dealt with blacks and native americans would permanatly scar this great documant. I think he was correct.I think the best way to deal with this is to explain the bad things that have and can happen when we send the message that the government is above the law and doesn't have to follow it's own law. The great thing about the Constitution is that we can change unjust laws through an amendment process like we did with slavery and the 3/5 law.
I don't agree with all things in this exit strategy. I think the 1 yr. time frame is good and I don't mind the dept relief but foreign aid I think should be taken off the table.

J. Lentz-
I think your point on church ran schools are not realistic. Free markets work. I have a son, I have no doubt that I would find a secular school to place him in. Why? Because there is a market for it. I would pay to send my son,my brother would pay to send his kids and you would obvouisly pay to send yours. If there is no school we can start one ahhh the beuty of freedom and the free markets. Plus the same argument you make about being forced to pay for a religious school could be made by someone already paying a tution for a nonsecular school why should you a person that is anti-religion steal money from that persons family to fund your school.

c_al_currier wrote: "Our current occupation of Iraq is like the British occupation of India. We can run their lives better than they can."

That's about as un-Libertarian a statement as I've heard all year. Our party is all about people running their own lives, not having others run them for them. If you want to run other peoples' lives, join the Republicrats.

c_al_currier also wrote: "The US libertarians talk tough about going after Osama Bin Laden, but only towards countries that don't have nuclear weapons."

This statement is absurd and easily refuted. I urge the US to go after OBL wherever he is. I strongly believe most Libertarians feel the same way.

Libertarian TV suggests that we are “really arguing about the optimum timeframe.” I think that’s not exactly correct.

As I read the LP Plan, it argues for a “gradual” withdrawal, asserting that this will allow the Iraqis to train sufficient forces to defend themselves. Presumably, that means the existing government will be able to defend itself against insurgents or other challengers. The plan says “Allowing a year for the withdrawal will give the Iraqi government time to train and deploy a sufficient security force in trouble areas.”

My point is that the plan doesn’t address what happens if, as we “gradually” withdraw, we find the Iraqi government is unable to train and deploy a sufficient force?

What if gradual withdrawal leads to increased violence, chaos and conflict, and even to an effective coup?

If the point of “gradual” withdrawal is to allow the Iraqi government time to deploy its own force, then implicit is the notion that we will have to go back in with the military if the Iraqi government is faced with trouble.

In short, the LP plan is really Bush’s plan that we “stand down when the Iraqi’s stand up.” All the LP plan adds is a specified timetable of one year.

But, for the plan to be a complete thought, we need to address what happens if the one year comes and the Iraqis are NOT prepared. What does our plan say about our action if we find that our gradual withdrawal leads to increased violence?

The issue is not really the timetable. One year, 180 days, 20 days or 17 years are all timeframes we can plan for. The issue is whether we propose a UNILATERAL withdrawal that occurs irrespective of events in Iraq, or whether we propose a CONDITIONAL withdrawal, where withdrawal depends on the current Iraqi government’s ability to remain viable.

Because I believe America must act in its own UNILATERAL self-interest, I think our decision should not depend on whether the current Iraqi government is, or is not, able to “train and deploy a sufficient security force.”

If we all agree to unilateral withdrawal, then logically it can happen “immediately” or as soon as practical, taking maybe only the months we spent bringing troops over.

If, on the other hand, the plan is for a conditional withdrawal, dependent on the current Iraqi government’s ability to fend for itself, then what’s the point of the “one-year” timeframe?

It’s all well and good to just SAY that “Allowing a year for the withdrawal will give the Iraqi government time to train and deploy a sufficient security force.” But a true plan has to say what we do if that doesn’t actually happen as “planned” – particularly since this is something over which we have little or no control.

Bill Woolsey is absolutely correct that “The point of the deadline isn't how fast U.S. troops can safely withdraw, it is how fast can we anticipate the Iraqi government prepares for its defense.”

Mr. Woolsey then says: “It is simply false to argue that [waiting for Iraqis to get ready] implies that the U.S. agrees continue to protect the elected government of Iraq if they fail to provide for their defense.”

But, that’s where I can’t follow Mr. Woolsey’s argument.

Either we care about protecting the elected government of Iraq, or we don’t. If we care about that, then we should commit ourselves for “as long as it takes.”

If we don’t care whether the current Iraqi government lives or dies, then what’s the point of waiting around for a year?

I suppose we could decide to “care for a year,” sort of like imposing a 5 year limit on welfare benefits. But, mostly that’s just a way of avoiding the hard choices, pretending or hoping they will never arrive, and really a way to burden the taxpayers without any real commitment to solving a problem.

What do we say to the several hundred that die as we drag our feet for a year waiting – particularly if, in the end, we just abandon the whole mess and the Iraqi government folds. This is Kerry’s famous question: “How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake?”

Fundamentally, all of this really goes to the purpose of the American military. Is its purpose to fix up all the problems of all the nations of the world, remaking them in our image, or is the purpose of our military to protect Americans? Is it our job to defend the current Iraqi government? If so, then as c_r_currier asks: “what do you think of the Kashmir problem in India?”

Because I believe it is not the job of the American military to defend the current Iraqi government (which probably is as bad as others that might spring up to take its place), I think our plan should be to declare victory over Saddam and unilaterally withdraw as fast as possible irrespective of whether the current government there survives or is replaced by something else.

J. Mills

I would like to see the various peoples in the middle east enjoy more personal and economic freedom--a lot more. Unless governments favoring those policies can win free elections, there is little hope for those desirable policies to be sustained. So, in a sense, democracy would be a good thing. Democracy with voters who want more personal and economic liberty. (Hmmm, a bit like the U.S.)

I don't believe that the U.S. can reconstruct various Middle Eastern societies so that the majority come to support more personal and economic liberty.

Efforts to achieve this are more likely to cause more and more people in the Middle East to identify support for personal and economic freedom with treason against their people--treason in support of the Americans.

It is apparent that the U.S. can invade Middle Eastern countries and hold elections. What the people will vote for--it depends on them.

Occupying countries until they begin to support and vote for what we want is too expensive in money and lives. It will generate progressively more and more enemies for the United States. It is just a matter of time before they adopt Al Quaeda's strategy of attacking U.S. civilians in the U.S. as a way to cause more pain that killing U.S. soldiers in the middle east or others in the middle east who fail to oppose us enough to suit them.

It's like most Americans felt about communists. They were traitors supporting the Soviet Union.

How would you feel if the Duch invaded and occupied the U.S. until we allowed gay marriage and medical marijuana? (And socialized medicine, too?) Sure, we could have elections, but they would give us an interim constitution that made sure all of those bible belt conservatives couldn't interfere with personal freedom and social justice--Massachusetts would have a veto.

Maybe it would be better. But I would be mad as hell. And I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. Just think how they would feel about the dutch and this invasion to promote personal liberty and social justice?

There were free elections in Algeria and they voted in Islamicists. The Palestinians regularly elect hardliners who promise the people the right to return to their homes in Israel. Very unrealistic, but it sounds good to the typical Palestinian voter.

Just the other day, the Iranian votes chose an ultra conservative. Sure, electing reformers results in them running into the clergy who were only "elected" by a referendum on a Constituiton giving them all that power 25 years ago, but there must be a whole lot of Iranians who support the hardline conservatives. The story is that backwards and poor Iranians voted for them.

The biggest advantage to having an election in Iraq in January is that there are now some people to whom the U.S. can hand over responsibilty. The U.S. can even save a bit of face, because it so happens that the government is made up of political enemies of Saddam Hussein. The U.S. needs to get out while the getting is good!

Making sure that everything turns out nice and democratic--much less with ample personal and economic liberty--is beyond our capacity. Fighting a war with such a grandiose aim--that is just asking for defeat.

As I said before, deposing Hussein and allowing a freely elected government to take power wasn't a sensible policy for the U.S. But it was doable. Gee, its been done. Declare victory and get out.

We don't need a complicated plan, just get out now and for once be honest with ourselves and the rest of the world: the US war on Iraq is an illegal, immoral, and unprovoked war on another country. An apology for it would show we have some decency left.

We can't be free or safe until the US Government abandons its criminal foreign policy: its perpetual meddling in the affairs of other nations - - overthrowing legitimate governments to install puppets, bribing them with foreign "aid", covert operations, assassinations, blockades, "no-fly" zones, embargos, "misinformation" campaigns, plundering their resources, and on and on.

The Libertarian Party has an opportunity to lead a movement to bring our troops home. Start today, and all of them home in a year.

There is no "opportunity" to lead the American people towards something they won't accept--the notion that it is only the wickedness of the American government that has created foreign threats to the American people.

Do you want to make change? Or do you want to make a point?

Stephen Gordon wrote:
"Considering that we have created the disarray in Iraq, it is imperative that we act in some responsible manner to restore what we can over there – by providing the proper resources and allowing the Iraqis to rebuild in the manner which they feel most practical."

Stephen,

What do you mean "we", kemosabe?

"We" created no disarray in Iraq and have no collective responsibility for the actions of those who did create disarray. Collectivism is what the LP is supposed to be opposing. Yes, I understand that by "we" you mean the U.S. government, but unfortunately the U.S. government doesn't have any way to pay its debts except by stealing from someone else (us). This plan is advocating that the government rob Peter to pay Paul. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

In general, I think it's a bad idea for the national LP to come out with these sweeping policy proposals, even when they're proposals I agree with (unlike this one). I much prefer to decentralize this sort of thing as much as possible. Leave the policy proposals to our candidates. If any of them comes up with a hare-brained scheme, at least we the rest of us have plausible deniability. By presuming to speak on behalf of the entire party, the national LP takes on an awesome responsibility, and it is probably a no-win situation. It would be better if national just stuck to providing an infrastructure for activists and a clearinghouse for best practices.

matt,
I understand where you're coming from. It just worries me enough to feel the way I do because I know organized religion has way too damn much money and they would go around snapping up all the former public schools there are. I know non-religious private schools exist. I've seen them. I also know I would home-school my child before I ever send them to a religious private school.
I'm sorry if this sounded a little fragmented, but I do see where you're coming from. Maybe I'm just seeing the "gloom and doom" certain liberals would see. lol

How about a sampling of comments from the form? Note the people with military connections and non-party members who are also supportive.

As a log-cabin Republican and a latino, I am thrilled to see someone who is finally for pulling out and has a good mind how to do it! - from Chi-town!, Illanoiux

What a thoughtful and insightful exit plan this is! As the mother of a US Army reservist currently serving in Kuwait, I do not want our troops to feel their sacrifices were useless. This plan points out the positive aspects of the war in Iraq and allows an exit with honor and dignity for both our country and Iraq. I am proud to sign my name in support of this plan. - from Snellville, GA

Archimedes once said war is hell, and thank goodness for Libertarians offering us a glimpse of the ethereal fringes of heaven. God bless you, you're more welcome than cool glass o' snapple on a hot Georgia night! Scumptious! - from Harrisburg, PA

This strategy makes sense to this veteran. It may not be perfect, but its reasonable and its the only game in town. Let's execute it - now. - from Port Angeles, WA

With sober, reasoned and logical plans such as this its just no wonder the Libertarian Party has little success at the polls. Gosh darn it, you're gonna have to learn some fear mongering and demagoguery, not to mention mugging for the cameras, if there can be any hope for success at the polls. Shoot, you guys don't even use "Liberal" or "Conservative" as insults... That's no way to grab headlines! - from Beech Grove, In

I am in full support of this strategy because it excludes political sniping, and the overtly corrupt infrastructure that has been in place to date to deal with this conflict. This exit strategy also focuses on the most important elements of the withdrawal: saving our troops' lives, and improving the lives of the Iraqi people. Thank you. - from San Francisco, CA

I spent all or part of every one of the 17 campaigns in Vietnam and wish we had had a plan such as this when we left. It makes sense adn meets all of the pros and cons of leaving Iraq according to a timetable. - from Fairfield, CA

This is a well-concepted and well-timed plan for exit from the Iraq war. It does not set a deadline for the beginning of the insurgency "free-for-all", but rather, sets a deadline for the Iraqi people to take control of their own resources and situation. I believe that this fulfills all of the wishes of both parties, and any opposition to a plan such as this certainly affirms alternate interests than those of liberty and the value of life. This should be soundly supported, and send a message to Washington that there are options which can no longer be danced around or skirted. - from Richardson, TX

Finally someone willing to commit to a plan. Not like the others that fear a plan opens them up to possible failure.Well done. - from Englewood, FL

I've read the exit plan in its entirety, and I think it's sound. Keep up the good work LP, and the rewards will come. I finally joined the party after 9 years, just yesterday! Let's build a momentum of progress that can't be turned on its head. - from Port St. Lucie, FL

t's an outrage that this country has been allowing our government get away with whatever it wants through spin, hearsay, popular opinion, and media response. It's about time things are done right for the sake of being done right. We as a country are much better than our government makes us seem. I'm glad that there's a group out there with the guts to stand on principle and not polls. I read the plan in its entirety and am glad to see that at least someone has given the iraq situation serious thought. Maybe America is not doomed... - from Yauco, PR

I think the exit strategy proposed by the Libertarian Party is our best chance of ending this nightmare. As it stated in the plan, it would give the Iraqis the freedom they deserve and the respect that they desire. It is a terrible shame that the Bush administration will most likely not listen to this common-sense approach. The Bush administration is either too proud to admit their errors or driven by an unknown agenda to continue the occupation of Iraq at any costs. I pray for a day when this great country can be led by a person who can put goodness and honor ahead of lies, deceit, and greed. - from Garyville, LA

OMG, do we need a viable 3rd party alternative....and to be OUT of Iraq! - from Oneonta, NY

I can't think of any better way to support our brave servicemen and servicewomen than to bring them home. Now that Saddam Hussein is out of power, we should let the Iraqi citizens dictate their own course. - from Trenton, OH

One could only hope that an intelligent, well thought out plan like this would be taken seriously by the current administration. Somehow I doubt it will, but major kudos to the Libertarian Party for spearheading a direct and positive action as a response to the failures of the Bush Administration to more directly address this extremely, vitally important issue. - from Metairie, LA

I like this common sense approach. It must’ve been difficult to take a step back and look at the bigger picture when so many people would like to have seen us leave yesterday. A lot of thought went into this and I applaud the authors. - from Tachikawa-shi, Tokyo-to Japan

It is nice to see a party that actually has a plan come forth rather than to continue to support a rogue ruler whose only strategy is to constantly invoke 9-11 as a justification for a never ending war that devours our youth, our national treasury and our standing in the world. Both national parties are corrupt beyond redemption, it is time to get behind the Libertarian Party and return both sanity and true American values to our political system. Let's join together as Americans to celebrate Independence Day for what it really stands for, a freedom from tyranny and a lack of representation. - from Largo, FL

As a new Libertarian (I've only been one for a few weeks now)its good to see at least some ideas coming up regarding Iraq. I like this plan. At least it is a plan that has possibilities. Direct aid, and our troop movements to other countries at a slow draw down scale in order to increase the responsibility onto the new Iraqi Army and Govt. and at a measured pace but still within striking distance if needed. It sure is better than the complaints from the Democrats, or the optimistic "train an Iraqi Army and hope for the best" type of thinking from the Republicans. Hope and complaints just aren't good plans in book. - from Denver, Colorado

It's good to see one party that doesn't just "have a plan" but is willing to place it on the table. And it is a good one. - from Grover Beach, CA

I agree with the Libertarian's point of view. They strongly disagree with President BushпїЅs unclear mission: We are not hunting down the terrorists. We are enabling them and providing Iraqi insurgents with a common enemy. And we are not advancing freedom. Instead we are advancing chaos in the Middle East.Please help define a realistic exit strategy. - from Cleveland, ohio

With the continued loss of American life, the decline in troop morale, the ongoingand exorbitant expenditure of American taxpayers’ money, and with the decliningacceptance of the American presence by Iraqis, it has become necessary to developa sensible plan for troop withdrawal. - from Las Vegas, NV

It's good to see a political party with a clear PLAN regarding this conflict. Let's hope this generates more conversation about Iraq. Good work! - from Clare, IA

Please bring our soldiers home. The entire country is feeling the effects of this military mission. At what cost should the citizens of the US continue to allow the senseless killing of our soldiers? - from Fort Benning, Ga

This is a thoughtful & pragmatic plan that addresses many of the concerns on both the left and right. Well done, Libertarians! - from Lynnwood, WA

Well, time to write and e-mail EVERYONE! This makes sense. I'm a hawk, but we've accomplished our purpose, and we need those troops here at home… - from McKinleyville,, CA

I think this is a great plan, that attends to the needs of most of the people involved. Progressive thinking and acting are the only ways to resolve this very unfavorable situation that we, as a nation, find ourselves in. I, for one, applaud the libertarian party for being pro-active in attempting to find a resolution to the suffering that this war has caused. - from Charleston, SC

Libertarians have one of the most rational -- and workable -- plans for an exit plan. All this "feel good" talk abot bringing "democracy" to Iraq is not based on reality… - from Wildomar, CA

I'm a decorated Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam and Desert Storm. Let's do what we should have done in Vietnam--declare victory and come home...before we end up with another wall with 55,000 names on it, another half-generation of social misfits (like me)… - from Alpine, TX

Jim,

How ya doing? I haven't seen you since the debate/protest in Manhattan. (outside of the Daily Show spot).

I stand corrected - not just by you but a whole lot of my friends - for the misuse of the word "we".

It's a bad habit from communicating with a lot of non-libertarians. My head is hung in shame.

: )

Steve

It has been stated on this thread that purist hurt the Libertarian Party and hold it back. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but to this notion I completely disagree.

The purists are what hold the LP together!

Without LP purists who stand firm on the foundations of Libertarianism the entire party would sway back and fourth in the political wind. Those that are willing to compromise on principles to gain temporary political support are who will tear our party apart.

We must say NO to all forms of big government and the violation of citizens rights.

If we call for the use of big government, further taxation, or forced charity programs (such as aid for Iraq) then we are just stating that we don't care about our principles.

Did the LNC or the Executive Committee get to vote on this before it was submitted to the public? I think it's critical that they should have done so, because this plan wipes out over 30 years of Libertarian platforms and principles regarding foreign aid and non-interventionism. I'm simply dumbfounded. This is just one more reason for me to seriously consider not renewing my membership.

I am completely new to this philosophy and site but am intrigued by this discussion; I read it all. I ranked a perfect "liberal libertarian" on the test here and I believe that to live in a society requires some social responsibility but I'm not here to preach. I wanted to commend the leadership of this party for a courageous attempt at doing what no politician I've heard yet do... provide an actual plan on this critically important issue. Whenever we leave, it WILL be a mess. One only need look at Israel's 50 year conflict to know that we're not going to make this go away simply by stating that as our goal, certainly not a year, or two, or ten. I look forward to the Libertarian Party making more meaningful contributions such as this and expanding their influence in our lopsided RepubliCrat one party system. I'll never be a purist like William but I hope he'll accept my support and vote nonetheless. For people arguing for an absolutely uncompromising position, I guess Bush is your hero! Ideologies divide people; principled compromise is strength, not weakness.

RE: Libertarian TV and 'absurd and easily refuted statements'
OBL has liver problems and has been around Islamabad for the last several years (according to US and British intelligence and best local accounts). Islamabad is in Pakistan (W. Kashmir), not Afghanistan. OBL draws allot of support from the Kashmir people who are mostly Islam. The US news media reports his 'whereabouts' as near the Afghan/Pakistani border, which is ridiculously misleading. Why don't they say Pakistan? Are we afraid of invading Pakistan?
If OBL retreats to Eastern Kashmir, AKA NW India, will we invade India to chase after him?

Both Pakistan and India are armed (nuclear), and the ongoing conflict there is too 'messy' for the US to enter. Even China has 'piece' of the Kashmir conflict.
RE: Iraq// 'We can run there lives better than they can' -the British 'rationale' for denying independance to India-
Yes that's an unlibertarian statement! We (US) did an unlibertarian thing and invaded Iraq! Now we face the problem of being the occupier. I suggest we get out ASAP.

I don't think they want better lives, but freedom. Our version of 'freedom' forced on them at gunpoint has certain unlibertarian qualities.
I think they want to make their (to quote M. Gandhi) OWN MISTAKES.

J Mills states:

"Either we care about protecting the elected government of Iraq, or we don’t. If we care about that, then we should commit ourselves for “as long as it takes.”

If we don’t care whether the current Iraqi government lives or dies, then what’s the point of waiting around for a year?"

Either we are absolutely committed to the survival of the elected Iraqi government or else we are completely indifferent? Those are the only two possibitities?

I believe that there are many possible alternatives to those two. That is, the survival of the elected Iraqi government is desirable under some conditions and not others. Some of those conditions involve bad things the elected Iraqi government might do in the future. Others involve required committments of U.S. resources at various future times.

I don't know any other way to explain it. I think it is perfectly reasonable to give the Iraqi government a little time to get its act together. I don't believe that the U.S. government is obligated to take care of the Iraqi government's responsibilities forever. This implies some kind of time limit. Six months? One year? 18 months? Two years? How much time does it take?

Reading the press, the current U.S. government plan is to build up an Iraqi army and then give it to the Iraqi government when that army is ready. It is supposed to be well-trained. There are conflicting reports on how well-armed it is to be. The U.S. secretary of state has explained that it doesn't really need to be very large.

Well, it seems to me that a very large, ill-trained army, heavy on infantry, ought to be able to protect the elected Iraqi government right quick. But it should be up to them to figure out what they need.

It is their responsibity, not the responsibility of the American people.

And, by the way, the elected Iraqi government is not the previously existing regime. We don't owe the current Iraqi government compensation for giving it the opportunity to come to power.

man, these posts are too long. i want liberty, but i don't want to have to read that much.

The need for a well managed & moderated Official LP Discussion Forum is pretty much self evident. :D

All things in due time, I know.....

What is most significant about this plan is that it shows the proper real world attitude of wanting to get involved and move things in the right direction. You will not make the country Libertarian overnight.

It should be pursued and debated and pushed as an option for the country. If the Libertarian party is the genesis for ending the war, how can that possibly be against the party's principles?

What amazes me most is the absolute depth of all of the incredible information of intelligence value that many of the posters here seem to have! Damn folks, give Donald Rumsfeld a phone call and tell him what you seem to know as the absolute truth. The war will be over in a week!

Karl, here is how the "plan" goes against the party's principles. Below I've pasted in the party platform plank on Foreign Aid, lifted right off this web site. The "plan" directly contradicts the platform plank by advocating US Government (aka *taxpayer-funded*) foreign aid to Iraq. (This is just one example of how reprehensible the "plan" is, and I'll let others focus on other areas.)

Foreign Aid

The Issue: The federal government has used foreign aid as a tool of influencing the policy of other sovereign nations under the guise of aiding needy people in those nations. This forces American taxpayers to subsidize governments and policies of which they may not approve.

The Principle: Individuals should not be coerced via taxes into funding a foreign nation or group.

Solutions: All foreign aid should be voluntarily funded by individuals or private organizations.

Transitional Action: Eliminate all tax-supported military, economic, technical and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations. Abolish government underwriting of arms sales. Abolish all federal agencies that make American taxpayers guarantors of export-related loans, such as the Export-Import Bank and the Commodity Credit Corporation. End the participation of the U.S. government in international commodity circles that restrict production, limit technological innovation and raise prices. Repeal all prohibitions on individuals or firms contributing or selling goods and services to any foreign country or organization, unless such provision constitutes a direct threat to the people of the United States.

Lawful tort claims (reparations) are not welfare. As there is no legal body (we don't recognize the UN or International Criminal Court) monitored direct payment seems to be the best method - unless you have a better idea on how Iraqi's financial claims may best be restored.

I am open for good ideas...

"PS. I have a question, if you support the US constitution in absolute, doesn't this same document dictate that black slaves were only 3/5s of a person? I am aware that there was an amendment to change this but my point is if you accept this amendment, (as I do hope most of you will), doesn't this validate those who have supported other amendments to your constitution, that have increased the scope and scale of government? How do you get around this!"
------------------------------
I think the answer is self evident based on the ninth and tenth amendments. Since enumerating every human right would be burdensome, the founders placed two amendments in there place.
The founders also had fears that rights listed would be misconstrued that these would be your only rights.

The rights of the individual do not change based on the whims of the powerful. The very act of taking a right is an act much like theft: always immoral and self destructive to good human relations.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

As an Air Force officer, I think this is a well thought out plan. It is reasonable and moderate, which is more than you can say for the current plan.

Great effort by the LP! Is there a shorter version of the exit plan (suitable for people educated in Government schools? ;)

"...my point is if you accept this amendment, (as I do hope most of you will), doesn't this validate those who have supported other amendments to your constitution, that have increased the scope and scale of government? How do you get around this!"

Van Martin, the fact of the matter is that most of the current activities of the U.S. federal government are not validated by amendments. Instead, the government has managed to ignore the Constitution (with little outrage from the public) and develop into the behemoth that it is now.

When is the forum coming?

I’m a libertarian. I love our ideas on freedom and economics. The thing that a lot of the purists need to realize is that we have to make compromises to get to our objectives. What I’m saying is if we want to get out of Iraq then we can just pack up and go. We need to withdraw like the plan says to give the Iraqis a chance to build. If the don’t have anything to show in a year then too bad. Going into a country blowing it up and then just packing will really cause problems for us latter on. I disagree with the war but the problem is we went in and made a mess. Now we have to at least try to fix it. The thing that the purists don’t understand is that ending taxation and the other more extreme ideas in the party scare people away. If we where to tone those down for say getting rid of a lot of taxes as opposed to getting rid of all of them we would get more votes. I’m sure I’m going to hear the but then we are compromising our principals. Well the difference is when a libertarian is elected they ACUTALLY lower taxes while the other parties don’t. It is going to take time to reverse 100+ years of taxing and freedom restricting laws. There is no way in hell that we can do it in one term but if we get people elected on civil liberties and the stuff that most people love about the LP then we can say "hey, we lowered your taxes and still have a working government we are going to try to put more money in your pocket"
. It will take time to reverse the incremental destruction of our country. The economic front and the foreign from we can compromise a little right now. As for civil liberties no but they other stuff we can. As long as we remember what our goals are and we can prove to the people that our ideas can work. The problem it that the average American is a moderate and doesn’t like the extremes on either side. So people who look at the LP see ending taxes and privatizing school as extremes so they stay away from us. I guess what I’m trying to say in my long grammar error ridden post is that we can sit around and bitch about the country falling apart( which it is ) or we can work with our strengths (civil liberties and moderate tax reduction) to get actually get senators in congress and a president. Execute these plans and if they work (I’m sure they will) then we can push for more. Being a party of principals is worthless if we are not a party of action as well. To those I may have offended my apologies but I’m very offended by my lost of liberties and to me that means so much more than taxes or foreign policy squabbles. What good is money in your pocket if you have no freedom to use it?

Good plan, not perfect, and the introduction makes some assumptions, but really good plan. What I like about this the most is that this is a viable, real world solution, and demonstrates that this party can come up with a practical administrative policy that makes sense and that can work. Especially well reasoned is the need to keep a presense in the region. Too often I read about "libertarianopia", that is all very nice, but only exists on paper and on blog screens. This is good.

I agree with Timothy West, Karl, and some others that a stated timeline will only hurt our troops, myself and my unit included. What I have read about that culture and islamafascists in particular is that any sort of retreat can be seen as weakness, so our withdrawal needs to be firmly couched in sound military principles and not politically motivated.

Right or wrong, we are there and our presense there makes a point to terror cells and would be t