A debate at the University of Charleston concerned the most important topic facing our nation at this time: when and how to leave Iraq. While the presenters were chosen to represent different sides of the issue, they agreed more often than might have been expected.

One important area of agreement was this: We must have considerably more international support for the Iraq war. Since one presenter represented the vague "we'll stay as long as necessary" side and the other the "let's set a date and get most troops out in a few months" side, this agreement seems striking.

I feel very strongly that setting a date is the best way - probably the only way - to get the needed international support before it's too late.

The very act of setting a withdrawal date - assuming we can get anyone to believe us - will, by itself, lower the level of violence. Insurgent fury is fueled by the belief that, whatever the U.S. government may say, the occupiers intend to stay indefinitely. When one considers that we are building several large apparently permanent bases there, one can understand their skepticism.

Getting more international support is necessary for at least three reasons: money, men and legitimacy.

Now that America's national debt is at an all-time high and proposals to cut many effective and proven government programs are being revealed, there shouldn't be too much disagreement about the question of money: This war is costing billions, and the U.S. government is broke.

Insofar as the number of troops needed is concerned, most generals, who know their military history better than their civilian bosses, have maintained all along that we have never had enough boots on the ground to exert control. Now that we have broken our contract with many soldiers through "stop loss" and the Army failed in February to meet its recruiting goal, there can be no doubt that even maintaining the insufficient number of soldiers we have will be problematic. And, of course, the fact that coalition members are dropping out and removing their troops doesn't help.

Finally, now that demonstrations with participants numbering in the tens of thousands continue to be held around the world, the need for legitimacy should also be evident.

Getting more international support will be difficult for at least three reasons: arrogance, skepticism about our motives, and aversion to death and danger. The president began the war with most nations of the world asking him not to, he limited rebuilding contracts to those who supplied troops, and he spurned and insulted the United Nations. Contempt for the United Nations continues to be displayed by his nomination of John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador.

Many folks around the world (including yours truly) suspect that we are in Iraq not so much to spread democracy but to ensure access to bases and oil. Foreign folks have no interest at all - none - in helping us do this. (Of course, if we make a believable promise to withdraw, that itself will do much to solve this problem). Finally many folks would rather not see their young people suffer death or mutilation. This preference is becoming evident even in the United States.

At this time, then, the "stay the course" strategy is really code for letting the U.S. Army and Marine Corps (and families of troops) suffer the burden while the rest of us go our merry way.

The president doesn't support the troops when he cuts veterans' benefits. The secretary of defense didn't support the troops when he insolently dallied over armoring Humvees and trucks. The Pentagon didn't support the troops when it set up a secret policy of informally assigning military police to "soften up" prisoners for interrogation and then court-martialed only low-ranking soldiers for the resulting prisoner abuse.

Large firms that pay their highly visible and provocative "contractors" in Iraq more than 10 times what our troops get paid to do the very same jobs, also cannot be considered supportive. Most Americans (with or without ribbon stickers on their cars) are rather oblivious to what's happening in Iraq. This applies especially to elite Americans who have no relatives in the military.

Iraqis, most of whom are deeply skeptical about our motives, do not, in general support the American occupation. And as I said, the great majority of the world's citizens, if they have an opinion, are against the occupation.

So, hey, the paper says there's been another Baghdad bombing. Who has the funnies and look, there's a sale down at the mall.

This cannot continue. A simple extrapolation of the present into the future will almost certainly convince anyone that the insurgents will eventually win. People who blow themselves up get their pictures on posters and teenagers look forward to being "martyrs." They have support from most Iraqi Sunnis (former Baathists), most Arab Muslims, the contiguous countries of Iran and Syria (who may be next on our hit list if Iraq ever does quiet down), and many Muslim clerics. They have been fighting among themselves or against would-be colonialists for centuries if not millennia. As long as there are highly visible "infidel" occupiers (apparent potential neo-colonialists) in the country, they will continue to fight and no democratic, nonauthoritarian government (with or without our assistance) will be able to stop them.

If we do set a date for (almost complete) withdrawal, then all this denial will stop. If we withdraw all but an elite corps of mostly trainers, others will have to take their place - or risk a spreading civil war. If we set a date, we get their attention. No more bickering about which ethnic-tribal group gets control over which city.

The idea that setting a withdrawal date will allow Iraqis to use a we'll-wait-till-they-go strategy has it backward. It is the stay-the-course (drift and denial) approach that will allow them to wait. They know all about U.S. "stop loss" and recruiting failures (hooray for the Internet). If we do not soon jump-start cooperation by setting a date, then there will not be enough meaningful progress.

It is important to note that this is not a "peacenik vs. patriot" argument. If you love to watch live war on TV, if you have a dozen ribbons and "God Bless America" stickers on your car, if you feel manly pride when foreigners get what's coming to them, if you light candles in your Bush home-shrine - even so, you should still be for setting a withdrawal date. Because if the present course continues unchanged, there's only one conclusion: The insurgents will eventually win.

If we do not set a date soon, the option of setting a date will slowly close. A few more months of not meeting U.S. recruiting goals and arguments about the looming danger of a fiscal meltdown will increase the pressure to devote fewer resources to Iraq. And even one uptick in a militarily sensitive situation elsewhere (China-Taiwan?) will cause the Pentagon panic. How can we be ready to respond with so many of our troops indefinitely tied down in Iraq?

The closer we get to a day when most people see our withdrawal as only a question of "when" rather than one of "if," the fewer options we will have. The lame-duck president will be in charge of a lame-duck occupation.

Anyone who thinks highly of President Bush or the Republican Party should not want this to happen. We all have a stake in getting a withdrawal date set. All.

Palmer heads the West Virginia Trails Coalition, was a military officer in Southeast Asia and now is a member of the Charleston group Patriots for Peace.

© Copyright 1996-2005 The Charleston Gazette