More Opinions Columnists

• V.B. Price: Preserving our water is greatest challenge the city, state faces
• Jeffry Gardner: End of The Trib is part of the demise of serious journalism
• Katherine Augustine: Time with friends from Japan provides treasured memories

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

To stay or not to stay? That's pretty much the bottom-line question for many in terms of Iraq.

There are variations on that theme. For example: to surge or not to surge? Well, the president's already surging. Troops are on their way, even as lawmakers debate the matter. So that question's evolving into: to fund or not to fund?

Thirty-three years ago a new, young group of powerful Democratic lawmakers decided they wouldn't fund America's military effort in Vietnam. So we left.

Unfortunately, given that we don't and never will enjoy the fruits of term limits, many of those same Democratic senators and representatives still serve in Congress and are involved in the Iraq debate today.

Ultimately, though, the question is whether we stay and fight or leave. The nuanced versions of the question are digressions on a theme. It's cut and run or stay, with a little more finesse.

The world's greatest punk band, The Clash, said it best in its 1982 ditty, "Should I Stay or Should I Go?": "If I go there may be trouble; if I stay it could be double" - a great tune that saves us from quoting "Blowin' in the Wind."

Perhaps we should consider a little of both.

Northern and southern Iraq are, to varying degrees, stable. Almost all of our misery centers on Baghdad. The surge is bound to have some effect on the violence, even if it's momentary.

It's possible, maybe even probable, that hostile forces will go underground during this time. If that gives Iraqi leaders more time to insinuate themselves into the mire, perhaps even root out Shiite and Sunni militants in the process, then it will have to be considered a success.

Success should be expected. We possess a remarkable military machine. However, we make a lousy police force and an even worse Red Cross. Yet in the last 30 years, politics has repeatedly placed our armed forces in just those types of roles - roles we're playing again today in Baghdad.

I'm for the surge, for the time being, if only to let our soldiers be soldiers, force the militants out of their routines and drive them underground for a while.

Then it's time for a limited withdrawal. From Baghdad. Let's station our troops in northern and southern Iraq and let the civil disturbance carry on without us. This would take our forces directly out of harm's way but give us the ability to strike at confirmed terrorists at a moment's notice.

Our bases would become targets, yes, but certainly not to the extent that our roving police/goodwill force is being attacked now.

Unlike Vietnam, this war won't go away if we sail away. Today's enemy isn't going to call it a day against U.S. interests when we withdraw. There's merit to getting out of Baghdad, but remaining in Iraq - as an army.

Gardner is an Albuquerque writer and political consultant.