January 18, 2005

The NYT Op-Ed Page Hops on the Cochran-Sailer Bandwagon


In this morning's NYT:

Should We Stay or Should We Go?
The decision about when American troops leave should belong to the Iraqi people.

Back in May 2004, I wrote on iSteve.com:

A New Iraq Exit Strategy

The Clash Referendum: Should we stay or should we go?

If we go there will be trouble.

An' if we stay it will be double.

The U.S. is in a bind in Iraq because we don't want to be seen as being driven out by a bunch of punks with RPGs before we establish democracy. On the other hand, nobody really believes anymore that we can establish an enduring, working representative government there.

So, why don't we let the Iraqis democratically vote us out of Iraq? Let's announce that we will abide by the will of the Iraqi people as expressed in a national referendum on, say, June 30. The ballot will have just one question on it:

Should we stay or should we go?

If the Iraqis vote "go," then we go (within, say, 60 days). In leaving, we give the Arab world an impressive object lesson in how the United States of America believes in democracy and the rule of law. We leave with our honor intact.

If they vote "stay," well, then we're stuck there, but at least we've shown the world we're wanted.

Greg Cochran came up with the idea. He argues that a referendum can be pulled off more quickly and peacefully than an election because when you have different candidates running for office, their militias will be sure to start shooting each other. But a referendum is simple enough for people with no experience at (or talent for) self-rule to deal with.

Steve Sailer's homepage and blog is iSteve.com

No comments: