Let Iraq Vote Us Out?

Jonah Goldberg, an editor at large of National Review Online, suggests that we let the Iraqi people vote on whether U.S. troops should remain.  He suggests, however, that we do this only if we are confident the Iraqis want us to stay.   His view is that the vote will be for a continued U.S. presence, which will undermine the anti-U.S. rhetoric and weaken the insurgency.

 

The Goldberg approach is a bizarre brand of democracy: we ask the people for their opinion only if we already know their answer.  To be fair, Goldberg says that if we take a vote and the Iraqis vote us out, we should leave.  But still.

 

And this strategy seems unlikely to succeed.  Goldberg is probably right that a majority will vote for a continued occupation.   But those who do not like the existing distribution of power will continue to fight with whatever means available.  So, the violence will continue.

Comments

[Josh]

"The Goldberg approach is a bizarre brand of democracy: we ask the people for their opinion only if we already know their answer."

Isn't that what snap elections are all about, to shore up a mandate?

It seems like Goldberg is looking for legitimacy for troop presense, which a vote of confidence certainly would provide. Although I must admit that I'm not terribly comfortable with the notion foreigners deciding US military policy. Indeed, our own leaders do not follow polls.

As to your last paragraph, Goldberg seems more interested in after the fact (cosmetic) justification than stopping violence.

An interesting, academic, notion. Nothing more, nothing less.

[L Miller]

I found this by actively searching google for "iraq vote us out". This is the one and only result returned. Whether it would have a negative or positive effect on terrorism, US policy, or the end of the dang world, WHY?

(And yes, I'll try more ways of wording it, but if it was being discussed much at all, this term should bring a hundred or more hits, anyway).