Click photo to play
Length: 5:38
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN
ANCHOR: We begin tonight with how to get out of Iraq,
something most Democrats and a growing number of
Republicans seem to support now, some openly, others
privately -- how to leave, how quickly, and perhaps
most importantly, when, what happens after that?
"TIME" magazine's Michael Duffy has been working the
problem, along with a team of correspondents and
military experts, his report part of "TIME"
magazine's coverage titled "Iraq: What Will Happen
When We Leave?"
Michael Duffy joins me now. And, in Baghdad, as he's
been since day one, CNN's Michael Ware.
Michael Duffy, what is the best way to pull out? You
write in this week's "TIME" -- and I quote -- "Done
judicially, a pullback from the war would start
restoring America's ability to advance its interests
and deter aggression beyond Iraq."
How do you go about doing it?
MICHAEL DUFFY, ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR, "TIME":
Well, there aren't many good things that would come
out of a pullback.
It be difficult for the U.S. to do. It would take a
long time. It would be tough on the country, bad for
our relationship with allies, but it wouldn't be
completely a disaster. There are some advantages that
we would conceivably be able to gain. We would gain
some bandwidth intellectually in the region to do
some other things. We would be able to apply some
diplomatic pressure in some other directions. Iraq
takes up a huge amount of just space, time and money
of American foreign policy now. So, it's not without
some upside. But, as you point out, it would be hard.
People think it can be done quickly, and it really
can't be. It takes a long time.
COOPER: How long are you talking about, I mean, to
pull out a significant number of forces?
DUFFY: Well, it took the Soviets 10 months to get
120,000 troops out of Afghanistan, Anderson, and they
were just going next door. The Pentagon estimates it
would probably take a month for every 10,000 troops.
We have 160,000 troops.
No one is really talking about pulling them all out.
But we also have about 50,000 U.S. contractors. And I
believe there are probably between 35,000 and 100,000
Iraqis who might want to come with us if we made a
staged withdrawal.
So, I think most estimates be -- have it would
probably take at least a year-and-a-half, and maybe
longer, to get everybody out. And no one is really
talking about that.
COOPER: Yes, certainly not -- those timetables are
not being discussed. You also write about what would
happen if we leave Iraq. U.S. casualties, of course,
would likely decrease. But what happens to the
Iraqis? I mean, there are a number of scenarios about
what happens on the ground.
DUFFY: And none of them are very good.
Some people think that the Iraqis, after an initial
burst of violence, sectarian violence, would
eventually get control of their country. But that is
not a widely held view, Anderson. Most people think
that the 1,000 Iraqis who are dying per month, that
rate would double, triple, maybe even grow by a
factor of 10, for some period of time.
No one knows how long. The U.S. would have to pull
back to a position where it was really not trying to
referee that fight anymore. Some people think it
would be good for the Iraqis to have some of that
out. It would be a huge moral and human cost for the
United States to do that.
But, increasingly, that is the view of many people
who are looking at this problem. What they do worry
about is that spiraling out of control into a
regional conflict, where Sunnis and Shias from nearby
countries get involved as proxies, shipping men or
money or both to join that fight.
And then it could go in any direction. That's also
dangerous.
COOPER: Michael Ware, if it became a regional
conflict, then, I guess the concern is, all gloves
are off. I mean, there's no telling what would happen
then.
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, absolutely.
And I can tell you, Anderson, that U.S. commanders
certainly fear that happening. I mean, in a muted
sense, you already have it now. All the regional
players have their proxies on the board in play as we
speak. I mean, you have 160,000 U.S. troops here
right now, and you can't stop it. Commanders say they
can't even close the borders as it is.
So, if you reduce it to 70,000 or 80,000 American
soldiers huddled in little bases, what kind of a
disincentive do you think that's going to be?
Absolutely none. It's going to humiliate America.
Anyone who thinks that you can have any kind of
phased withdrawal and maintain any shred of American
dignity in this part of the world or, indeed,
elsewhere, is living in a dangerous fantasy.
America cannot withdraw in any form from this
country, until it begins to address the fundamental
problems. I mean, America has created a failed state
built upon the building blocks of militias, mostly
funded by Iran. You can dress this up as a fight
against al Qaeda, but until you deal with the militia
problem and the Iranian problem, you're just shooting
yourself in the head by sticking a bunch of poor
American soldiers in bases on borders you can't
close.
COOPER: Michael Duffy, there are some who argue that,
if the U.S. did withdraw or pull back a significant
number of forces, basically, Iran would step in more
than they have on the side of the Shias, and maybe
that wouldn't be a bad thing, in terms of dragging
Iran in, bleeding Iran a little bit economically.
DUFFY: Well, it would certainly reduce Iran's
leverage over the United States at the moment, since,
as long as we have that many troops there, we are
very hard-pressed to actually influence events at the
moment between us.
Most people expect the Sunnis to fight back with
their preferred weapon of choice, the car bomb. And
that would become pretty bloody pretty quickly. Most
-- the military officials that I spoke to for this
story said, it's going to be violent, no matter what
we do, whether you leave everybody there or you pull
them out all -- or you pull some of them out.
And, so, the question becomes, what are our interests
going forward that we really have to protect? And I
think that's the question that's beginning to be
addressed here in D.C.
COOPER: You can read more about that in "TIME"
magazine.
Michael Duffy, appreciate your coverage.
And Michael Ware as well -- thank you very much from
Baghdad, Michael.