It seems like everybody is coming up with an exit strategy from Iraq now. Rox (2005-11-17) tells me that John Murtha is now a man with a plan. Even Tony Blair is trying to work something out. According to the fashion of the times, I’ve got an exit strategy for the U.S. and U.K. forces to consider too. The best part about it is that it doesn’t set an arbitrary time-table and it only imposes three simple conditions to fulfill in order to get us out of Iraq with honor. Here’s the plan:

Map of metropolitan Baghdad thanks to GlobalSecurity.org.

My plan calls for:

1. Getting to here as quickly as you can while flying or driving safely.
2. Then, driving down this highway.
3. Then, flying home, preferably on a large jet, from here.

You might complain that this exit strategy sets a time-table. Well, not really, unless immediately counts as a schedule. But in any case it’s not an arbitrary time-table. The war was never justified to begin with and the occupation continues to make things worse the longer it continues. You might complain that this exit strategy doesn’t solve all of Iraq’s problems, doesn’t give us the opportunity to Iraqitize (sic) or internationalize or train more police officers or root out more insurgents or guide Iraq further down the primrose path to liberal democracy. I agree that it doesn’t, but I consider its simplicity a virtue, not a defect. What have we been trying to do for the past 2 1/2 years, if not all that? How’s that been working out for us?

US forces yesterday made their clearest admission yet that white phosphorus was used as a weapon against insurgents in Iraq. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC last night that it had been used as an incendiary weapon during the assault last year on Falluja in 2004.

— The Guardian 2005-11-16: US admits using white phosphorous in Falluja

But it’s not, technically speaking, a chemical weapon. And it doesn’t violate any international treaties. That the U.S. has ratified, anyway.

WASHINGTON, Nov 16 (Reuters) — The Pentagon on Wednesday acknowledged using incendiary white-phosphorus munitions in a 2004 offensive against insurgents in the Iraqi city of Falluja and defended their use as legal, amid concerns by arms control advocates.

…

It’s part of our conventional-weapons inventory and we use it like we use any other conventional weapon, added Bryan Whitman, another Pentagon spokesman.

— Reuters 2005-11-16: US defends use of white phosphorus weapons in Iraq

Emphasis is mine.

Here are some legal uses of conventional weapons.

Napalm. Tokyo, 10 March 1945.

Napalm and white phosphorus. Trang Bang, Vietnam, 8 June 1972.

White phosphorus. Fallujah, November 2004.

White phosphorus firebombing of Fallujah

This is conventional aerial warfare using conventional weapons adhering to the letter of all the treaties that the goverment of the United States is a party to. This is imperial power in its fullest glory, restrained by all the civilized restraints that it deems necessary and proper for itself. This is its morality. This is its justice. This is its law.

It now seems likely that Iraqi voters have ratified a new federal Constitution. No doubt things are turning a corner, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, etc. We can be certain that this carefully crafted compromise will augur well for democracy and human rights in Iraq, and will certainly avert sectional strife and bloody civil war.

… because, hey, that’s worked out so well in the past. Right?

Further reading

• GT 2005-09-17: International Ignore the Constitution Day
• GT 2005-09-02: Definition 2
• GT 2005-07-04: Burn, baby, burn

Postscript, added 2005-10-18

to the barricades 2005-10-18 wonders whether the vote was fraudulent:

It seems apparent that something highly unusual, possibly fraud, has occured with regard to the recent referendum. First off, with regard to the Sunni provinces, who not only showed up in large numbers (153% more than in January) but according to results, the majority voted in favor of the consitution which is against all predictions and indicating factor

For myself, I wonder why an “honest” election would make the imposition of a statist Constitution on those who do not consent to it any more legitimate. Since when did anarchists start believing in government elections?

TONIGHT, on News of the Obvious:

• International correspondents John Lopez and Donald Rumsfeld: U.S. Has No Exit Strategy for Iraq

• International correspondents Anthony Gregory and Terry Jones: Bombing is bad for children’s health.

• International correspondent Thaddeus: The US armed forces are facing a major crisis as commitments throughout the world continue to demand fresh recruits and, despite the fact that the army has lowered its standards, the number of people willing to enlist is falling fast.

• In New York, Tom Tomorrow: Cops abuse their power and lie about it. Film at 11.

• In Atlanta: Eric Rudolph is not an anarchist. But he is a a real asshole.

• Correspondent Trish Wilson: E-mails disclosed to News of the Obvious reveal that the Father’s Rights movement are weaselly apologists for male violence.

• Correspondent Michael Berubé: David Horowitz isn’t just a far-right ideologue. He’s also a sorry old fraud.

• And in History of the Obvious a couple of days ago: Leninists kill people after claiming to be their “comrades”, and just because he’s the one who lost doesn’t mean that Leon Trotsky was any better.

Like the Great Americans at Riding Sun (2005-04-05), The Jawa Report (2005-04-04), Michelle Malkin (2005-04-05), et al., I am outraged at the obvious, slavish political bias of the mainstream news photography elite. The 2005 Pulitzer Awards in Breaking News Photography are only the latest example of their anti-military agenda and their love for anti-government insurgents. I mean, check out the World Press Photo Award Winner for 1989:

Charlie Cole, USA, Newsweek

Besides being very possibly staged by a reporter who was working with insurgents, this photograph also shows the People’s Liberation Army troops in a negative light. This photo portays the Chinese government as tyrannical and likely caused untold anti-Chinese inflammation. Equally telling is what the photo doesn’t show. No photos show Chinese troops rebuilding their homeland. No photos show People’s Liberation Army troops playing with kids in the street. No photos show the results of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. No photos show the thousands of freed prisoners from Imperial Japan’s tyrannical rule.

Where is the balance? Why didn’t the so-called World Press Photo Award give equal recognition to visually stunning works like these?

Is that the best the World Press Photo committee could find? Did they even bother to discuss the issues raised by The People’s Daily before bestowing the prize upon Charlie Cole? Were they ignorant of the controversy? Or did they simply decide in the end that it didn’t matter?

Update: More insurgent-loving sedition from the hate-China-first crowd can be found from Enemies of the People like feministe (2005-04-06) and Rox Populi (2005-04-06).