Question for those who don't want to pull out now.

(I assume you want to pull out at some point. You don't want the US to stay in Iraq forever, do you?)

You argue that if we pull out now, there will be chaos in Iraq and a bunch of people will be killed.

I'm assuming you believe that if we stay, then we'll somehow stabilize things so that when we pull out a bunch of people will NOT be killed.

So we've been there for over a year now, and it's gotten worse, and a bunch of people have been killed. So my first question is, how many more years do you think it will take of bunches of people getting killed, until we pull out and a bunch of people won't get killed?

And secondly, how well did this plan work for Vietnam?

and protect the puppet regime we put into place - because I believe we wont allow a Islamic govt - the blooshed will occur after we leave; when the Iraqis push the puppets aside.........

We broke the place, we put it into a power vacuum. It's not the responsible thing to do to just leave. However, we don't need to be there conducting bombing runs every day. We should be there for the sole purpose of ensuring that whomever gets democratically elected isn't overthrown in a coup d'etat, and we should remain there until that threat is not overwhelmingly likely.

...and then broke all of your stuff that they didn't outright steal:

Would it be the 'responsible thing to do' for them to stick around to help you clean up?

Personally, I'd prefer they leave, receive punishment for breaking the law, and then send me cash restitution to make up for it.

But that's just me.

:shrug:

It's a poor analogy

How did you know the lack of content would convince me?

Is that the threat of a coup d'etat is always going to be overwhelmingly likely. Any government that we set up and support is going to be considered as illegitimate and illegal by the the Iraqi people, and as soon as we leave it will be torn down and replaced by one of the Iraqis own devising. And no, it probably won't be a democratic one.

and have a sterling, world-reknown reputation of fixing elections to our own liking overseas.

No one, least of all the Iraqis, will buy that charade.

...40 years ago in a certain Southeast Asian country that your sig line references. That turned out well-- hey, Iraq probably won't be much worse!

I think you've made some assumptions that have caused you to not give consideration to some possibilities.

We have two mutually undesirable alternatives:

Keep our troops there and see their blood spilled trying to prevent a Civil War....not to mention the blood of hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqis who will be killed resisting the occupation.

Or

Pull out and have the blood of thousands of Iraqis killed in civil war, purges or coups on our hands.

We broke this and there isn't any way to fix it......

dammit! I'm so pissed at the stupidity of the invasion in the first place I could just scream.........

show me any sign - other than fear & speculation - that our presence is preventing some sort of civil war.

First, there's no functional Iraqi army to hold things together right now; there's no Iraqi government; there's nothing on which to base unity of the three main sects. There may be civil war if we leave later, but there'd certainly be civil war if we left now.

Second, thanks to the mess we've made, there are now burgeoning terrorist organizations taking root in Iraq, with people coming in from outside the country. This could lead not only to "civil" war, but to a takeover yielding a theocratic regime and/or a Taliban-type rule oppressing Iraqis, threatening other countries, destabilizing other governments, and of course, threatening the US and our allies (if we have any left). Our presence there is, unfortunately, keeping that at bay right now.

If we don't exit carefully -- in a way that creates the least further damage possible -- then in the long run, we'll have created even *more* violence, bloodshed, oppression, and involved even more countries in the chaos.

Here's a hint: There's NEVER been a civil war in Iraq.

I'm beginning to think that the fear of one is an excuse to keep US troops there.

There's never been a civil war there because they've had authoritarians who use force against those who would rebel.

and overturned Iraq's government overnight, creating total chaos, inviting terrorist organizations from other countries to move in and take root there, and destabiling what balance among the sects had existed before?

Here's a hint: This has NEVER happened before.

If we stay, people die. If we leave it in chaos, even MORE people die. There are no good choices; there is no victory; there's only minimizing the damage we've done.

you've said it more succinctly than I did.

and no terrorist organizations, and no instability among the sects? All that is 100% "fear and speculation?" Get real.

I would assert that the Unites States is clearly not fit to 'create stability' or a new government in Iraq. We are not qualified intellectually, legally, or morally to change the world anymore.

Whether we stay 1 more month, or 10 more years, it's very likely going to end up with the same result in Iraq. The difference is how many are killed in that time. I would assert that MORE will be killed if we remain than if we leave.

Sistanti wanted general elections last year -- why didn't we listen to him? Fear of democracy? Sure -- it's not the US strategic interest for a religious-based government to take over in Iraq, but I'd say it was inevitable as soon as we invaded.

The only path to a secular democracy in Iraq that I ever saw was if secular Iraqis finally overthrew Hussein themselves. Given that we lacked the patience to wait for this, we determined the final outcome by our own actions.

The only question the remains is how many will die on both sides before we figure this out?

and I agree that the result of it all is going to be Failure, no matter what. I think it makes sense for us at least to make an effort to bring in the UN and NATO, who are better able than we are to maintain peace. And I agree with you that we need to be responsible for funding, for a long time.

I don't agree that the outcome is necessarily an oppressive theocracy or a Taliban-type regime, and I think it's in the world's interest to ensure it doesn't become a terrorist stronghold or more bloodshed will result there and elsewhere in the long run. I think we need a whole lot of help there, for the sake of Iraqi citizens and neighboring countries, if not our own.

I do see your points; I think it's just too dangerous not to try to salvage what we can, even as I watch the window of possibilities closing every day... I really fear an all-out world war. And I don't think any hope can begin until the Bush gang is out.

has there been any Iraqi/Iraqi agression since our occupation? seems ALL the violence is Iraqi/Occupier. All the terrorism is directed at us. I don't see how you can equate anti-western organization (militias, terror cels) with civil war. There has been NO sign of that happening.

Maybe Free Iraq will gravitate towards three-states - the ethnic/geographic makeup makes it seem logical. Maybe one or more of those states will be a theocracy. We need to accept that possibility and quit trying to engineer an outcome favorable to our interests... or Turkey's.... or Israel's. This is for the people we bombed the shi-- er - liberated. So we need to let the UN step in, the NGOs do their work, while our government steps back - bring the troops back to bases - and humbly say to Kofi Annan... "How can we be of help?"

What we know for sure is that for now, the sects are united... against US. Our continued occupation will guarantee more violence. It makes more sense to avoid a certain fate, rather than fear one that's unknown. The one thing iraqis are determined to do is to assure that any Bushco interests in Iraq FAIL.... I'm a bit more optimistic about leaving it to the Iraqi's to sort it out (while we pick up the bill), because success the best revenge.

It's pretty clear that what we're doing right now isn't working. But at the same time, Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the world, letting the entire country descend into civil war wouldn't be good for our strategic interests. I think we do need to do something about the situation, but I'm not sure pulling our troops out is the right thing to do at the moment. We did make the mess, we should at least try to clean up after ourselves.

What about the Iraqi's strategic interests?

First off, in terms of oil, we don't need the Iraqi oil. Our oil importation is varied and diverse and hasn't factored in Iraqi oil as a major supply for nearly fifteen years now.

The only "strategic interest" the US has in Iraqi oil is the PNAC intersts, ie preventing the rise of another superpower by controling the world oil tap, especially to that up and comer, the EU.

By continuing to leave our troops in Iraq all we are doing is killing more innocents Iraqis, getting more of our troops injured and killed, and throwing more good money after bad, right down the rathole. Any government that the US sets up and supports is going to be considered illegal and illegitimate by the Iraqi people, and will be torn down as soon as we leave. And no, the one they set up in it's place probably won't be a democratic one. Oh well, that is for the Iraqi people to determine now, isn't it.

The time for us to pull out is now. We need to pay full restitution and reparations to Iraq for the damage we've done and the people we've killed, but we need to leave now. Go to the UN on our knees begging for them to take over the rebuilding and humanitarian work.

But the US needs to leave NOW!

is a globally set dollar price. If global supply suffers or the dollar becomes weak versus other currency then the price of oil goes up. Therefore it is in a our best interests to support stability in oil bearing countries.

:eyes:

You keep using that word 'stability'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Asking the rapist to provide security at the women's shelter. Read your history friend, it is the US, British and other Western European colonial powers that have made the ME an ongoing exercise in instability. And all of it for that addictive substance, oil. In the interests of the petrodollar the US has funded and fueled an enormous arms buildup, sectioned off and partitioned countries, fought in numerous overt and covert wars, propped up a government bent on genocide, and created new countries out of whole cloth, among other atrocities too numerous to mention.

What the US needs to do to insure stability in the ME is get the hell out of there and stop meddling in countries where we have no right to be. Yes, there will be an initial period of chaos and instability, but gradually matters will shake out and stability will return.

And if you are so worried about US energy prices and stability, let us get our energy needs from the domestic market. No, no, not drilling for oil, but growing crops for biodiesel. Crops like sunflowers and hemp. The diesel engine was originally created to run on biodiesel, not mineral diesel. And with the growing capability of the US, we could provide 100% of our energy needs, along with the plastics industry, with biodisel. This isn't some pie in the sky future technology either, this is real tech, readily available off the shelf products that can be implemented NOW. Besides, it would pull the agriculture industry and family farms out of the crapper, and these crops can be grown virtually anywhere there is soil and water. And it is clean burning and cheap to boot. Wow, what a concept.

But God forbid, this would rob those oily petro barons of their precious energy monopoly. Small businessmen could make enough biodiesel for their local markets, robbing those chain stores of profits, breaking the stranglehold that big oil has on this country. Neo-cons preach a good game of free market solutions, but when it actually comes down to practicing what they preach, boy they get touchy, especially when it threaten petro profits.

This is the direction the US needs to go in, the only reasonable, logical solution to the energy and consequent foreign policy problems we face. But sad to say, when big oil profits are threatened, government policy will be dictated with an oil and blood smeared hand. Only when it is too late, when this country suffers from an artificial energy shortage and the world is in flames will these self same politicians see the light. It is up to you and me and anybody else who wants to join in to start fighting this country's addiction to oil. I'm in the trial runs of making my own biodiesel, and expect to be fully up and running by next year, sooner if I push it and let some of the other household project slide(doubtful). My ultimate five year goal is to be manufacturing enough biodiesel to not only provide for my own needs, but to also start supplying my rural neighbors the biodiesel they need for their farm equipment and vehicles, in effect setting myself up in a business.

What are you going to do?

This isn't spilt milk. There is NO way to resolve this mess. It cannot be "cleaned up." Maybe, if we continue the occupation-- and make it brutal enough-- for long enough, a leader capable of uniting Iraqis and building a new nation will emerge and drive us out. Maybe. In the meantime, how many innocents do we have to torture and kill to keep the Iraqis under our boot heels?

Yes, we "made a mess" in Iraq, but we cannot clean it up. The only sane thing to do at this point is get out of Iraq, prosecute everyone responsible for the mess-- from GWB down to the lance corporals and privates who were the sharp point for the war criminals on the ground, and give whatever agency that emerges to deal with the issue the keys to the American Treasury. Maybe half the U.S. annual military budget would be a good start....

A better plan than we had in Vietnam. Many of us believe that once we have "regime change" in this country, we can hand off to the UN and let their clean hands manage the transition while we pay reparations. Is it a guarantee against chaos and more tyranny in Iraq? No, it is not, but it gives the Iraqi people the best possible chance, and I think we owe them that. We should not have invaded in the first place, but now we have a responsibility there.

However, I do want to point out I don't accept the premise of the question. I didn't want our soldiers there in the first place, and I don't want them there now. There's a distinct difference between "wanting" to get out now and reluctantly accepting how bad a decision that would be. It's not a matter of honor, the so-called honorable retreat. It's a matter of basic human decency. To use a historical analogy, packing up and just leaving after we've brought the place to the condition it is in would be much like the initial decision of Andrew Johnson to abandon the Southern states to their own devices after the Civil War.

But having said that, I do not and would not argue in favor of staying under the assumption that we conduct ourselves the way we have over the last year.

Obviously the way we are conducting operations there now is insane, which is a big part of why people are being killed. If we had different people directing our operations there, specifically people who plainly do not have imperialistic goals and were actually trying to stabilize the country, build employment, and improve the conditions for the people who live there, we could change that and dramatically reduce the killing. Imagine New York City with 70+ percent unemployment, few basic human needs, rampant random violence, and a police force that destroys entire complexes of buildings because they suspect people in them might be out to do harm, not to the civilian population, but to the police themselves.

Whether we want to accept it or not, the Iraqis, as a whole, didn't hate us when we first moved in. They learned to hate us because of the way we've acted while we were there. We could act differently, rebuild our international relations, at least ask for and have a hope of receiving help from other countries, and with a different administration, I have confidence that we would.

Would it be easy? No. BushCo has screwed them and us so severely, none of this possibly could be easy.

I have answers. Maybe?

I'm assuming you believe that if we stay, then we'll somehow stabilize things so that when we pull out a bunch of people will NOT be killed.

- Well, that's the idea. But it really depends on whether we do anything intelligent or not.

So we've been there for over a year now, and it's gotten worse, and a bunch of people have been killed. So my first question is, how many more years do you think it will take of bunches of people getting killed, until we pull out and a bunch of people won't get killed?

- From the point after we begin making rational decisions, should we ever reach that point, it should take ~6-12 months, give or take.

And secondly, how well did this plan work for Vietnam?

- Iraq is not Vietnam, and the plan I have in mind is very different from Nixon's secret plan.



Essentially, if Bush is re-elected, I can be pretty sure that we will continue to act stupidly, so then withdrawal will probably be the best option, depending on circumstances. If Kerry wins, we may be able to salvage the situation, if it hasn't gone completely bonkers by that time.

as a security operation along with other allies.

1. It's impossible to prove that something can't be done. I am moving around towards pulling the troops now, but just to assert that it's impossible for an appropriate strategy to exist, well, that's not very moving. With a different strategy, say bringing in more help from the United Nations, rebuilding our ties with other nations, giving our troops better training, rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure and so on, maybe we could rebuild Iraq as a stable democracy.

I have, however, lost what miniscule faith I had in the Bush Adminisration to accomplish this, which is why I am moving closer to getting out now.

2. I don't propose we follow the same plan that we did in Vietnam. Incidently this argument is just about as ahistorical as when the Freepers would ask "Oh, so you don't want to invade Iraq? Say, how did Appeasement work for Chamberlain?"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

The discussion yesterday hinged on the fact that simple answers don't apply here. If we stay, people get killed and the situation goes further to shit. If we leave immediately, people get killed and the situation goes further to shit.

"Want" doesn't come into it. "Need" does, as in "We need to figure out a way to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, with the least amound of resulting carnage and chaos." I'm not talking about "Victory with Honor" or any of that Vietnam crap. I'm talking about getting out without Iraq falling into civil war, and/or Iraq becoming Afghanistan circa 1989, etc.

That isn't NOW, and it isn't "Want."

I still haven't seen a solution to this. I do see a lot of self-righteous people beating others over the head because we supposedly "Want" to stay in Iraq. That's bullshit of the purest ray serene.

It is what it is.

Here's what I think it comes down to: Does the US 'want' a secular government that's politically acceptable to US citizens to take over in Iraq, or does it 'need' to leave Iraq with a secular government?

IMHO, one of the worst long-term effects of the invasion of Iraq that has already happened is the absolute decimation of Iraq's secular society.

Where do secular governments come from? From secular institutions, it seems to me. From lawyers, universities, the professional class, judges and even bureaucrats. All those institutions are gone, gone, gone, gone and gone, thanks to a stroke of L. Paul Bremer's pen and lots of bombs.

There is a single institution left standing in Iraq, and that is the structure of it's Islamic society. That's all they got left, ergo it seems that is what will ultimately end up running the government in Iraq. Who else is left? The hapless Iraqi Communist Party? We closed down their offices. The trade unions? We've been crushing them just as Hussein did. What group is left that Iraqis in significant numbers will listen to?

What I'm seeing is that it is SO politically unacceptable for the US to leave Iraq with a government dominated by Sistanti and the institutions of Islam that the US has declared it to be an unacceptable outcome.

It is unacceptable to the majority of the US, yes. It is unacceptable to what remains of Iraq's former secular society, yes. But if we really want to look at NEEDS, like security and the basic requirements for some sort of civilized life, I do not see an outcome other than a Sharia-law based government in Iraq at this point. I can't say I'd be 'happy' with an Islamic-based government in Iraq, but who cares.

We cannot reconstruct the secular society that once existed in Iraq anymore than we can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. If Iraq is ultimately going to become a democracy, I would expect it to follow a (much longer) path similar to that of Iran at this point.

Finally, the longer we stay in Iraq, the more we empower extreme elements like the Sadrists, and weaken more moderate actors like Sistani.

I fear, and I see, that this blind spot will lead to a futile pursuit of a secular government in Iraq that is acceptable to the US electorate. I believe that is a 'want' not a 'need'. When Kerry wins, I fear he will consider an acceptable secular government in Iraq a 'need', not a 'want'.

Thank you. Your point about secular government arising from secular institutions bears repeating many times during the coming debate about the Iraq occupation's place in American foreign policy.

Britain and the US destroyed a secular democratic society there as well. Even so, there were still plenty of secular elements that took part in the 1979 revolution. Unfortunately, the biggest social formation (because other avenues of rebellion were so heavily suppressed) was the Islamic fundies, who proceeded to screw their secular allies.

Iran is not all bleak by any means--there is a rising generation that is heartily sick of the mullahs. And Shirin Ebadi, feminist human rights lawyer and Nobel Laureate, has this to say about achieving secular democracy by foreign military force--

http://www.peacewomen.org/news/Iran/Dec03/speech.html

Some have mooted the idea of a clash of civilizations, or prescribed war and military intervention for this region. One must say to them, if you consider international human-rights laws, including a nation's right to determine its own destiny, to be universal rights -- and if you believe in the superiority of parliamentary democracy over other political systems -- then you cannot selfishly think only of your own security and comfort.

I mean really, people, exactly what part of FUCK OFF!! WE'D RATHER DO IT OURSELVES!! is it that you don't understand?

And Sistani, though he does not want laws that contradict Islam, is on record as saying that he does NOT want a theocracy.

you said it so well.

If there is no disaster there, then withdrawing elsewhere should not be much of a problem.

One thing that can be done right now, and could have been done a year ago for that matter, is local elections. In general, a lot of local control over local conditions will make for way less resentment on grounds of religion and ethnicity. Just as complex computer programs are best built by putting together tried and true subroutines, nations are best built from well-run towns and regions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57791-2003Dec11.html

As soon as Witwit resigned, the local representative of the U.S. occupation authority appointed a former Iraqi air force officer as acting governor. To the protesters, that was unacceptable. The new governor, they insisted, should be chosen not by an American but by Iraqis -- through an election.

"Yes, yes for elections!" shouted the protesters, a collection of students, clerics and middle-aged professionals whose ranks swelled to more than 1,000 on Thursday. "No, no to appointment!"

The protesters have pledged to continue their sit-in outside the governor's office -- they have erected tents and dug latrines -- until their demand is met. Leaders of Hilla's largest labor unions have vowed to hold a general strike starting Saturday in support of elections.

The Bush administration has resisted elections, contending that the absence of voter rolls and an electoral law would make a nationwide ballot time-consuming. Officials also argue that a hasty election would be vulnerable to violence and manipulation by religious militants and loyalists of former president Saddam Hussein.
Ibrahim and other members of the Hilla council insist a national database that is used to distribute monthly food rations could serve as a voter roll, enabling occupation authorities to hold a quick ballot. "It would be very easy to hold elections," said Hamid Ibrahim Awadi, a lawyer and council member. "We could do it right away."

The most militant of firebrands, Sadr, is willing to accept UN forces provided that they are not tied to the US. If he will, why shouldn't the more moderate and respected clerics like Sistani go along with that?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_20-4-2004_pg1_5

Sadr also indicated through his spokesman that he favoured the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq “on condition that it be made up of Muslim countries or countries which did not join the occupation of Iraq such as Russia, France or Germany”.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1089933.htm

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Sadr has called for the sending of UN peacekeeping troops to Iraq and demanded the immediate withdrawal of US-led occupation forces.

"It is in the interest of the whole world to send peacekeeping forces under the UN flag," Qais al-Khazaali, who is spokesman for Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, said in an interview with Bulgarian television.

" the occupation forces must withdraw from the occupied regions and must release political prisoners. The war will thus end."

and hunker down until after the US elections. (Though of course intervene if absolutely needed to quell any obvious Rwanda style mayhem.)

If Bush wins, withdraw the troops. If Kerry wins take a fresh look at the situation and see whether we can do anything that is, on balance, good for the people of Iraq (the ostensible beneficiaries of our invasion.) That's obviously not going to happen, but it's the cosmic *right answer.*

I don't know the best use of resources on the ground to benefit the Iraqi people and neither does anyone else. Nobody on these boards or in the government or out of the government or anywhere in Iraq knows what will be going on six months from now.

The interests of Iraqis may be best served by complete withdrawal or maybe not.