Iraq Catch-22

I was strongly opposed to going to Iraq, but now we are there.

What are we supposed to do now?

Do we stay the course?????

If we leave there will be a mass slaughter and civil war that we are totally responsible for. If we stay, then we are occupying land we have no right to occupy.

How do we settle this quandry?

I have no ideas because getting the UN and bush to work together simply is not going to happen.

I guess the only solution is to elect Kerry.

Civil war may or may not occur but staying and keeping the Iraqi people oppressed much the same way that Saddam did is not the answer. We need to turn control over to the UN. All troops in Iraq, including US troops need to be under the command of the UN. This would go a long way toward diffusing the situation. It's become obvious that the US will not be able to stabilize Iraq.

But yes, most importantly, bush must go.

they are not out of left field.

I mean the Sunnis hate the Shiites and they all hate the Kurds. I can see Iraq splintering into three different countries if we leave - you can bet there will be civil war based on where the oil is and ethnic revenge from all sides. Also, it would likely become a warlord state like Afghanistan. I would say there is a 60% chance of civil war starting - and it will be really really ugly. Then imagine if Iran started to support the Shiites?? Well, this would piss off the Arabs and they would support teh Sunnis - the Kurds would be fucked altogether. I don't know - the possible sequence of events is very bad.

The situation completely stinks.

Where is the sectarian violence? The US can't prevent violence against its own forces but for your model to be true, they have to be doing a hero's job of keeping various groups from each other's throats. It seems more likely that this threat is more potential than actual.

If a new government is better than the CPA and Saddam (a fairly low bar), they have a pretty solid chance of avoiding this possibility.

if I were a Kurd, I would be very angry - wouldn't you?
If I were a Shiite, I would be very angry.
If I were a Sunni, I would be worried about revenge against me.

Wouldn't you be?

Who would I be angry at? Saddam is gone. The Kurdish area has been prosperous and politically stable for ten years.
If I were a Shiite, why would I be angry? I've got a 60% majority. Throw the Kurds and Sunnis enough biscuits and I own the country.
If I were a Sunni, I would be worried about revenge. So worried, in fact, that I would realize launching a preemptive strike against the other 80% of Iraq would be a very foolish move.

Again, all you have is supposition -- look at the facts on the ground. Where is the sectarian violence? Why isn't it happening?

They have a common enemy - us.

start pulling out, and see if something happens. If something happens, is there anything you can do about it? If yes, do it. If no, keep pulling out.

Staying just so they can hate us more than each other sounds dubious both ethically and strategically. I can't see any value in having US troops in Iraq longer than, say, two years after Washington seriously decides to address the question of Iraqi self rule. I wish they would have done that from the start, but, here we are.

When I say stay the course I have no thought of it taking longer than two years myself. If sectarian violence erupts, then I will definitely feel it is our fault for having gone there in the first place. Also, the length of time we stay should only depend on one variable - the number of Iraqi casualties that result from a pull out. A complete pullout in the next month (which is what I thought you were suggesting) could result in far more Iraqi casualties than a more gradual pullout over let us say two years.

has become synonymous with those who throw around terms like "genrational commitment". Though I opposed the war, I thought a two-year commitment seemed fair when Baghdad fell -- but that was based on the premise that we would begin transitioning to Iraqi self-government immediately. So should they ever begin that transition, I still put a two-year cap. By the end of that time, I would like to see all American troops having been withdrawn to the deep desert as insurance against a coup d'etat, and most of them already sent home.

The bottom line is that either the Iraqis will form a consensus government (and I believe they will) or they won't. The current strategy seems to be impeding that development, so I'm in favor of beginning a pullback as soon as the Iraqis have a forum for arguing about what should fill the vaccuum. If they don't want to do that, then I don't see continued American policing as an effective long-term solution.

then I would note that a good part of the oil in Iraq gets redistributed to the rest of Iraq and I would like my autonomy and the oil for us (The Mosul area is loaded with oil) - Indonesia is having big trouble with this right now in Sumatra (Aceh province) and in Irian Jaya. Also, Saddam is gone, but many of the Kurds may still hold grudges.

The Shiites can easily have grudges too. The Sunnis may think pre-emptively and they may also just want the power back.


I hope i am completely wrong and will gladly eat crow if I am. :)

Aren't you VERY Conveniently letting the Administration define the terms of the debate. I.e., I have a question first: Why is "stay the course" the term used for ANYTHING other than "cut and run"? If you had left your question at "What are we supposed to do now?", then I think you would actually get some thought and creativity.

Let's say it again, just in case people do not understand: IT IS A QUAGMIRE BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT IS BEING DONE!!! Start with a new Administration and Congress and things would be VERY different.

BTW, why did you ask a question in such a leading fashion?

Tell me - what IF there is a civil war that happens if we leave?? At some point the decision to leave should be based on the probability of a civil war breaking out. If there is a 10% chance of war, do we leave? If the probability is 10%, then we need to stay if the likely number of casualties is less than 10% of the likely casualties from leaving. I really don't know what to do if bush is re-elected. if he is, then there will be no fix available to us. Only Kerry can fix the situation with the UN restoring order. If Kerry is elected, I would love his inaugural speech to offer an apology to the world and for him to say that "...the previous administration tarnished our image and does not represent the views of Americans - the proof is that they elected me. Let us get back on track and fix ASAP the mistakes that have been made." <Cheers, Applause>

So, again - what if we leave? What then? Would we be responsible for any kind of civil war that broke out? 100% responsible. Should we have known from the get go that this would be a quagmire? Absolutely - one of my secondary reasons for opposing the war is that I knew it would be such a quagmire. The primary reason was moral.

There is a major power vacuum and a lot of chaos there - this leads to war and warlords - which can then lead to the break-up of the country and even worse chaos until a new dictator takes over and we are back to where we started minus hundreds of billions of dollars from our treasury, several thousand American lives, and probably 30-40,000 Iraqi lives - or more.

People will vie for power, and I would think that the natural divisions would be ethnic first - what do you think?

Afghanistan has major ethnic troubles between the Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks, and I thnik there was one other major group from the Herat area that I can't remember offhand.

A new administration in and of itself is not going to make a difference in the way the Iraq situation is playing out. A completely new policy that involves the rest of the world would (for the better). A Congress that unilaterally stopped voting money for the war and stopped approving continued actions there would (probably for the worse).

We keep thinking we can make Iraq into Turkey. We can't -- nobody but the Turks could have made the Ottoman Empire into Turkey. The west's attempts at created states were the Levantine states: Palestine, Syria, Jordan. Note how well they turned out...

I supported the invasion because the removal of Hussein was worth it. "Mission accomplished." (The chimp was right after all.) Now, we should concentrate on giving the Iraqis a chance to create their future without any prodding from us. That means turning over their wealth to them, inviting anybody in to help who is willing to, and not being squeamish when the allegedly democratic constitution turns out to be Egyptian-style undemocratic Islamic rule. One big hurrah for situational ethics.