Finally. Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis agree.

[Polly]

This is a worthy goal to hope for. If the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds joined hands, the Iraq problem would be solved.
I don't think you have a good understanding the of the problem. When the borders of countries are arbitrarily set by outsiders, with no regard to the culture and history of the people within those borders, you get situations like Iraq.
One solution, and the most common, is for one person or group to become more powerful than the others and rule by oppression - that's the Saddam Hussein solution. It's been a short term method of stability in many of Europe's former colonies.
A second solution would be for the people within the borders to disregard them, since they had no say in them. This usually takes a war to establish each new country - that's the solution taken in Yugoslavia once the only person strong enough to implement the first solution died. That solution still could work in Iraq, but it will require a lot of bloodshed between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. It's further complicated by the interests of bordering countries. After enough years, the two regions with more resources (the Kurds and Shiites) would be strong enough to fend off challenges from the Sunnis, who would live in poverty since they have few resources.
The third would be your solution. Because of the disadvantages of the first two solutions (oppressive dictatorship or uncontrolled violence), all the groups would find some compromise where they could live together in peace as one country. Seeing as how stability doesn't make front page news, I'm not all that familiar with countries that have successfully implemented the third solution.
The US, Canada, China, India, and the old Soviet Union used to be the top five for having the most separate and distinct cultures living within their borders. Considering how the US has handled indigenous cultures existing within its borders, it wouldn't fit as an example of the third solution - it simply weakened the indigenous cultures to a point that they no longer even have to oppress them.
How about China and India?
I know at one time, India's solution was a very strict caste system, but how do they merge so many cultures into one country today? And was the caste system a necessary step along the way to bring enough stability that they could move slowly towards a third solution? (That wouldn't support the idea that Iraq could achieve the third solution just by establishing a democratic government - that it would still take years or decades, even with a legitimate government and a security infrastructure).
Does China actually incorporate all of its separate cultures into one government or is it a central government dominated by the strongest culture that imposes itself on the other cultures within the country? Or is it, too, just settling for stability in the hopes of creating an evnironment where the third solution might be achievable somewhere down the road?

I gather your position is, as insidious infighting and bloodshed is reasonably foreseeable amongst the three peoples given their longstanding feud and the uneven distribution of oil, the US must "lend a helping hand" to prevent such horrendous fate?

Flippy chide of "if Iraq's only natural resources is green peas, would you have bothered?" aside, the view show a lack of respect for the intelligence of the Iraqi people to solve their problems, their natural right to choose their own path and a total disregard for their soverignty to be free from foreign interference.

And with the greatest respect and I am only saying this to state a point with no intention whatsoever to offend you or any of the viewers, it is also quite typical of the infantile ego-centric world view of Americans, that somehow the rest of the world must think what they think, want what they want, see what they see and dream only to emulate them.

The world has not come into being after the Americans have declared independence, nor has it become better because the Americans have taken an interest in the affairs not their own. Now that the ingrate Iraqis have asked you to leave, why not just take the cue and leave? If anything, it shows the world is wrong is in accusing you of having covetous intention for their oil and it restores your good name in no small part?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I gather your position is, as insidious infighting and bloodshed is reasonably foreseeable amongst the three peoples given their longstanding feud and the uneven distribution of oil, the US must "lend a helping hand" to prevent such horrendous fate?

The majority of the people here on PF that defend the american government on certain issues did not agree with the Iraq war, though there are a few persons that do agree with it.
Most of us think it was a big mistake though some of us believe that since the US made the mess that the US should do it's best to clean up after itself. The fact that it was the wrong move to go into Iraq in the first place makes the onus on the US to do it's best to fix the situation that much stronger in my opinion. The real debate here is whether or not staying in Iraq longer or moving out more quickly is the best option for America in regard to the responsibility it bares in helping Iraq.

Ofcourse I should let Bob answer the question himself but I think I've reflected the feelings of most of us here.

 

[Polly]

The majority of the people here on PF that defend the american government on certain issues did not agree with the Iraq war, though there are a few persons that do agree with it.
Most of us think it was a big mistake though some of us believe that since the US made the mess that the US should do it's best to clean up after itself. The fact that it was the wrong move to go into Iraq in the first place makes the onus on the US to do it's best to fix the situation that much stronger in my opinion. The real debate here is whether or not staying in Iraq longer or moving out more quickly is the best option for America in regard to the responsibility it bares in helping Iraq.
Ofcourse I should let Bob answer the question himself but I think I've reflected the feelings of most of us here.

Hey Chimp.

I understand your position, in fact this is the most cited reason for staying in Iraq, "we can't just leave having messed up their lives, we have the responsiblity to set things right".

2 issues, priority and ability.

1. When people, soldiers, civilians are blown into bits and pieces, mained and mangled day in day out, how good you want to feel about your moral standing or yourselves is irrelevant. This is an EMERGENCY and the priority must be what can be done to stop or at least drastically cut down the loss of human lives and suffering, and the control of damage and destruction. Americans have all the time in the world to mourn or reflect LATER. To give any consideration for your moral obligation at this point, is to show you have no imagination or empathy for the human hell that is in Iraq.

2. Americans have demonstrated to be perfect hamfists and shown a lack of understanding of not just ME cultural background, psyche and mentality, but common human psychology. The vitriolic adversion to foreign occupation, a hard earned lesson that should have been learned from Vietnam, somehow is lost on you. Given the catastrophe we have seen to date, is there any reason to believe that Americans, more hated now than ever, can improve the situation in any meaningful way?

Of coure all the above is rhetoric as both you and I know Bush will not leave unless they have control of Iraqi OIL.

Polly

 

[Hurkyl]

1. When people, soldiers, civilians are blown into bits and pieces, mained and mangled day in day out, how good you want to feel about your moral standing or yourselves is irrelevant. This is an EMERGENCY and the priority must be what can be done to stop or at least drastically cut down the loss of human lives and suffering, and the control of damage and destruction. Americans have all the time in the world to mourn or reflect LATER. To give any consideration for your moral obligation at this point, is to show you have no imagination or empathy for the human hell that is in Iraq.

This is a great reason to stay in Iraq, but since it's coming from you, I assume that I have misunderstood the point...

(In order to hurry things along, I will take a guess, rather than wait for you to clarify)

I suppose it's the unstated assumption that there would be less people "blown to bits" if American forces pull out. I have the opposite expectation -- the not as well trained and equipped Iraqi security forces... and civilian policemen... would bear not only what they bear now, but also much of what is now directed at Americans.

I do not believe that the insurgency consists of a "kill Iraqis" branch and a "kill Americans" branch, and the latter branch will merely pack up and go home if Americans left...

There are people (a good deal, I imagine) who expect that keeping troops in Iraq will achieve the very goal that you intend to accomplish by pulling them out.


I do not intend this as an attempt to convince you or anyone else to agree with my expectations -- I'm trying to bring to light what I believe to be the actual point of contention between opposing sides of this issue.

 

[BobG]

I gather your position is, as insidious infighting and bloodshed is reasonably foreseeable amongst the three peoples given their longstanding feud and the uneven distribution of oil, the US must "lend a helping hand" to prevent such horrendous fate?
Flippy chide of "if Iraq's only natural resources is green peas, would you have bothered?" aside, the view show a lack of respect for the intelligence of the Iraqi people to solve their problems, their natural right to choose their own path and a total disregard for their soverignty to be free from foreign interference.

Maybe. Looking at how things went in Bosnia/Kosovo after Tito's death and looking back at how things went in Rwanda, Iraq could wind up much worse with the US gone. The real issue is whether things will get worse once the US leaves, stay the same, or get better and whether the US presence is preventing things from getting worse or just delaying the inevitable.

Iraq's oil does play a big part in the decision. The US wasn't as enthusiastic about getting involved in Bosnia/Kosovo as the Europeans (we were much further away) and no one was concerned enough by Rwanda to interfere with genocide (the fourth solution that I didn't include in my post). If the US leaves a disaster behind that shocks the world with its violence and/or disrupts oil supplies for the entire world, it's going to be even more unpopular than it is now.

 

[kat]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T251592.htm"

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari urged Japan on Friday to keep its troops in southern Iraq, saying an early pullout of coalition forces would lead to more violence by insurgents.

Zebari said his war-torn country had made progress on improving security, but added it faced a crucial period ahead of the Dec. 15 parliamentary election.

"The difficult part has gone in my view. We're very close to reaching a more stable form of government and of security," Zebari told a news conference following a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

"Now, any premature withdrawal will send the wrong message to the terrorists, to the opposition ... that this coalition is fracturing and running, that their policies and strategies of undermining this process is winning."

Polly, many of us do remember the results of cutting and running in vietnam...over 300,000 south vietnamese slaughtered after we abandoned them.

 

[ron damon]

What most people do not seem to realize is that if reforming the region is thrown out as a defense and foreign policy strategy, what do you think the response to an hypothetical terrorist attack will be, regardless of which party is in power?

 

[Archon]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T251592.htm"
Polly, many of us do remember the results of cutting and running in vietnam...over 300,000 south vietnamese slaughtered after we abandoned them.

Now wait, how many people died during the war again? I could have sworn it was more than 300 000.

 

[edward]

The point being ?

American soldiers killed thousands of insurgents, bombed Iraq and still think it's good to kill insurgents. So does that legitimize the insurgency ?

I am in no way indicating that the insurgency is legitimate. I simply said that the insergents aren't done yet either. After the back of the insurgency was supposedly broken with the assault on Fallujah their numbers have actually grown. Our intel has to be better.

Even without a terrorist type of insurgencey there will always be a ligitimate resistance to a foreign power occupying their country. That is nothing new. That has always been true of any country.

Chalabi led us to jump head long into a pool full of muck mire and snakes, with promises that we would be greeted by the Iraqi's with open arms. That didn't happen. It is time to lift up our heads and take a closer look at options other than: "Stay the course at any cost"

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

1. When people, soldiers, civilians are blown into bits and pieces, mained and mangled day in day out, how good you want to feel about your moral standing or yourselves is irrelevant. This is an EMERGENCY and the priority must be what can be done to stop or at least drastically cut down the loss of human lives and suffering, and the control of damage and destruction. Americans have all the time in the world to mourn or reflect LATER. To give any consideration for your moral obligation at this point, is to show you have no imagination or empathy for the human hell that is in Iraq.

Actually I consider it a viable argument that pulling out could be the US's best action to help fulfill it's "moral obligation". Even if the US leaves Iraq it can still help by rendering aid of a non-military sort. The US could even pull out yet leave military advisors to assist in the building of Iraq's security forces if their government wishes, the US military would still be gone.
I'm not a neocon and don't agree with their rhetoric that all the people who want the US out aren't taking into consideration the obligation to help Iraq. They obviously believe that leaving would be one of the best ways the US could begin to fulfill that obligation.
I think both BobG and Art have made good arguments on their respective sides of the issue. They are both much more informed of the details of the situation than I am and I am having a hard time figuring out which of them I think has the best accessment.
My personal intuition on the matter would be to stay until the Iraqi government feels it is stable enough to not need US help or just plain tells the US to leave regardless of their stability.
If Bush does decide to stay well after Iraq is stable, which it seems he does plan on this since the US is building military bases, I really hope that the Iraqi government tells him to piss off.