News Should we withdraw troops immediately?

[pattylou]

Take the poll.

 

[pattylou]

Sorry, some of the wording is poor.

"No promise of withdrawal of troops "until the job is done"" basically means bush's position.

Option one basically means Murtha's position.

Two and three are in-between.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Number 3, but I want a short time table.

Murtha is more on 3 than he is on 1. he wants them out as soon as possible, but not so fast as to cause chaos.

Number 1 would be the republican straw man resolution put up today.

 

[pattylou]

Yeah, I missed the similarities between 1 and 3. thanks.

 

[ranger]

Should we not stay there and fix the mess we started? We can't just go and mess someone's place up and then just walk out. But if we don't leave, that means more casualties. I heard the toll is like over 2000 right now for US troops. Its like everyday I watch the news, and I see things like "2 Marines dead".

Someone please remind me why did we go in the first place?

 

[Skyhunter]

I support Murtha's position.

I especially like the idea of having a rapid response force. We should be able to expand the base in Kuwait since they owe us.

 

[Pengwuino]

Someone please remind me why did we go in the first place?

300,000 innocent civilians murdered.

 

[Skyhunter]

300,000 innocent civilians murdered.

Could you provide a source for that claim?

 

[edward]

Should we not stay there and fix the mess we started? We can't just go and mess someone's place up and then just walk out. But if we don't leave, that means more casualties. I heard the toll is like over 2000 right now for US troops. Its like everyday I watch the news, and I see things like "2 Marines dead".

Someone please remind me why did we go in the first place?

There were no WMD and the whole "grave and gathering danger" excuse was manufactured, so why did we go?? Iraq had just signed large oil contracts with ,France, Germany, and Russia.

As long as Bush is in office there is no way we are going to pull out without assuring that the bulk of the Iraqi oil will go to the USA.

This is the nine jillionth time I have said this, but stop and think, would we
have invaded Iraq if their only natural resourse was broccoli ??

 

[BobG]

I voted number two, but it does need to be clear that the US will get its troops out eventually, even if the goals aren't met. I don't particularly care what kind of government they end up with, but hardliners in the Iraqi government ought to be more pragmatic about their situation, rather than pushing for policies almost guaranteed to stir up ethnic conflict.

 

[Skyhunter]

As long as Bush is in office there is no way we are going to pull out without assuring that the bulk of the Iraqi oil will go to the USA.

I would qualify that to read:

As long as the members of Cheney's energy task force get to remain in charge of the oil. I don't believe they care that much about America's energy problems. As long as they can keep up their record profits, they will sell the oil to the highest bidder.

 

[flotsam]

Capitalism cannot leave oil and money., Hiow will the rich brainwash the poior.

 

[ComputerGeek]

300,000 innocent civilians murdered.

oh, is that the excuse now? Show me in all the reporting back in 2002, where did Bush say "We have a moral necessity to get rid of Sadam because he killed hundreds of thousands of his citizens"

the selective memory of Republicans is amazing.

here are the reasons we went to war:
1:The administration told us Sadam was creating a nuclear weapon
2: The administration told us that Sadam was creating tons of nerve gas
3:The administration told us he was actively consorting with terrorists

Then we went in and found nothing... so it became about stopping injustice, the attack on the kurds in 88 (using US made nerve agent I might add), and now it is "we must stay the course". Tell me, what course is that? We are smacking our heads on a wall and Bush is telling us to keep doing so and eventually the wall will give way.

 

[kleinwolf]

I mean if US retracts from there, in first analysis, I think we, (meaning here Europeans), will suffer the rage of vengeance from the Irakii people...so if you could please stay there for a while, we would be more confident. It is clear, for obvious financial reasons, if it happens to be too expensive, nobody in the US will even take care of that possibility...By chance I don't have to choose betwen the different possbilities, and hope, thos responsible one, won't be forced to use nuclear power...(to be honest I think it's too late...but I don't know which side of the "wargame" has it...)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What’s wrong with cutting and running?

I have argued that once we were committed to the war, we had to stay, but now I'm not so sure. I don't know at this point if WWIII can be avoided, and there are no good options, but maybe this is the best option?

Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?

By William E. Odom

If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:

1) We would leave behind a civil war.

2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.

3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.

4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.

5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.

6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.

7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.

8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.

9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.

But consider this: [continued]

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. As Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, he was responsible for the nation's signals intelligence and communications security. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer.

From 1977 to 1981, General Odom was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a member of the National Security Council staff, he worked upon strategic planning, Soviet affairs, nuclear weapons policy, telecommunications policy, and Persian Gulf security issues. He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1954, and received a Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1970. [continued]

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewcontributors&bioid=86

 

[russ_watters]

the selective memory of Republicans is amazing.

Indeed. I remember him talking about the Iraqi people. You don't? Reread his speech from Oct 7, 2002:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

No, it wasn't his primary concern, but he did spend 4 paragraphs discussing the condition of the Iraqi people.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know at this point if WWIII can be avoided...

Could you elaborate on that? Who would the combatants be and why would they start fighting?

 

[kleinwolf]

Can You Please Be More Explicit When You Type "the Job Is Done"...?

 

[ComputerGeek]

Indeed. I remember him talking about the Iraqi people. You don't? Reread his speech from Oct 7, 2002:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
No, it wasn't his primary concern, but he did spend 4 paragraphs discussing the condition of the Iraqi people.

I do not recall him discussing the iraqi people much until he needed to. I would also not bother to trust ANYTHING from the White House right now, or did you not hear about the McClellen rewrite of the press briefing transcript? Sure, it might be OK, but now that we see changing documents of record to fit their misinformation is not below them, I have to be skeptical of documents they publish.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I have argued that once we were committed to the war, we had to stay, but now I'm not so sure. I don't know at this point if WWIII can be avoided, and there are no good options, but maybe this is the best option?
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewcontributors&bioid=86

The moment that we went in there, a civil war was unavoidable. We cannot change how the Iraqi people feel about each other, and just like when Tito died, leaving the fate of Yugoslavia to what we see today, the toppling of Sadam will inevitable leave Iraq in a similar state of affairs.

 

[Art]

Indeed. I remember him talking about the Iraqi people. You don't? Reread his speech from Oct 7, 2002:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
No, it wasn't his primary concern, but he did spend 4 paragraphs discussing the condition of the Iraqi people.

He mentioned them in passing as an example of how brutal Saddam was but apart from that the link you supplied is excellent as it encompasses just about every lie and misdirection the admin used to convince the american people of the supposed need for the attack on Iraq.

In fact if they were to indict Bush for misleading congress and the american people this would be a great reference document.

 

[Art]

300,000 innocent civilians murdered.

To reiterate another poster's request will you supply a source for this statement please?

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

I say we stay there until everything is under control.. or until the terrorist actions have died down or been defeated... reason being; I view the world as a whole, i don't recognize nations and politics, it just blurs true perception. We need to work together as a people of Earth to take care of problems. Yes the administration made a blunder by going in on false claims (possibly... or did Saddam have a master plan? He is a bright guy you know) buttttt... now that we are there... we cannot cut and run. Iraqi's are humans, Americans are humans, we are Earthlings, we need to help each other... mistakes aside.

 

[Mercator]

I voted to stay. I am a pragmatist. It would be difficult to find someone more opposed to the invasion than me, but now that the damage is done, it would be even more irresponsible to leave the mess that is made for a powerless Iarqi government. The Iranians are already saliving. The world, and Europe in particular should get over it's outrage over Bush's mistake and think about the long term.

 

[Polly]

But the point is staying will not in anyway make a difference to what is inevitable, as very well expounded in Ivan's article. There is a Chinese saying, you cannot sustain a collapsing tidal wave.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, for now it seems to be an indefinite occupation.

As for Pengwuino's comment on the 300,000 Iraqis dying (many being killed) under Saddam Hussein, that is a number that has been oft repeated in the media.

Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI) provides information about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and its context. It aims to raise awareness of the effecs on Iraq of the sanctions which were in place until May 2003, and previously campaigned on humanitarian grounds for the lifting of non-military sanctions. CASI does not support or have ties to the government of Iraq.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-garfield.html
Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children from 1990 Through 1998: Assessing the Impact of the Gulf War and Economic Sanctions

http://www.casi.org.uk/

"Denial of Water to Iraqi Cities" discusses the apparent tactic of US troops to cut off the water supply of cities under attack.
"The Lancet Iraq Mortality Survey: The UK Government's Response Is Inaccurate and Misleading"

Perhaps the number of non-military (non-combats) killed by Saddam's regime will never be known. And likely the number of non-military (non-combats) killed by US and coalition forces will also never be known.

It would also seem that destruction of Iraq's infrastructure during the First Gulf War also has been a contributing factor to mortality of Iraqs civilian population.

I don't know at this point if WWIII can be avoided...

Very pessimistic statement. It is difficult to say how a full scale conflict would develop - the major powers have a vested interest in maintaining world trade and economics. Perhaps there will simply be an on-going 'asymmetric' conflict between those angry at the US and the US (and US allies).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Could you elaborate on that? Who would the combatants be and why would they start fighting?

In the middle east, the only certainty is chaos. I can probably imagine a hundred different scenarios in which the war evolves into full scale civil war, and as it has already done to some extent, spreads beyond the Iraqi borders. I had hoped that the bombing in Jordan would help to change hearts and minds in that so many innocent Muslims were killed, but in the end there are just too many people who hate the US and are willing to die in order to take us down. Now that Bush has lit the fuse - kicked the beehive - we can only wait and see where it leads.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

In the middle east, the only certainty is chaos. I can probably imagine a hundred different scenarios in which the war evolves into full scale civil war, and as it has already done to some extent, spreads beyond the Iraqi borders. I had hoped that the bombing in Jordan would help to change hearts and minds in that so many innocent Muslims were killed, but in the end there are just too many people who hate the US and are willing to die in order to take us down. Now that Bush has lit the fuse - kicked the beehive - we can only wait and see where it leads.

Right Ivan... it's a world problem, and shouldn't just be left to the Middle East, at some point in time, problems need to be dealt with. We're going to be here until a comet hits or aliens take over.lol.. we might as well start breaking down our barriers.. unfortunately, as Einstein would say, "humantics" get in the way, and we must war with each other... just like when you were a kid, you got in a fight with someone, then you made up with them and were "okay". This seems to be the only method that solves large scale , for lack of better terms, hatred in this world. Someone mentioned earlier, about looking at the longterm. That's the best way to look at it. We tend to, as humans, get lost in our emotions of the moment, and forget about using our logic clearly.

 

[Skyhunter]

I say we stay there until everything is under control.. or until the terrorist actions have died down or been defeated... reason being; I view the world as a whole, i don't recognize nations and politics, it just blurs true perception. We need to work together as a people of Earth to take care of problems. Yes the administration made a blunder by going in on false claims (possibly... or did Saddam have a master plan? He is a bright guy you know) buttttt... now that we are there... we cannot cut and run. Iraqi's are humans, Americans are humans, we are Earthlings, we need to help each other... mistakes aside.

As you mentioned in response to Ivan, it is a world problem.

Advanced communication has made the world a very small place.

We should have involved the world from the beginning. But as many here will argue, going that way leads to inaction. I personally believe that the threat of military force was sufficient to motivate not only Saddam Hussein, but the world community as well. Of course Bush had no intention of using the legitimate threat of military force as a powerful diplomatic tool. Once he had authorization he made the decision to invade. Discarding the tool.

Only a few nations, most notably Great Britain, offered any significant assets toward Bush's folly. As the Downing street memo points out, Great Britain was mainly concerned with the legality of participating.

As long as Bush is in power, it is an American problem. Few other nations are willing to help us.

I suggest we use the threat of pulling out, as a motivator to get the rest of the world to help out.

 

[SOS2008]

oh, is that the excuse now? Show me in all the reporting back in 2002, where did Bush say "We have a moral necessity to get rid of Sadam because he killed hundreds of thousands of his citizens"
the selective memory of Republicans is amazing.
here are the reasons we went to war:
1:The administration told us Sadam was creating a nuclear weapon
2: The administration told us that Sadam was creating tons of nerve gas
3:The administration told us he was actively consorting with terrorists
Then we went in and found nothing... so it became about stopping injustice, the attack on the kurds in 88 (using US made nerve agent I might add), and now it is "we must stay the course". Tell me, what course is that? We are smacking our heads on a wall and Bush is telling us to keep doing so and eventually the wall will give way.

Exactly, and it is amazing how Bush and his supporters defend the mess they’ve made.

Our presence only causes more instability, and prevents Iraqis from getting anywhere. The elections in December will mark a point when many troops should be removed. The insurgency will stop when there are no troops to attack. If the government is Islamic, so be it. If individual militias continue to compete with one another for power, let them try to work it out. If all hell breaks lose, then it can be readdressed as a UN peacekeeping effort.

 

[Anttech]

The moment that we went in there, a civil war was unavoidable. We cannot change how the Iraqi people feel about each other, and just like when Tito died, leaving the fate of Yugoslavia to what we see today, the toppling of Sadam will inevitable leave Iraq in a similar state of affairs.

I sort of aggree with what you are saying, but what's wrong with the Balkans right now?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I sort of aggree with what you are saying, but what's wrong with the Balkans right now?

Geez, "What atrocities have you done lately?" Look up Sarajevo, and "ethni cleansing" (the origin of that term). Past evils are not justified by present quiescence.

 

[moose]

Should we not stay there and fix the mess we started? We can't just go and mess someone's place up and then just walk out. But if we don't leave, that means more casualties. I heard the toll is like over 2000 right now for US troops. Its like everyday I watch the news, and I see things like "2 Marines dead".

Someone please remind me why did we go in the first place?

It's horrible that people are dying, but 2000 isn't that large of a number comparing to other battles. I've personally known someone who died over there, well two soldiers. It doesn't make me think that people are dying left and right though. I think that the long term effects of us going there in the first place will be very positive. I say we stay there until we fix everything/do whatever we need to do (extremely undefined, I know).

 

[Evo]

I voted to stay. I am a pragmatist. It would be difficult to find someone more opposed to the invasion than me, but now that the damage is done, it would be even more irresponsible to leave the mess that is made for a powerless Iarqi government. The Iranians are already saliving. The world, and Europe in particular should get over it's outrage over Bush's mistake and think about the long term.

I couldn't agree more. The country will fall into complete chaos, and yes, it's our fault. We made this mess and we need to figure out how to fix it. Sure we could just walk away and turn our backs and say "not our problem anymore", now it's your problem, good luck!

Saddam needed to be removed and efforts to remove him for years had been unsuccesful. Invading solved one problem but created more. The country is too divided among it's own people, and I don't see anyone faction that would be an improvement that has enough support and resources to keep control.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I sort of aggree with what you are saying, but what's wrong with the Balkans right now?

did you sleep through the 90's?

 

[Skyhunter]

did you sleep through the 90's?

Wake up! It is 2005. He said what is wrong now, as in today.

 

[Skyhunter]

I couldn't agree more. The country will fall into complete chaos, and yes, it's our fault. We made this mess and we need to figure out how to fix it. Sure we could just walk away and turn our backs and say "not our problem anymore", now it's your problem, good luck!

What do you think of my suggstion?

I suggest we use the threat of pulling out, as a motivator to get the rest of the world to help out.

We could have fixed the mess in 2003. If Kerry had been elected we might have been able to bring the International community on-board to legitimize the occupation in 2004. Where we are now is hip deep in doo doo, without any boots, let alone hip waders.

The International community has no motivation to help stabilize Iraq. If we pull out the situation will get worse. Peak oil is coming soon. If the world felt that the situation would boil over into Iran and Saudi Arabia, they will be more willing to help out. With Bush gone, or at least not dictating to other nations, they may be even more inclined to help put an international face on the re-construction effort.

The longer we wait, the less the likelihood for success.

 

[Evo]

What do you think of my suggstion? "I suggest we use the threat of pulling out, as a motivator to get the rest of the world to help out.

I think it's excellent. If the US was serious about pulling out and leaving Iraq on it's own, it would create major problems that others would be forced to deal with. The problem is, would they believe that the US would do it?

 

[Mercator]

I couldn't agree more. The country will fall into complete chaos, and yes, it's our fault. We made this mess and we need to figure out how to fix it. Sure we could just walk away and turn our backs and say "not our problem anymore", now it's your problem, good luck!
Saddam needed to be removed and efforts to remove him for years had been unsuccesful. Invading solved one problem but created more. The country is too divided among it's own people, and I don't see anyone faction that would be an improvement that has enough support and resources to keep control.

Ideally the UN should get involved in a peacekeeping mission, but if that was to be vetoed by China or Russia, Europe should definitely help and preferably also other Arab countries. And I think what skyhunter says is right: pulling out now would motivate at least Europe to get involved. The world cannot allow continuing turmoil in Iraq with extremism and ethnic and religious fanatism as motors and Europe certainly cannot.
Unfortunately I don't see any change (except worsening) in the situation as long as Bush is in power. His uncompromising stand is unacceptable for Europeans, let alone Arabs to go in and help.
It is a fact that many have predicted this scenario, including myself on this and other boards, but the situation is too serious to keep sitting at the sidelines and slap ourselves on the chest.
One thing I agree with the Bush administration: Iraq should not be carved up (what will surely happen if the US pulls out now). We have seen in India and Pakistan that making two or more strong opponents does not solve the problem. Separating Sunnis and Shiites geographically on it's own would be too dificult .
What scares me is that depsite the presence of that big and modern army, the insurgents are still able to attack daily on a big scale. A way must be found to cool down that situation, but I have no idea how to begin. Obviously brute force did not help sofar.
Perhapas, in a first phase, a small part of Iraq should be isolated from the rest (The South around Basrah f.e.) , with controllable borders. It could then be made very prosperous, the resources are there, and serve as an example for the rest of Iraq of how their future could be. Or is that too naive?

 

[SOS2008]

I feel this topic deserves serious thought and debate. There is the known, which is the current status in Iraq, and we can predict more of the same if the U.S. stays, possibly even deterioration in conditions. So speculation is really more about what would happen if the U.S. leaves, with some factors of how, especially how quickly. I prefer to know what Middle East experts are predicting. Unfortunately I was not able to find a lot of current information, but here is a start:

Why Immediate Withdrawal Makes Sense
By Michael Shwartz
September 22, 2005

Many of these cautious withdrawal scenarios are advocated by staunch opponents of the war. I am thinking, in particular, of Juan Cole, the most widely respected antiwar voice, and Robert Dreyfuss, a thoughtful critic of the war who publishes regularly at the independent website Tompaine.com as well as in the Nation and Mother Jones. Both have offered forceful warnings against a hasty American withdrawal, advocating instead that U.S. forces be pulled out in stages and only as the threat of civil war recedes.

...But where Dreyfuss and Cole are mistaken is in concluding that U.S. forces can be part of an effort "to prevent the outbreak of such a catastrophic civil conflict." Despite the plausible logic of this argument, the U.S. presence doesn't deter, but contributes to, a thickening civil-war-like atmosphere in Iraq. It is always a dicey matter to project the present into the future, though that never stopped anybody from doing so. The future, by definition, is unknown and so open to the unexpected. Nonetheless, it is far more reasonable, based on what we now know, to assume that if the U.S. were to leave Iraq quickly, the level of violence would be reduced, possibly drastically, not heightened. Here are the four key reasons:

1. The U.S. military is already killing more civilian Iraqis than would likely die in any threatened civil war;

2. The U.S. presence is actually aggravating terrorist (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, not suppressing it;

3. Much of the current terrorist violence would be likely to subside if the U.S. left;

4. The longer the U.S. stays, the more likely that scenarios involving an authentic civil war will prove accurate.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/withdraw/2005/0922makessense.htm From - http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/withdrawalindex.htm

Reuters
Iraq Sunnis seek US pullout as deaths mount
Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:35 AM ET

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2005-10-26T103508Z_01_YUE544037_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=

The Nation
Iraqis Demand a US Withdrawal
by DAVID ENDERS
[from the October 3, 2005 issue]

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20051003&s=enders

 

[Evo]

I feel this topic deserves serious thought and debate. There is the known, which is the current status in Iraq, and we can predict more of the same if the U.S. stays, possibly even deterioration in conditions. So speculation is really more about what would happen if the U.S. leaves, with some factors of how, especially how quickly. I prefer to know what Middle East experts are predicting. Unfortunately I was not able to find a lot of current information, but here is a start

The problem isn't just the initial massacres that would happen for one party to gain control, it would be the probable continued killing and oppression of the people not in control. Anyone that thinks there would be some initial civil unrest and then peace and prosperity isn't thinking things through.

The "terrorists", "insurgents" or whatever you want to call them would only refocus on those they are opposed to once the US leaves. The problem is that there is not one unified group that is making these attacks. Once the US is out, they will turn on each other, each trying to gain control.

There has to be some peacekeeping effort, and it will have to be a slow withdrawal in order to work. There just aren't enough forces from other countries willing to take over. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any.

 

[Polly]

Okay i am willing to go down in history as the most naive poster on PF EVER. But I will have to say this.

Some of you think as the international community doesn't seem to be keen to help with subsequent enforcement of peace, Americans will have to stay the course in Iraq to prevent all hell from breaking out.

But why is the international community not keen to help in the first place? Why?

Because America is the same old arrogant, gun-ho, kick-ass ******* of a country as it was before March 2003. America has not realized that it is wrong to invade another country, that it is wrong to covet other's property (even if peak oil means systemactic destruction of its life style and mode of production), that it is wrong to lie. 2 1/2 years and many many lives later, there is no penance, there is not even attrition for its hair-standing behaviour.

So before you can expect any international efforts to pull you out of the quaqmire and save you from being bled dry, take a long hard look at what America has done and repent. Repent, America. Repent.

And think about this, the Germans have perpetrated carnage and destruction far worse than you, why has the world forgiven them and let bygones be bygones? Think.

 

[cronxeh]

No! We must franchise first!

http://myspace-569.vo.llnwd.net/00318/96/52/318312569_l.jpg

 

[Skyhunter]

My personal belief is this discussion is an excercise in futility as long as Bushco remains in power.

1. They will not withdraw, ever.

2. Bush can't even spell diplomacy, let alone practice it.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think it's excellent. If the US was serious about pulling out and leaving Iraq on it's own, it would create major problems that others would be forced to deal with. The problem is, would they believe that the US would do it?

Credibility is a big problem.

A different president is probably the only way we will be able to get out of this mess.

 

[PerennialII]

Why?
Because America is the same old arrogant, gun-ho, kick-ass ******* of a country as it was before March 2003. America has not realized that it is wrong to invade another country, that it is wrong to covet other's property (even if peak oil means systemactic destruction of its life style and mode of production), that it is wrong to lie. 2 1/2 years and many many lives later, there is no penance, there is not even attrition for its hair-standing behaviour.
So before you can expect any international efforts to pull you out of the quaqmire and save you from being bled dry, take a long hard look at what America has done and repent. Repent, America. Repent.
And think about this, the Germans have perpetrated carnage and destruction far worse than you, why has the world forgiven them and let bygones be bygones? Think.

As far as I'm concerned you won't go down as a naive poster at all (we'll go together ).
Even though the situation is what it is and stitching the drifts will take its time, imo the allies of the US will jump on the bandwagon once there is some indication of change (along your repent lines for example) in the methods of 'solving' foreign policy issues (even with the piling horrors of "war against terror", which as well as any military action seem to digest far worse for example in Europe). It probably takes at least until the next elections, since there doesn't seem to be any indication that any sort of co-operation can exist with the current government (perhaps a year ago would have thought different), appears like US will bulldoze what it wants despite what others have to say ... friendship and alliances don't work unilaterally, that's a different type of relationship.

 

[SOS2008]

The problem isn't just the initial massacres that would happen for one party to gain control, it would be the probable continued killing and oppression of the people not in control. Anyone that thinks there would be some initial civil unrest and then peace and prosperity isn't thinking things through.

The "terrorists", "insurgents" or whatever you want to call them would only refocus on those they are opposed to once the US leaves. The problem is that there is not one unified group that is making these attacks. Once the US is out, they will turn on each other, each trying to gain control.
There has to be some peacekeeping effort, and it will have to be a slow withdrawal in order to work. There just aren't enough forces from other countries willing to take over. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any.

I think everyone agrees there are no good options, but only choosing the lesser of bad scenarios. There is no certainty that there won't be initial massacre or full-scale civil war, but I have yet to see anyone present historical or expert analysis to support these concerns, or to show how these events won't occur anyway if the U.S. stays.

The Iraqi military/police are merely Iraqis desperate for work during a devastated economy. The insurgents are primarily the Sunnis, who will continue the bombings as long as they are a suppressed minority. The Kurds have and never will care about the rest of the country. The Shi'is are bent on revenge for years of oppression. Corruption is deep within the culture. How will any of this change, no matter how long the U.S. is there? The American people who have sacrificed children and spouses, and/or have watched the deficit rise ever higher want a guarantee. And they can’t be given anything close to that.

I don’t believe we can change anything for the better, no matter how many years—just like Vietnam, where likewise the people wanted the U.S. to leave. I can never believe that occupation will have good results, anywhere, ever. If the U.S. removes troops—in a well-planned manner to control for possible violence—it will open the door for an international solution, which will be far, far better for all parties.

 

[Art]

The only way to restore a semblance of order in a united Iraq would be to install a clone of Saddam as their leader. For all his faults one thing he did manage well was forcing the various factions to behave. The Americans will never achieve this as far from being part of the solution they are a big part of the problem.
As I mentioned before in a previous thread the other alternative is not to force Iraqis to get on with one another but to facilitate the breakup of Iraq into 3 areas - Kurds in the North, Sunnis in the centre and west and Shi'ites in the south. This is probably where things will end up anyway so it's either do it by choice with minimum loss of life or do it later after a bloody civil war as happened in Yugoslavia after the death of Tito.
The advantage to the US are first they have a good relationship with the Kurds (who also have oil) and a reasonable relationship (which could be improved) with the Shi'ites (who have the rest of the oil). That only leaves the Sunnis in the middle who form the backbone of the current insurgency who have no oil and would be tied up in internal strife with their various factions fighting for dominance.
In the meanwhile all the US would need to do is ensure the Sunni's didn't cross the new borders to cause trouble. Patrolling borders would be far easier than hunting insurgents city by city, house by house and would be made easier as the Shi'ites and the Kurds would now have a huge vested interest in assisting with this task whereas at the moment the motivation of many of the Iraqi security forces is, to put it politely, a little lacking.

When I suggested this before (after Russ complaining that all we do is criticize and not offer alternatives) it didn't get a single response. I'm curious as to why not? Do folk here agree or disagree that such a disengagement plan would work??

p.s. With regard to UN peacemakers taking over the role of the US soldiers. Apart from the blue helmets making nicer targets for their snipers I doubt the people currently shooting at the US troops will give a damn, they'll just carry on with 'business' as usual. I suspect the members of the UN also think that which is why I haven't heard of a single UN member advocating this course.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

With regard to UN peacemakers taking over the role of the US soldiers. Apart from the blue helmets making nicer targets for their snipers I doubt the people currently shooting at the US troops will give a damn, they'll just carry on with 'business' as usual. I suspect the members of the UN also think that which is why I haven't heard of a single UN member advocating this course.

I think you underestimate what a hate figure the US is in the middle east. The rest of the coalition are hated by proxy rather than for their own deeds, and to nowhere near the degree the US are.

I think Evo hit the nail on the head by bringing up a word that, as yet, has been little applied in the Iraq war debate: peacekeeping. In any other country at any other time, this would indeed be the buzzword linked to our efforts. However, in this corner of the world in this post-9/11 climate we instead hear only about quashing insurgencies and taking the fight to the terrorists. As such, where the obvious goal is peace, the methods used are ones of war. This is the biggest problem in Iraq right now IMO.

Another huge problem is, and forgive me for ranting about this yet again, the disguising of the complexity of the Iraq situation by use of tabloid-friendly, nationalist-rousing terminology. We don't even know who we are fighting.

There were those who are loyal to Saddam who fought for him. They may be fighting still.

There are those who are hateful of the west, who fight irrespective of their prior loyalties because their country was invaded by what they believe to be a force of evil.

There are those who welcomed the coalition, but have taken to arms after seeing the fallout of the invasion, who fight not for country or leader, but for family and honour.

There are opportunists who fight for their race and/or religion, who either see the war as means to gain the upper hand, or who fight to ensure they do not lose it.

Then there are the terrorists - more opportunists who use Iraq as a stage to further their cause.

The people they are fighting are sometimes the coalition, sometimes the US in particular, sometimes the government, particularly back in the early days of the US-placed interim government, sometimes other Iraqis of different ethnicity or creed, or sometimes whoever needs to be killed to further their own ends.

They are all just insurgents and terrorists in our newspapers and our governments' statements, and are treated as such. The most, then, we can hope to accomplish, is to kill people. That's it. As long as we do so, those who fought for Saddam or against the west have improved their cause, those who fight out of desperation and grief grow in number, those who fight each other cannot be said to be winning or losing and will continue to seize opportunities as they arise, and the whole country attracts terrorism like flies to excrement.

Unfortunately, the notion of peacekeeping, however desirable, is IMO unattainable in the current climate. The coalition as a whole and the US in particular are too controversial a presence to ever bring about peace, and so long as the US continue 'fight terror' rather than keep peace we have a situation where neither party wants what is fundementally required. I see little hope. It's not going to be WWIII - that will never happen - but the only thing we can expect is a long, drawn out 'situation' in Iraq, whatever that might be.

The only possible options I can think of, neither stated explicitly the poll so I won't vote, are: 1) withdraw and hope to everything holy that the UN resolve to begin a peacekeeping mission (yes, I'm laughing inside too); or 2) as per a previous post of mine on another thread, withdraw American troops alone and increase the presence of troops from other coalition countries in the hope that a zero American presence will at least remove some of the provocation. Both are high risk and neither are very likely to achieve their aims. The first requires a huge leap of faith and the second suffers the practical problem of not enough numbers to keep peace.

As such I vote, to quote Izzard, to have a sandwich. Probably the most important thing we can do right now is improve our image by eschewing the current shoot-now-think-later approach and addressing our human rights issues (jeez, I sound like Pat Bateman) in the hope that the Iraqi people might put a little more faith in us. I don't think this will happen under the Bush administration, which puts focus on 'shock and awe' and 'fighting terrorism' and none of diplomacy, human rights and accountability, and this sets the tone for the whole campaign whether others follow suit or not.

Hmmm... I'm an apathetic pessimistic idealist fatalist cynic. Is there a shorter word for that?!? (Cue the mindless insults...)

 

[pi-r8]

Because America is the same old arrogant, gun-ho, kick-ass ******* of a country as it was before March 2003. America has not realized that it is wrong to invade another country, that it is wrong to covet other's property (even if peak oil means systemactic destruction of its life style and mode of production), that it is wrong to lie. 2 1/2 years and many many lives later, there is no penance, there is not even attrition for its hair-standing behaviour.

This makes me so proud to be American. Seriously, I love this description of us.