Should we withdraw troops immediately?

[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.

 

[BobG]

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.

It's not necessarily worse than trying to make all three groups fit into one country, but it does bring its own set of problems.

Turkey and Iran (plus a couple other countries) would not want an independent Kurdish state (perhaps violently so). As is, the Kurdish region overlaps several countries. None of those countries would welcome giving up portions of the land in their country, but, that wouldn't necessarily be required. Those countries also can't afford to have nearly all of the Kurdish residents emigrate to an independent Kurdistan. Even if Turkey and Iran don't just come right out and go to war with a Kurdish state, both could be counted on to support Sunnis looking to recover some of the wealth they would feel they lost to the Kurds and Shiites.

A Shiite state in the southern part of the country could work, but would be more likely to institute a theocratic state without the pressures of the Sunnis and Kurds to worry about. I'm not sure this would really be a problem, even if it's not what the US hoped to accomplish by invading.

Right now, most of the problems are concentrated in the Sunni region, although Shiite groups pushing for a theocracy have caused some problems in the South. Unless a way to get the buy-in of Turkey and Iran, I think a break-up would increase the amount of the country in turmoil, instead of improve things.

 

[Art]

<snip> Even if Turkey and Iran don't just come right out and go to war with a Kurdish state, both could be counted on to support Sunnis looking to recover some of the wealth they would feel they lost to the Kurds and Shiites.

Iran wouldn't help the Sunnis. Iran is Shi'ite. All Turkey would need is a guarantee about the integrity of their current borders. The Kurds would certainly not be in a position to follow an expansionist policy so this shouldn't present a problem. The possibility of the Turks making a land grab will also aid the US as it means their troops will be welcomed by the Kurds as a deterrant to Turkey.

A Shiite state in the southern part of the country could work, but would be more likely to institute a theocratic state without the pressures of the Sunnis and Kurds to worry about. I'm not sure this would really be a problem, even if it's not what the US hoped to accomplish by invading.
Right now, most of the problems are concentrated in the Sunni region, although Shiite groups pushing for a theocracy have caused some problems in the South. Unless a way to get the buy-in of Turkey and Iran, I think a break-up would increase the amount of the country in turmoil, instead of improve things.

At the moment all of Iraq will come under Iranian influence due to the Iranian relationship with the majority Shi'ites (the US has already had to veto a mutual defence pact between the Iranian gov't and the new Iraqi gov't), at least this way less than a third of the land mass will be under Iranian theocratic influence and the internecine warfare will be largely confined to central and western Iraq which has no oil and so will not have such an effect on world markets.

To recap by area,

The north - The Kurds will not present a problem US troops will ensure no interference from Turkey. This area can then be made democratic and prosperous due to it's oil.

The central and western regions - Remove all US and other coalition troops. There will be a power struggle between the poor (as in poverty stricken) Shi'ites led by Sadr and the Sunnis which will keep both sides busy and should tie up the foreign fighters as well. An added bonus from the US point of view is it should also tie up Syria who would then have to worry about fighters from Iraq going into their country to cause mayhem rather than the other way around.

The south - The Shi'ites here are getting what they want so it wouldn't be in their interest to rock the boat. Again this area could be made into a democracy albeit with a strong theocratic flavour and again as a prosperous oil producing region it should remain stable.

After partion it would also be possible to replace the US troops with UN forces in the north and south but given the UN's pathetic history in armed conflicts I just don't see them accomplishing anything. In recent conflicts they seem to surrender at the drop of a hat and seem better at playing the role of hostage than soldier.

 

[Anttech]

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.

Ever been to the Balkans?

I have.

I know what happened, so you don't have to patronise me :-).

I was referring to the message pertained within this quote "leaving the fate of Yugoslavia to what we see today," to me it says that there are problems there right now. -- Which there aren't, bar poverty.

Moving forward when these countries join the EU they will be pulled out of this situation also.

 

[Anttech]

did you sleep through the 90's?

Again refer to the post above..

There are no PROBLEMS in the balkans RIGHT NOW! There WERE problems as you sarcastically said in the 90's!

Amazing...

 

[Anttech]

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

Hooray Thank you :-) hehe

 

[BobG]

Iran wouldn't help the Sunnis. Iran is Shi'ite. All Turkey would need is a guarantee about the integrity of their current borders. The Kurds would certainly not be in a position to follow an expansionist policy so this shouldn't present a problem. The possibility of the Turks making a land grab will also aid the US as it means their troops will be welcomed by the Kurds as a deterrant to Turkey.

It's not the land grab that's the problem. Turkey and Iran can't afford having Kurdish labor leave en masse.

While the US might not like the way a break up develops, it could actually be stabilizing. Iran stepping in as the mediator between the Iraqi Shiites and Iraqi Sunnis to direct Sunni aggression northward instead of southward. Turkey would be happy. Arab Sunni states to the west would be happy. The Kurds would be unhappy, but there's not many Kurdish sympathizers among the Arab countries. (In fact, the US supporting an independent Kurdish state might wind up nearly as unpopular as US support for Israel.)

What happens if and when the US withdraws its troops is just very unpredictable. One thing is for sure, though. The idea that the withdrawal of US troops or the threat of US withdrawal will improve Iraq's ability to enforce their own security is just wrong. The Iraqi government and infrastructure isn't weak because Iraq can lean on the US - it's weak regardless of whether or not the US is there.

The assessment that a US presence isn't helping matters might be valid, but withdrawing immediately is pretty much accepting whatever comes after, whether it's democracy, a new dictator, theocracy, or genocide. If the assessment is that the US is just postponing the inevitable, then withdrawing is the best option - but it's about as tough a decision as removing life support from someone.

 

[Art]

The assessment that a US presence isn't helping matters might be valid, but withdrawing immediately is pretty much accepting whatever comes after, whether it's democracy, a new dictator, theocracy, or genocide. If the assessment is that the US is just postponing the inevitable, then withdrawing is the best option - but it's about as tough a decision as removing life support from someone.

I agree. It would be messy for sections of the Iraqi population in the area abondoned but I guess I am proposing the best solution for America and it's oil interests. From a coldly analytical point of view I believe my proposal would best serve America's goals in invading Iraq and will allow them to say they brought democracy to at least most of the country the alternative is years of a simmering civil war across all of Iraq.

Having said that if they did what I suggest I'd be amongst the first to condemn them for stirring up this hornets' nest in the first place and leaving a large section of the populace to suffer in it's aftermath but at this point pandora's box is well and truly open and so it's all about damage limitation now rather than democratic crusades fought on behalf of the (un)grateful hordes.

 

[Skyhunter]

Excellent points. Both Art and BobG.

I may be naive to think this but I believe the situation can be salvaged.

9/11 convinced me of the power of disasters to motivate people and nations. Leaving a power vacuum in Iraq would be a disaster.

Even though he doesn't have a lot of credibility right now, there is one thing Bush has going for him. He has demonstrated to the world that he is willing to create a disaster!

 

[kat]

Again refer to the post above..
There are no PROBLEMS in the balkans RIGHT NOW! There WERE problems as you sarcastically said in the 90's!
Amazing...

heh..after ten years of military occupation and still..you think there are no problems? Wanna talk about "quagmires", now there was one for you.

 

[Moonbear]

I voted for option 2, but I would emphasize that those goals need to be very clearly stated as to be attainable, and that the onus be put on the Iraqis to meet the goals while we provide support to maintain stability. Further, there needs to be some realistic timelines for meeting those goals. At some point, they have to pick up and run their own country again, and if the deadlines for goals aren't met, and real progress isn't being made toward them, then they'll have to do it on their own, which may not be an altogether bad thing. Perhaps our presence is hindering their progress rather than helping.

 

[SOS2008]

Three brigades may be cut in Iraq in early 2006
Some U.S. troops would remain ‘on call’ in Kuwait

Updated: 11:19 a.m. ET Nov. 23, 2005

Barring any major surprises in Iraq, the Pentagon tentatively plans to reduce the number of U.S. forces there early next year by as many as three combat brigades, from 18 now, but to keep at least one brigade "on call" in Kuwait in case more troops are needed quickly, several senior military officers said.

Pentagon authorities also have set a series of "decision points" during 2006 to consider further force cuts that, under a "moderately optimistic" scenario, would drop the total number of troops from more than 150,000 now to fewer than 100,000, including 10 combat brigades, by the end of the year, the officers said.

…All the officers who spoke about the troop plans stressed that final decisions will come only after the Dec. 15 vote. But they described the moves as likely, assuming no major turn for the worse in Iraq. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to discuss the plans. They also were unable to provide an exact figure for how many troops would remain in Iraq after the initial reductions take effect next year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10166449/page/2/

After the arm-twisting by Dems via a closed door session in the Senate, who then took the brunt of name calling, including Republican attacks on Murtha, this article presents the possibility of some draw-down as a Pentagon concept, and even refers to a quote from Rummy. It only mentions in passing that this concept is the same as Murtha’s “call for withdrawal last week,” who “also suggested retaining a quick-reaction force in the region as well as Marines within a short sailing time away.” (Damn liberal media.)

But we’ll have to wait and see what really transpires…

 

[Anttech]

heh..after ten years of military occupation and still..you think there are no problems? Wanna talk about "quagmires", now there was one for you.

Do you know any Croates? Do you know any Serbs? Do you know any Albanians? Do you know any Greeks? Do you know any Romanians? Do you know anyone from Macedonia?

You probably don't even know which area of Europe actually is the "Balkans" just so you can grasp where the “Balkans” is in Europe its the whole of the “south east”

Try and brush up on your Geography before you jump on the sledging bandwagon.

None of the above mentioned countries are currently under occupation or are currently at war… Are you disputing this fact Kat?

Why do I even rise to this... sigh

 

[Smurf]

None of the above mentioned countries are currently under occupation or are currently at war… Are you disputing this fact Kat?

Not really, They're just not under foreign occupation. They're still occupied. Just like France is occupied by the French Army.

 

[Anttech]

Not really, They're just not under foreign occupation. They're still occupied. Just like France is occupied by the French Army.

France is occupied by the French army?

Bar the semantics, what exacatly are you getting at? This is the first time I have heard anyone use "occupied" with in the context we are dissusing, in this way.

 

[Smurf]

It's just a technicality. France is occupied by the French Army which maintains control of France for the French government.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's just a technicality. France is occupied by the French Army which maintains control of France for the French government.

So if the French army were to fail in its occupation there would be a spontaneous uprising of he French people? To install what...?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure how it works for France, but in the US, the military is not allowed to conduct such operations in-country. Thus it would not be appropriate to say the US military "occupies" the US. I rather suspect France is the same way.

 

[Art]

Not really, They're just not under foreign occupation. They're still occupied. Just like France is occupied by the French Army.

I presume this is meant to be a facetious comment rather than a serious contention?

 

[Smurf]

Not facetious, trivial and unimportant, but not facetious.

 

[McGyver]

We've Already Achieved Nearly All Bush's Pre-War Objectives

I do believe we've already achieved most all of Bush's pre-war objectives regarding the war in Iraq. Perhaps the only one remaining is that of normalaized flow of oil - but that will take time as religious sect tensions continue to feed violence.

Pre War Objectives:
1. Remove Saddam Hussein from power = done
2. Seek and destroy WMDs and capability = done
3. Pres. Bush to land on carrier in pilot duds = done
4. Show rest of world we can do it alone = done
5. Institute PR campaign on Democracy = done
6. Return oil flows to pre-sanction era capacity = not done

I don't recall much pre-war discussion about turning Iraq into a Democracy. And we did institute Bush's PR agenda. We can't be held accountable for the Iraqi people not liking the U.S. invasion and present occupation. If they would chill their race/religious sect rioting, we would leave. It's that simple. We can't make them like each other - and I don't believe that was ever part of the U.S. objectives. At some point in time, they as a country must come together and stop the in-fighting. We should move a significant portion of our troops away from the cities, and station them mostly near the borders and critical oil areas. If we do as Rep. Murtha proposed, it's not cut and run. It's more like we've achieved most of our objectives - now we want you boys to take over. See ya!

We'll be back over yonder. Just hollar if you need some help.

Such a strategy would certainly send a clear message to those that keep fighting, and those to chicken to stop it, "Get your sssshhh together!"