Should we withdraw troops immediately?

[NewScientist]

SOS - the destruction of a country's infratructure to the point that foreign troops are needed is an issue that crosses all partisan boundaries, and 'cut and run' is the US most loved strategy I beleived.

 

[SOS2008]

SOS - the destruction of a country's infratructure to the point that foreign troops are needed is an issue that crosses all partisan boundaries, and 'cut and run' is the US most loved strategy I beleived.

Since initial destruction was due to the U.S. invasion, along with the current instability, etc., we do have responsibility to rectify this. How to best do this is the question. Now destruction has become ongoing due to insurgency. We need to defuse this by leaving (to nearby locations), and then continue reconstruction via UN peacekeeping security forces.

In regard to “cut and run” and U.S. history, I assume you are referring primarily to the Vietnam War. We were in this war of attrition for about 18 years. I would hardly call that “cut and run” and when we left, the area began to recover. As long as U.S. troops were there, the violence would have continued, with no end in sight.

My problem with staying in Iraq is this: The Vietnam War was during the Cold War and due to fear of spread of communism. Here is what Iraq is about (from one of my earlier posts):

The Wolfowitz desire for direct control in the region via military bases in Iraq (strategically located between Iran and Syria), primarily for oil, partly to protect Israel, and supposedly to prevent terrorism. (For more -
http://www.rense.com/general37/decep.htm And other links per Google: http://www.google.com/scholar?q=US+M...ocon+strategy))

If you have time, check out sources such as these. This is the real reason we are there (now), and when I see terrorism increasing, not decreasing, and look at the cost in blood and treasure, I say NO. I say:

1) We end dependency on oil by focusing on alternative sources of energy.
2) We sincerely work toward peace between Israel and their Arab neighbors from here at home.
3) We quit meddling in the area with puppet leaders such as the Shah, or even support of leaders like Saddam, and terrorism will decrease.

 

[NewScientist]

In regard to “cut and run” and U.S. history, I assume you are referring primarily to the Vietnam War. We were in this war of attrition for about 18 years. I would hardly call that “cut and run” and when we left, the area began to recover.

I was mainly referring to the first Gulf conflict where the Iraqi people, who had begun to throw off the shakckles of oppression, were let down by the US. And also Afghanistan.

My problem with staying in Iraq is this: The Vietnam War was during the Cold War and due to fear of spread of communism.

The most important words in that quote are 'fear of'. The apparent evils and dangers of something are what matters not the actual meance they posses. The American public, the western world, and maybe even Dubya himself are AFRAID of the spread of terrorism.

NS

 

[Informal Logic]

I was mainly referring to the first Gulf conflict where the Iraqi people, who had begun to throw off the shakckles of oppression, were let down by the US. And also Afghanistan.

The most important words in that quote are 'fear of'. The apparent evils and dangers of something are what matters not the actual meance they posses. The American public, the western world, and maybe even Dubya himself are AFRAID of the spread of terrorism.
NS

My understanding is there never was a significant effort toward revolution in Iraq. Perhaps you have a source with more information on this?

In reference to terrorism, attacks can and have already happened all around the world. Of course no one wants terrorism to increase. The argument is that US interference in the middle east is causing it to increase, not decrease. As far as I am concerned, Dubya is the one spreading fear and terrorism.

 

[BobG]

My understanding is there never was a significant effort toward revolution in Iraq. Perhaps you have a source with more information on this?
In reference to terrorism, attacks can and have already happened all around the world. Of course no one wants terrorism to increase. The argument is that US interference in the middle east is causing it to increase, not decrease. As far as I am concerned, Dubya is the one spreading fear and terrorism.

Since implementation of the northern no-fly zone after the first Gulf War, the Kurds have been working steadily towards autonomy. It's a little less confrontational than an outright declaration of independence, especially since Turkey and Iran would be just as upset as Iraq about the Kurds forming their own country.

The Kurds have been seeking their own country ever since European countries started withdrawing as colonial powers. Unfortunately for the Kurds, the region they habitat spans at least three different countries, leaving them a big minority in all three. Small scale uprisings that threatened to turn into a full-fledged revolution resulted in Hussein attacking the Kurds with chemical weapons. Up to 180,000 Kurds were killed by the attacks.

The Kurds did think they would receive support from the US after the first Gulf War, but I don't think they realized that the extent of the support would be enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. While they mounted a small scale 'insurgency', they still couldn't go to full-scale revolution when Hussein could still send in ground troops. Still, even if the support was less than what the Kurds expected, it did allow the Kurds to push their autonomy further and further without throwing Turkey and Iran into fits.

The Kurds at least seem a little more 'deserving' of help than the rest of the Iraq, considering they've been working towards independence for a long time, but now they're a problem. One thing you can count on is that the Kurds will eventually have their own independent country. It would be better for the US if that took awhile. A quick break-up of Iraq wouldn't help our hopes of reducing troop levels and, hopefully, getting out of Iraq completely within a reasonable amount of time.

 

[edward]

Good points BOB

But I think it is safe to say that Our troops will never be completely pulled out of Iraq until the oil in Iraq is under the control of a Western friendly Iraqi government and military. If we look for a common denominator in any possible future sceniaro in Iraq , it will always be oil.

 

[SOS2008]

Since implementation of the northern no-fly zone after the first Gulf War, the Kurds have been working steadily towards autonomy. It's a little less confrontational than an outright declaration of independence, especially since Turkey and Iran would be just as upset as Iraq about the Kurds forming their own country.
The Kurds have been seeking their own country ever since European countries started withdrawing as colonial powers. Unfortunately for the Kurds, the region they habitat spans at least three different countries, leaving them a big minority in all three. Small scale uprisings that threatened to turn into a full-fledged revolution resulted in Hussein attacking the Kurds with chemical weapons. Up to 180,000 Kurds were killed by the attacks.
The Kurds did think they would receive support from the US after the first Gulf War, but I don't think they realized that the extent of the support would be enforcement of the northern no-fly zone. While they mounted a small scale 'insurgency', they still couldn't go to full-scale revolution when Hussein could still send in ground troops. Still, even if the support was less than what the Kurds expected, it did allow the Kurds to push their autonomy further and further without throwing Turkey and Iran into fits.
The Kurds at least seem a little more 'deserving' of help than the rest of the Iraq, considering they've been working towards independence for a long time, but now they're a problem. One thing you can count on is that the Kurds will eventually have their own independent country. It would be better for the US if that took awhile. A quick break-up of Iraq wouldn't help our hopes of reducing troop levels and, hopefully, getting out of Iraq completely within a reasonable amount of time.

True about the Kurds and a long-existing desire to secede. I think NewScientist is referring to Bush Sr. and his call for the Iraqis as a whole to overthrow Saddam. A significant, nation-wide revolt was never attempted.

As for terrorism, our presence in Iraq has fueled recruitment and training of terrorists. This is reason alone to pull back and seek other ways to assist Iraq.

 

[BobG]

At least there's a few positive developments: Sunni-Kurd deal may help Iraq form new government

That would be a shock if their political coalition actually holds together against the Shiites religious bloc of seats. It's hard to imagine the Kurds being politically aligned with the Sunnis, especially considering some of the problems in mixed Sunni/Kurd regions and especially in the regions where the primary reason for the mixed populations was Hussein's nervousness about the number of Kurds living in the same region as the northern oil fields.

Of course, it's a long way from a broad outline of an agreement to actually forming a functioning political alliance, but at least it's somewhat hopeful.

 

[Astronuc]

U.S. Strike on Home Kills 9 in Family, Iraqi Officials Say
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and OMAR AL-NEAMI, NY Times, January 4, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 3 - American F-14 warplanes killed nine members of an Iraqi family, including women and young children, during a bombing and cannon strike on Monday night that obliterated a home near the northern industrial city of Baiji, Iraqi officials said Tuesday.

If the US forces are this careless, then its time to leave, or at least scale back. Such mistakes will only produce more resentment and anger.

At least there's a few positive developments: Sunni-Kurd deal may help Iraq form new government

Indeed a positive development - and we need more. I would hope that the Sunnis and Kurds can find sympathetic Shiite groups.

 

[Amp1]

SOS posted

The Wolfowitz desire for direct control in the region via military bases in Iraq (strategically located between Iran and Syria), primarily for oil, partly to protect Israel, and supposedly to prevent terrorism.

I agree SOS, also there is a desire to control the oil as Edward pointed out. The desire to control the oil is the primary reason for the invasion.
The Unicol oil company had or have a contract to build a pipeline thru Afghanistan to bring oil from the Caspian Sea to Iraq but because there wasn't a western friendly Gov't in place in both Iraq and Afghanistan, they couldn't ...now things have changed.

 

[edward]

I agree SOS, also there is a desire to control the oil as Edward pointed out. The desire to control the oil is the primary reason for the invasion.
The Unicol oil company had or have a contract to build a pipeline thru Afghanistan to bring oil from the Caspian Sea to Iraq but because there wasn't a western friendly Gov't in place in both Iraq and Afghanistan, they couldn't ...now things have changed.

And I am sure it is no surprise to anyone that Haliburton was to be the contractor to build that pipline.

 

[Skyhunter]

And I am sure it is no surprise to anyone that Haliburton was to be the contractor to build that pipline.

Just a coincidence. This is the most coincidental administration in history, so read nothing into all these coincidences. They are just coincidences.

 

[Amp1]

Correct-da-mundo Skyhunter,

This admin abounds in coincidences, Haliburton just happens to be 'Cheney's baby' and it gets lucrative no-bid contracts, Haliburton over-charges and when caught pays back a tiny fraction of the amount - gets away with the contract still intact and minor slap on the wrist, ~going back a bit - Bin Laden family members evacuated by private charter after getting permission to fly from a highly placed authority, who just happens to have grounded all other planes with the exception of the AF. AF jets given stand-down order after receiving word of hijack and learning other suspect planes were in the air approaching DC airspace and not allowed to take-off til after WTC was either hit or it was to late to stop the towers from being hit. Of course, the comspiracy sites have many more such instances. ~back to the present, Diebold CEO just happens to be big supporter and gets to install electronic machines in strategic positions, oh, curiously their software is compromisable and unverifiable.