Cutting and Running in Iraq

Great Debates
41

Lets see some options. Options depends on what we think will happen when for example US troops withdraw.

The ones I think are YES:

  1. Will US troops leaving reduce reasons for islamic militants from other countries to go to Iraq ?
  2. Will it remove some of the “legitimacy” of insurgents ? No americans = no holy war ?
  3. Will bringing in many more arabic “peacekeeping” troops help ?
  4. Will taking out Bush from the picture make it easier to negotiate ?
  5. Is it in the interest of Arab neighbors to see the US stuck in Iraq ?

The ones I think are NO:

  1. Is any form of US sponsored Iraqi government legitimate to Arab neighbors ?

  2. Will more troops help the political situation ? (might help military only)

  3. Will “stay the course” be sufficient in the long run ? If things stay as they are would Iraq stabilize even in the long run ?

    Don’t know questions:

  4. Will giving much more full support to Shia dominance help stop the insurgency ?

  5. Is political compromise at all viable ?

42

As for splitting up Iraq… it might work short term and with quite some bloodshed. Eventually though they would go to war. Avoiding a civil war to create another kind of war seems counterproductive.

I think as is… Iraq isn’t “working”. Just “staying course” isn’t enough. Either Bush changes plan or becomes a bit more humble. Too much is to be gained from keeping Iraq a mess for their neighbors and for China for example.

43

On your first question, I’d say the answer is both.

On your second question, I’d say cutting and running doesn’t make the situation better. But my point is that staying doesn’t make the situation better either, and carries its own heavy cost. This is the tragedy of the situation there – whatever we do, the chances of a nice, neat outcome aren’t high, and never were, not from day one.

44

A pullout now doesn’t just risk our credibility or world stature.

It risks plunging the world into a global depression.

Consider the current makeup of Iraq: Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. (And other, smaller ethnic groups, I know; bear with me.)

Consider that each of these three groups has a stake in the future of Iraq . . . and that each of the three could pull a neighboring country into a wider conflict. Saudi Arabia would feel compelled to protect its Sunni kin, likewise Iran and its Shiites, and Turkey doesn’t want anything resembling a Kurdish homeland carved out of Iraq, because then the Kurd-dominated regions of Turkey will demand secession.

If the United States pulls out, the civil strife will certainly widen; if that were the case, there’s a possibility that Saudi and Iranian oil production will be targeted.

Oil’s already near $60 a barrel. If Saudi Arabia and Iran cease or interrupt production, $8 a gallon for gas would be the least of our problems. World economic productivity would be hammered by skyrocketing energy prices (think of all those third-world factories that could be shut down); inflation and unemployment throughout the world would spiral upwards . . . scary shit, indeed.
I’ve never wanted this war and I think that our president is a fucking idiot for starting it. But I have to say that I think that some of those calling for a pullout are doing so because they want to give Dubya a black eye. There are larger ramifications here than his legacy that we have to consider.

So my solution? First, eliminate all of the tax cuts that our esteemed leader has pushed through, so that we can begin to pay for this fuckup.

Second: UN control. As Professor Juan Cole has stated, the UN has more credibility within Iraq than the US does. The US could provide logistical and financial support for a peacekeeping force made up of, say, third-world countries that could use the money. This would allow the political process of reconciling Iraq to begin, again under UN and not American auspices.
Can this happen? Maybe. The Bush administration and the UN regard each other with mutual disdain, and I don’t know how much worse the situation has to get before both parties can look past their differences and try to seek a solution. In addition, I have little hope that the neocons are able to put practicalities before politics. Sad to say, moving forward on this might not happen unless the GOP suffers terrible losses in the 2006 midterm elections, and think of how many more Americans and Iraqis will die between now and then.

45

But I’m not saying that staying WILL make the situation better…I’m just saying that if there is any hope at all that the situation MAY be better, its for the US to continue to provide some level of stability by staying there…at least till the Iraqi’s have a chance to get their shit together. It may well be that the Iraqi’s NEVER get their shit together and that this whole mess is destined to break down to a vicious multi-sided civil war…possibly even dragging in several of the other nations in the region to boot. It may be that the blood bath in Iraq is inevitable and that there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Its too early right now to tell IMHO. And as long as the possibility that the Iraqi’s may still get their shit together, that they may actually get a constitution ratified and that they may actually elect a government that is at least acceptable to the majority of Iraqi’s and is reasonably stable…well, I think that the sacrifice of the US staying there, of our service men and women and of the huge amounts of money poured in is worth it…for the time being.

Again, IMHO, its simply still too early to say that there is no hope left at all, and that the only thing we can do is cut our loses, tuck tail and run back to the US. Thats the EASY way out for us…we can, after all, go back to the US which is thousands of miles away and peaceful as we did in Vietnam. Its the Iraqi’s (and the others in the region) who will be left holding the bag for our fuckup. To me…thats just not right.

-XT

46

Ok Xtisme… as things are now… do you think the plan, money and the troops available are sufficient ? Do you think if things stay as they are now chances will increase or decrease for peace ?

47

It’s a fair point, but for me, the issue is, how do you know when enough is enough? You keep thinking that you’re about to turn the corner, and before you know it, you’ve lost five years, a trillion dollars and 5,000 soldiers, and you’re still no closer to a solution.

I mean, we’ve been there over two years already. What are we suddenly going to pull out of the hat to make this work?

48

As I understand it, the House is very close to completing the first step in an Amendment to permit making flag desecration illegal. A triumphant victory over evil, freedom-hating liberals, which is just as good as a real one.

49

Please RM…its just XT. :slight_smile:

As to your questions:

When you say ‘the plan’, I assume you mean the Iraqi’s plan to ratify their new constitution and form their new government, to basically find a way to tie this new government to the Iraqi people so they feel its THEIR government, and to bring in the biggest coalition of the various divergent Iraqi factions that they can to legitimize their government. To all that I’ll say…haven’t a clue. I am not Iraqi so any thoughts I have on what I think is best for them is, at best, a lot of hot air. I just know it all hinges on what THEY do in making this government.

Money? I think that there is sufficient funds going into Iraq to allow them the chance to make a new government work.

Troops? I think that there are sufficient troops atm…I don’t really see how more troops would make a difference. What would they do? Put a squad out on every street? Obviously there are sufficient troops to enable the US/coalition/Iraqi military to launch various offensives against suspected insurgent concentration yet still provide some level of security. No ammount of troops in the world is sufficient to stop all or even most insurgent type attacks…after all, THEY get to pick the time and place where they will attack. All we can do is react, no matter how many troops we bring there. What will change that? I think having a perminent Iraqi government in place that is tied to the majority of Iraqi’s (and one that at least addresses the three major factions). That should bring in a large percentage of the home grown Iraqi insurgents and isolate the foreign fighter types…especially since it seems to me that THEY are the ones doing most of the atrocities aimed directly at the Iraqi people.

As things stand now, increase or decrease in the chance for peace? I think things right now are static…its neither getting better or worse generally speaking. As I’ve said, what I think COULD tip the balance isn’t more US military, or the US military doing anything different, but the Iraqi’s themselves…and their government. Certainly I think there COULD be an increase in peace IF the Iraqi government makes the right moves…and a decrease if they don’t. However, I’m pretty confident that there WILL be a huged decrease in peace if the US pulls out.

-XT

50

And your’s is a fair point too. How do we know when enough is enough? No idea. It just seems premature to start talking about leaving before the Iraqi’s really have their chance to ratify a constitution and build a new government. The reality though is that the point where ‘enough is enough’ will be when the political will to stay in Iraq crumbles in this country as it did in Vietnam. I see the early signs today that the process is starting. How long will it be? Again, no idea…but I’d say the clock is definitely ticking.

Well, we’ve been there over 2 years, certainly…but its only been recently that the ball has really been rolling on having the Iraqi’s build a new government. Nothing is going to ‘suddenly’ make this magically all work…its going to take the Iraqi’s themselves to make this work. It will succeed or fail by their actions at this point…and all we can do is buy them time to at least make the attempt.

Um…right 'luci. Whatever you say. :slight_smile:

-XT

51

Telling parents that their kids died for for a lie is easy? I think it’s far easier to continue throwing good money after bad, body after body, and praying that by some unspecified miracle, everything will work out for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

52

Old Horseshit (July 2003)

New Horseshit (Feb 2005)

It is NOT too much to ask for some discussion from the administration that doesn’t involve beacons of freedom or shining cities on hills.

53

My son is scheduled to go to Iraq sometime this year…I don’t think his risking his life (his decision) is for a lie, but to save lives. Iraqi lives. Iraqi lives WE fucked up by invading their country. This kind of rhetoric just doesn’t help much. We are there now…its reality. Reguardless of WHY we are there, it would be throwing body after body into the fire for us to leave. If you want to rail against Bush and his merry men for getting us into this, fine by me…knock yourself out. There is a Fuck Bush thread in the pit right now in fact…you can vent all you like on him all you like there.

I’m not counting on some ‘unspecified miracle’ so that everything will work out. I’ve laid out broadly what needs to happen for this situation to be resolved in Iraq. You have yet to address what will happen if you get your dream and we pull out of Iraq tomorrow. Certainly you will get tons of political capital and get to crow that Bush failed, America failed, we have a huge black eye, blah blah blah. Great. And there won’t be anymore American deaths in Iraq, and we won’t be being bled white pouring money into the country. Again, thats great. What happens to the Iraqi’s? If there is a blood bath, which seems pretty likely to me, will you just shrug and blame Bush for it all? Will it ease your consious, make you feel better…or will you give it not a second thought since its all Bush’s fault?

-XT

54

My two cents:

We shouldn’t have started the Damn Fool War[sup]TM[/sup] to begin with. But having started it, we are now obligated to clean up the mess we’ve made. Even a child understands this.

Way to build a straw man there, xtisme. Or are you just channeling your frustration in supporting this stupid venture to begin with?

55

Hey, a new children’s crusade! Now, why didn’t we think of that earlier?

56

It is throwing body after body into the fire for us to stay.
We tried to catalyze a painless regime change in Iraq; from dictatorship to democracy, without an intervening civil war. It didn’t work. Now we have a civil war, and we’re stuck in the middle of it. That war will happen whether American troops hang around trying to prop up our puppet regime or not. Our very presence as occupiers polarizes many Iraqi’s against the government (cite). In order to minimize bloodshed, American and Iraqi, we need to pull out, and let them get the damned war over with. If the Iraqi’s are yearning for freedom and democracy as strongly as we’ve heard, they’ll emerge victorious, and build that beacon of freedom, that city on the hill. If not, US soldiers running around trying to protect an dream that can’t compete in the Iraqi marketplace of ideas will serve no useful purpose.

57

One thing our president could do with his speech next tuesday to allay the fears Iraqi’s have of a permanent occupation would be to plainly state that the US does NOT intend to have permanent bases, or a permanent presence in Iraq. This could do much to allay the country’s anti-American sentiments, and might even knock a few boards out from under the feet of the insurgency.

58

Well, perhaps it is a strawman on my part. Obviously I think that if the US pulls out Iraq will go up in flames. Perhaps others don’t feel that way. So…I’ll ask again…just what do folks who think the US should pull out of Iraq feel will happen to the Iraqi’s? This next part might be another strawman on my part but: Do those who want the US to pull out care what will happen to the Iraqi’s since its all Bush’s fault anyway?

True enough…its all a matter of magnitude though. If staying costs X number of American lives and Y number of Iraqi lives per month…but going costs no American but YxN number of additional deaths, then staying seems the better course to me…as long as there is still hope of a peaceful resolution of this. And I’ve yet to see anything indicating that all hope is gone, or that a peaceful resolution is impossible or even improbable.

I don’t agree…I don’t think we ARE in the middle of a full blown civil war. Yet. If we pull out there certainly will be one (IMO anyway). There is an insurgency going on, no doubt…but a civil war would be orders of magnitude hotter. Each faction would field ARMIES, as well as insurgents and terrorists from each side going after the other. IMHO the Sunni would probably be massacred eventually, and that would probably bring in outside nations…which would bring in other outside nations. And this is what you seem to think is the best for the Iraqi’s…instead of waiting at least until the Iraqi’s actually get their government/military in order.

So…we don’t even give them a chance to make a new government or ratify a constitution? We just pull the rug out from under them because they need to get on with the killing? We don’t even TRY to prevent such blood shed? And…you really feel this is for the best? Instead of your 100’s of dead a month on the Iraqi side and the current trickle of casualties on the US side, its better to ramp that up perhaps an order of magnitude? Perhaps more?

And if I kick you hard in the nuts and smash you in the head, how well will you defend yourself against some guy trying to mug you afterward? Essentially thats exactly what we did to the Iraqi’s…we destroyed their military and their government. So, having done that, we now want to pull out our shield and let them sink or swim. If they want freedom and democracy they’ll just have to make do? Bummer about that handycap we gave you…good luck? Man, you aren’t asking for much, are you?

-XT

59

Since, as the Vice President so loudly proclaims, the insurgency is in its “last throes,” it shouldn’t be too long before we can declare “Mission Accomplished” and leave.

To follow Nixon’s plan of “Vietnamization,” we could simply turn to the Iraqis and say “OK, you have to finish this. We’re going home. Pardon me while I go get on the helicopter that’s on the roof.”

60

I think, as you suggest, that Iraq will go up in flames. But I think the same would be true even if we stayed 50 years. Look at Yugoslavia – Tito kept a lid on things for decades, and as soon as he died, things started to unravel, and the country ended up in flames. Ancient sectarian hatreds are not easily laid to rest – particularly when the society is under so much stress anyway, as Iraqi society is right now.

I think you’re right that cutting and running tomorrow is probably not the thing to do. But we couldn’t do that anyway. It would make better sense for us to announce we’re leaving in, say, six months’ time. That would give the Iraqis a sense of urgency, and if things didn’t work out, then we could conclude that they weren’t going to work out anyway.

Is it ugly to go in and screw up a country and then bail on it? You bet. That’s why we should have never gone in there in the first place. The chances of a successful outcome were too low.