In a perfect world, this should be in IMHO, but as the war generally elicits strong emotions, I ask the question here.
I am a supporter of Obama for many reasons, but my support is not based on his Iraq position. I just cannot get around the fact that the US pulling out of Iraq would destabilize the region (even more than it already is).
I don’t know that we can leave Iraq given that we messed it up so badly. Sadly, it is probably fair that we have to spend American lives and resources rather than destabilize the region. I guess my view on the war is that we screwed up big time, and we have to pay the price. Granted my fat ass is not on the front line and if it were, I would advocate a swift withdrawal and full surrender!
I am not a big supporter of McCain’s position (I think he wants to invade Iran, and I find that absurd given the strain on our military and our low standing in the world), but I think that withdrawal would likely hurt as much as staying (or more).
Just looking at the situation, I don’t see how the US can pull out (even within a few years) without creating even more turmoil. So, I think Obama may not fully deliver on his promise to pull out within a short period of time (which would not be a big “flip flop” as he has wisely been careful with his rhetoric).
So, my question is what weight does the left (on this issue) give to the condition in which we would leave Iraq when advocating a swift withdrawal?
As “not supposed to be our problem”, just like in 2002.
It is our problem, unfortunately, thanks to the Adventurer-in-Chief, and his partners in crime. But we don’t get a vote in how the mess gets cleaned up, or what the clean-up looks like. Just the bill. Thanks again, Shrubya!
Obama has backed off the notion of just leaving Iraq and seems committed to the notion we need to hang around awhile and sort things out. Obama, near as I can tell, feels Iraq needs to take a much stronger and proactive role in its own security and governance (something Obama feels they have been overly lax on). Of course the devil is in the details and how well and how fast we can bring that about, if ever, is open to debate but clearly just packing up and leaving would be an unmitigated disaster for the Iraqis.
I expect that once we leave, the Iraqi’s will commence to work out their own destiny, instead of being forced to rely on us to provide whatever destiny we choose to endow them with.
Who knows, maybe they’ll all become radical libertarians?
Your question is predicated on an assumption: that our presence in Iraq positively contributes to whatever stability there is. Why would we believe that? Are we somehow preventing violence?
We are offered the relative lack of violence in Iraq as proof that the “surge” has worked. This may be, Lord knows there is little enough certainty in the situation. But there are any number of other factors in play here, chief among them, IMO, is the “end game” state of the ethinic cleasning, the ethnic cleansing has, for all practial purposes been completed. There is no crime to prevent, the crime has been committed, and we are in no position to stuff the genii back into the bottle.
I lean toward the proposition that foreign troops where they are not wanted are occuppiers, their peace-keeping intentions or pretensions notwithstanding. Absent an overwhelming approval of the native people subjected, their presence cannot be anything but provocative. Put baldly, they do not want us there, and we should go.
I have next to no faith whatever that the Bushiviks are motivated by a deep and abiding concern for the well-being of the Iraqi people, I find their claims disingenuous at best. It appears as though the motivation is to keep American troops there for as long as possible, by whatever expedient is functional. I am at a loss to explain their actions any other way. They are quick to claim that any downturn in violence is directly a result of thier prescience and wisdom, and to attribute any uptick in violence to factors beyond their control.
What will happen if and when we leave? I don’t know. Past experience says that any good that results they will lay claim to, any evil that ensues will be blamed on the Dirty Fucking Hippies.
There already is an unmitigated disaster. The unmitigated disaster was created by introducing an invasion force into the country. If you want me to believe our presence is preventing a further deterioration, you need to offer some evidence beyond faith-based reasoning.
Things are unstable all over the world. People are being killed in Darfur and Burma and Nigeria and Sri Lanka. Does that mean Americans should be there in the middle of things, getting killed alongside the locals?
Our presense in Iraq is not solving the problems that exist there. So what purpose does our presense serve?
Let the Iraqis have their civil war after we withdraw, if they must; it will be for the best in the long run, just as the conquest of South Vietnam by the Northern Communist government was for the best in the long run, if you look at Vietnam today. Best-case scenario, their government averts civil war by coming within Iran’s sphere of influence, and that’s not such a bad prospect for the Iraqis either. The Iranians at least understand a lot more than we do about Iraqi culture, and the two countries have been one at some periods in the past.
This is an extremely complex question that I won’t embarass myself by going into with details, but I will say that one of the biggest reasons I supported Obama over Hillary policy-wise was that I thought the notion of an exact “we will be withdrawn by this date” was insane and invitation to “insurgents: just wait it out and we’ll be out of your way- now be good insurgents and don’t attack us when we’re down to a few thousand troops”.
It would seem to me that it will have to be gradual, there will have to be a stronghold that the U.S. troops “contract” towards as they withdraw (but that remains strong enough not to garner attack) and that when the last men are out we should not even leave behind an embassy until stability is assured. Iraq is an “artificial” country to begin with, only a strong-man bastard like Hussein is going to have a chance of ruling it successfully, and I think that partitioning is the only thing that would really work, but the U.N. would probably scream like scalded monkeys if that happened.
I think there is more than ample evidence of sectarian stress underlying Iraqi society these days despite a lowering of Sunni/Shiite violence recently. Further I think, given a chance, Iran will seek to destabilize Iraq in any way possible to ensure both a Shiite state emerges as well as keeping Iraq more as a client state than a potential rival in the region (not to mention no love is lost between Iranians and Iraqis).
And have the Kurds ever been sorted out in their future role in Iraq?
I agree it is appalling and a disaster that the US ever started this whole adventure but we stuck our foot in it and I think there should at least be an honest attempt to leave the country in some semblance of order after all this. No idea if we can succeed in doing that but I think we have to try.
It is a bit tricky. It was not an unstable region before we went in. Iraq helped counterbalance the Irani power. We eliminated them, now Iran is the most powerful.
There is oil. Everybody wants that. We have no intention of allowing that to get away from our corporations. But can we protect them long term ? Turkey has a claim to Northern Iraq. Just happens to be oil there. Saudi Arabia is eying more oil. They are a military power too. Countries love to annex more area. If it can be swallowed up without a war it is hard to resist. But the Iraq government does not have control. even with us there. If we leave they will be dead meat.
Even though Iraq is a fairly recent configuration, the Iraqis actually had a sense of nationalism. Does it still exist with enough power to hold together? I do not know. we made a real mess.
I don’t recall Hillary advocating a strict withdrawal date anymore than Obama did. They both emphasized that during the primary, but there was always some fine print about a “safe” withdrawal.
Anyway, I think Obama knows very well he ain’t getting all the combat troops out in 16 months. He’ll start the draw-down process, though, and maybe get the Iraqi government to try and get some stuff done instead of just relying on the US. It’ll be an iterative process, but I’d be surprised if we had any less than 50k combat troops in Iraq in 2012. Anything smaller would be too vulnerable to attack. It’s either some sizable contingent or none at all. And by “none” I mean no troops of any kind-- no embassy guards, not mechanics to keep the equipment operating and no training personnel, nada. The idea that we can remove all the “combat troops” and leave “non-combat troops” there is ludicrous.
AFAIK, as others have said, Obama has backed away from an immediate withdraw strategy and is taking a much more ‘wait and see’ approach…which I think is wise of him, though it might piss off the anti-war types who were hoping that Obama would be issuing the cut and run papers seconds after taking his oath of office.
So…you needn’t worry about your support for Obama conflicting with your view that the US shouldn’t leave Iraq before they are stable enough to handle it…least, that’s not my take on Obama’s current stance.
I actually think that Obama’s realistic stance will turn out to be no different than McCain’s (would have been had he been elected). That is to say that once Obama is in office I seriously doubt he COULD simply pull the plug on Iraq, even assuming he wanted to. Certainly not in the current environment…and maybe not even if it goes back to the bad old days of a year or so ago.
He won’t…though I don’t actually think he ever PROMISED to yank the plug out, so I don’t think it’s exactly a ‘flip flop’ on the issue. I think it would be unwise of him to make any definitive plans for Iraq until after he’s in office and can better judge what his and our response ought to be wrt Iraq. I’m pretty confident he’ll make the right decision…especially since, having already gotten elected, he won’t HAVE to pander to the anti-war crowd for votes anymore.
I stick to the position that I’ve had since the day we invaded Iraq.
Life will be horrible for the people of Iraq, regardless of whether we stay or go or half our troops go or if we remove the combat brigades or do anything else plausible. Which alternative will be the least horrible? I don’t know, and neither does anoyone else. There’s no way to make good predictions in a situation like this.
All I know is that the Iraqi people want us to leave, and they’ve been consistent on that since the war started. Since I generally trust their opinion more than experts who rarely or never go to Iraq, I think we should follow their advice and leave.
Bull. There was that little kerfuffle called the Gulf War that kicked off a decade of tension. Before this we had to deal with an aggressive Iran - we even engaged in a small naval war with them in the 1980s - the Tanker War. Not to mention the hostage crisis of 1979.
And you know this how exactly? Because of the insurgent violence? Because of polls done? Because of ‘experts who rarely or never go to Iraq’ telling you this is the case?
Assuming a majority of Iraqi’s feel this way, you feel this is enough to justify us simply leaving then? If so, and as an Obama supporter, how will you feel when/if Obama doesn’t withdraw our forces right away? How will you justify that…or will you be upset/unhappy with Obama if it comes to pass? He will be president after all, and the Dems will be in control of the House and Senate (if only by slim margins)…so, he COULD order a withdrawal to start pretty soon after his presidency starts, no?
I was watching Gwen Iilll’s show on PBS this weekend, and she had a journalist who had been over to Iraq 17 times since 2003. This journalist said that any of the military folks on the ground would essentially scoff at the idea of getting all the combat troops out (with their equipment) in 16 months. Partly because it all has to go through one small port in Kuwait, but for other reasons as well. Link.
