Everything I see convinces me that Iraq cannot become a democracy overnight. There are too many factions, too many tribalisms, too much hatred. I predict that the most hunted men (come June 30th) will be the members of Iraq’s new government-I would NOT want to be one of them!
So, suppose we admit our mistake, and withdraw our troops? Seems to me that nothing could be worse that the present situation, and more American deaths will not win any hearts and minds!
Maybee the Iraquis should settle things on their own! 
Well, since the US was what unsettled things to begin with, we now have an obligation to see things through to some sort of conclusion. The nearest would be the June 30 return to self-rule. Even if withdrawal were to begin immediately, and that looks highly unlikely, I think you’d be looking at at least six months’ to a year continued occupation.
That said, unless things really go pear-shaped, I think we will have a significant presence there for two years or more, minimum. On the one hand, I feel that it would be compounding the wrong that invading Iraq represented (yeah, I know all about what a Very Bad Man Saddam was; it was a wrong nonetheless) if we were to simply cut bait now. On the other, I think the situation already is bordering on untenable unless we are willing to accept Viet Nam-era levels of casualties, and I believe the administration is making an enormous mistake if they seriously believe that Iraq will make a practical long-term base for a military presence in the Middle East.
Basically, we’ve made our bed and must lie in it for a while longer, at least until something resembling a functioning government is up and running.
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Seems to me that nothing could be worse that the present situationQUOTE]
Think twice.
How about an all out civil war in the world´s largest powder-keg? It isn´t a pretty thought at all.
To be honest I´m quite sick of seeing how it´s suggested that the USA should withdraw, you broke it, you pay it; chickening out when things get rough is not only cowardly but also irresponsible behaviour. Things could get much, much worse there, and pretty fast; but the US has to finish what it started.
The price in lives and treasure will be, ought to be, high for the US, as heartless as that may sound, for then next time things would be thought better before atempting another “adventure” as this.
And before I get flamed for the above statement I should point that I´m very much empathic to the distress of the average GI in Iraq, but somehow the US electorate should be awaken by the situation, if ethical concerns won´t do it then debt and body bags should hopefuly but regretably make them see that wars are serious business, they can yield “Go USA go!” in a fist of patriotic fever but if they´re not ready to assume the consequences, STFU and think before being led to war like sheep.
We can’t just leave. We need the UN there first. Even then there will still probably be a large US presence.
Unfortunately, right now, what they’re considering is sending more troops to Iraq.
Absolutely goddamn not. Regardless of whether or not we should have been there in the first place, we are obligated to provide security until such a time when Iraqis can provide it for themselves. Not everyone shares your grim view of the situation; in fact, most Iraqis consider themselves better off than they were a year ago, and very much want help in restoring stability to their country.
Almost sorry to ask, but cite?
Mistake ? What mistake ???
Bush has control of production and production levels, refining and distribution.
He has the elections fixed (as it were) and he’s pulled off this tricky troop rotation. A form of liberal democracy will take root (well, superficial and puppet, but it’s a start !).
All he needs to do now is to dampen down the US bodybags – which is what’s designed to happen post-summer Iraqi elections – and his poll ratings will shoot up at home.
He’s close, and getting closer.
He’d still like ObL, though. Later October, anyone - or maybe we’ll just have the performing monkey Saddam paraded around in the last weeks and days prior to the election ?
Fair enough. I don’t think anyone denies that Saddam was an asshat repressive leader - in fact, the majority Shia are largely expected to take control of the country in his absence, which is indeed a good thing for them.
I don’t see what in there says that they “very much” want America to stick around and rebuild for them, though.
Don’t forget spinning news from Iraq in the most favorable light. Gotta do the propaganda thing, don’chaknow.
I saw someone mention that story; if folks want an interesting few minutes down memory lane I’d recommend reading that article and swapping the word ‘Baghdad’ for ‘Saigon’, if only from the informational pov.
By way of contrast, two stories out of the BBC this morning:
Analysis: Growing Shia discontent
"And yet, for a coalition which already has enemies enough in Iraq, a new front is opening up, with helicopter gunships over the Shia slums of Baghdad, and automatic fire in the holy city of Najaf, a place which had been calm for almost the whole of the past 12 months.
What has gone wrong? Well, the first and most important thing to stress is that this is not a general Shia uprising. "
US offensive to ‘pacify’ Falluja
"They have sealed off the town where four Americans were killed and their bodies mutilated by a mob last week.
Unconfirmed reports say several people were killed when a US warplane dropped bombs on a residential area of the town after a mortar attack on troops."
Propaganda??? In US news??? NOOOO …
[/sarcasm]
I would say yeah, get the hell out of there. Let them have their inevitable civil war and hope that someone somewhat moderate comes out on top (wishful thinking). This would actually be the best move GW could make, admit it was a BIG mistake, and let the UN take over. The reaction world-wide would be, yeah those stupid Americans screwed up again. But the reaction in the US would be good for GW and the American people (and the economy).
Thing is, we’re screwed. Like it or not, we did, break it, and now we’re obliged to fix it. But there’s a major problem: I don’t think many Iraquis want the kind of fix we have in mind. It would appear Muqtada al-Sadr has tens of thousands of devotees. This radical Shia cleric (the Shia were supposed to be our pals, right?), wants an Iran-style government in Iraq. Well, what a surprise, a popular radical Shia theocrat in the Middle East. Who would have thought. Meanwhile, Saddam’s Sunni Baathist sypmathisers (now a disenfranchised minority wondering about a Custer like problem ahead of them) are out for blood and actually want the old bastard back. Oh, and over here are folks who want this thing called Kurdistan. Where, in all of this, are the crowds of happy Iraquis challenging a united democracy? Seems to me they prefer to be factious, and to be ruled by what we commonly regard as dictators and fanatics. Maybe not another Saddam, but I don’t see any grass-roots “Rock the Vote” style peaceful activism, here. I just see suspicious, angry partisans who cheer over the bodies of dead Americans.
Yeah, by June the land will be pacified and democratized. Please. We’re dead if we stay, and damned if we don’t. Bush Sr. was right: The Vietnam syndrome is gone. Alas. Some of his son’s cabinet are old enough and smart enough; they should have known better. Or so I thought.
Starting the war was a bad idea. It’s great that Sadaam is out of power, but now Iraq will require US babysitting for a long time.
But the real problem is this: the region is so unstable that you can expect problem after problem: some related to our adventure there, others not. I’m really worried about the following:
-
The stability of Iran, their nuke program, etc., etc, etc.!
-
The stability of Saudi Arabia
-
The stability of Syria
-
The Kurds versus everyone else
But, let’s not be too pessimistic: given a century or two and a lot of effort, I’m sure we can get things copasetic without a nuclear war being necessary.
As long as we are using adages how about: The first rule of holes is if you are in one, stop digging? Or: Don’t throw good money after bad.
It just seems to me that a “stable and democratic nation of Iraq” is an illusion. Is the concept of Iraq as a nation valid? I don’t think Iraq has been a nation ever, except when held together by force by a religious minority headed by a man who wasn’t particularly religious, from what I read, but was viscious as hell.
GW and his cabal don’t seem to have asked any of the right question of themselves or anyone else. And GW doesn’t seem to know enough about planning and managing to even ask the right questions to ensure that the plans proposed by Rummy, Wolfie, et al are thought through.
One of them, Colin Powell, wrote the book on how not to fuck it up. It’s called the Powell Doctrine. Rumsfeld wasn’t interested.
It worked for the Thirteen Colonies in 1776.
There is also the basic assumption that most Iraqis, like most people, want to just go about their ordinary day to day business without being hassled by Saddam, American soldiers, religeous zealots or tribal warlords. If this basic assumption is false and Iraqis in fact would rather fight with each other for the heck of it, then Iraq is a lost cause not worth bothering with.
Didn’t work out so great at first for the French in 1789, or the Russians in 1917, or South Vietnamese in 1973, or the Rwandans in 1994. Not every revolution is a glorious one.
I don’t know what magic people think the UN can work other than maybe giving some symbolic legitimacy to the occupation. Whether the Iraqis view them as simply another invader with easy to see (and shoot at) blue tanks is another matter.
They had much more in common than devided them, plus, they had a common enemy (Britain) so they were forced to stick together. Well, the example is good in that the USA has managed to get Iraqis of all factions to agree in their opposition to the USA.
I do not see what is wrong about pulling out! We have managed to alienate just about every groupin Iraq…and the hatred for America that you see in these people’s eyes is shocking! Let them have whatever kind of religious tyranny they want! The important thing is that Saddam is gone and Iraq is no longer a military threat-this should be enough for us. Iraq has and always will be unstable-the British put it together in 1919, as a coalition of tribes under a king.and the kingdom fell in 1958. I don’t think that it is necessarily a bad thing that Iraq be unstable-perhaps then the Saudis will get serious about reforming their own mess.
Finally, if we GOT SERIOUS about replacing petroleum as a fuel source (and spent a SMALL fraction of what we are now spending on funding this ill-advised adventure, on fuels cells and nuclear power), we could kiss the whole rotten mid-east goodbye!