IRAQ: Time to Admit Mistake; Withdraw?

[Ale]

@ralph124c

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.

That´s completely sociopathic, you turn the country into a worse mess than before and left when you get a bloody nose.
Oh, Saddam is gone, whooppy-da–Fucking-doo, that justifies everything? (and what´s that that “Iraq is no longer a military threat” anyway?) Hello!, Iraq was NOT a military threat to anyone, let alone the USA.

Let´s see the progression here:

-Terrorists! I tell you the place is chock full of terrorist! And Saddam is a pimp.

-WMDs, in terrorists hands to boot!, invade yesterday! Bad Saddam, bad.

-Well, just WMDs, and they can rain death on us in, hmmm, let´s say, 45
minutes? The Butcher of Baghdad must go.

-Oops!!! WMDs?, what WMDs?. It´s all about the poor opressed people of Iraq, [music cue, angels choir] we´ll turn the country to a shining beacon of democracy [/angels choir] Oh, and we digged out the Beggar of Baghdad!.. ehh, I mean the BUTCHER of baghdad! Yay for me!

-Screw the Iraqi, let them rot. We´ll keep the contracts though.
Disgusting. :mad:

[ccwaterback]

@ralph124c

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!

But that’s not good for … Texas.

[Zagadka]

We aren’t leaving.

The reason Bush did this has nothing to do with oil, Saddam, WMDs, or directly, terrorists.

The Saudis are giving us the boot. UAE and Qatar aren’t being terribly friendly to our, “hey, you want us to build a permanent military base in your countries, right?” What Bush and friends decided was important was establishing a pro-US “democracy” in the region from which to 1) establish a political base of power, 2) aid in gunboat diplomacy with neighbors, 3) justify a military presence, 4) serve as a military base, 5) break our dependency on negotiating with countries like Turkey constantly, etc.

Iraq is a pretty good spot to do this in. Borders with Iran, SA, Jordan/Syria/etc, Turkey… right smack dab in the middle… had a ruthless dictator so it is justified… weak military… no known WMD threat… and we thought the Shia majority would be happy to get rid of Saddam and submit.

Watch as another “independent” Arab news network goes live, with a more happy friendly American viewpoint, and broadcasting from Baghdad. Watch as ethnic minorities in Iran and Turkey start causing more trouble for their governments. Watch as the US intervenes the second the Saudi kingdom is threatened.

In fact, I bet Bush is kicking himself (well, his dad) for saving Kuwait. Iraq would be much better property with it attatched.

[Rashak_Mani]

Funny enough I thought US troops would get less and less attention from bomb attacks as the impending civil war approached. Basically they would stay behind their green area defenses and wait out of the Shia and Sunni to sort things out…

Apparently promising retaliation for the Fallujah guys and arresting Clerics has "united" Iraqis somewhat. Maybe if the US plays "tough" guy and acts more the invader that might help unite Iraqi factions ? Commit a few attrocities and then withdraw in order to unite them ?  :)   (Yes a bit of sarcasm... but a bit of truth too)

Well anyway... withdrawing or not withdrawing... UN or no UN... the US has bitten off more than it can chew. Anywhere you go you either suffer political and/or military casualties.

[London_Calling]

@Libertarian

It worked for the Thirteen Colonies in 1776.

Glibertarian - But not for all the colonists, many of whom went north to Canada.

And it hasn’t worked for a whole swathe of that society, I’d suggest, given the poverty and lack of opportunity compared with, say, Canada.

But it’s young, lets see how it all pans out.

[ralph124c]

Again, I don’t see that there is much difference between an Iraq dominated by muslim clerics, and an Iraq dominated by Baath gangsters. The place will be in a state of anarchy for years, and there is NOTHING we can do about it! Did you see the Shi’ite militias? Everybody seems to have a plentiful supply of AK-47 rifles, grenades, and bombs! Unless we are prepared to occupy the country with at least 500,000 soldiers, we cannot influence how the violence will end.
Think Vietnam , but times ten! :eek:

[furt]

@ralph124c

Everything I see convinces me that Iraq cannot become a democracy overnight.

This is absolutely asinine. If you thought this woulb be quick or easy you are an utter fool. This is exactly the kind of chickenshit lazy fat-ass puss-out attitude that makes me think America is in decline, and makes people like ObL want to speed the process.

It’s hard. It’s war. It takes time. We may yet lose. It may prove in the end to have been a horrible mistake. But the kind of handwringing infantile impatience we see on the BBC and in posts like this pretty much ensures a failure that will be bad for everyone.

[sailor]

@furt

This is absolutely asinine. If you thought this woulb be quick or easy you are an utter fool. This is exactly the kind of chickenshit lazy fat-ass puss-out attitude that makes me think America is in decline, and makes people like ObL want to speed the process.

It’s hard. It’s war. It takes time. We may yet lose. It may prove in the end to have been a horrible mistake. But the kind of handwringing infantile impatience we see on the BBC and in posts like this pretty much ensures a failure that will be bad for everyone.

Some people do not want to invest or risk their lives, limbs or treasures in such risky ventures and that is their privilege. Why on earth should they be under any obligation to support something they disagree with?

[Loopydude]

The sad truth is, I think we’re obliged to stay until we’ve quite proven the establishment of a unified, democratic Iraq is an impossibility. Even sadder, I’m rather convinced it is not, hence this is an exercise in futility. Moreover, I have always thought this.

I would have thought that, at minimum, the Bush administration would consider the possibility that invading Iraq might make things worse all around, and not better. After all, were we not ostensibly motivated by concerns over national security? How has this invasion helped that? And why on Earth would anyone suppose it should have?

And how is this better for Iraqis? Really, how? On the one hand, you’ve got a brutal dictator. On the other, bloody civil war that leads to division and strife for the forseeable future. Another possibility is the occupation is asuccess, most Iraqis soon come to embrace democracy, if they did not do so happily when the first American tanks rolled in, and American troops leave amidsts praise and applause, their objectives met. Now which of these seemed most likely to our leaders? The latter? WHY? What could possibly have given them that idea?

All moot now, I’m afraid, except for the election. Rummy was right: It will be a long, difficult slog, and bloody expensive in terms of American life, security, and funds. Oh, not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead, who never asked to be “rescued”. Maybe containment and continued support of anti-Saddam insurgents really was the way to go. Or perhaps a more multi-lateral police action. Well, now we’ll never know. Instead, we’ll bear the lions-share of the burden ourselves, and at what cost?

But no, we can’t just cut and run. Not yet. Eventually, maybe, but it would be heaping attrocity on folly to do so now. We’re stuck; unable to win, and unable to retreat.

[alaricthegoth]

Some of the fighters are young guys, the equivalent of dope peddlers, who do this for money. Others are holy warriors willing to die for a cause," said Capt. Will Dickens, another company commander whose troops were fired on repeatedly. “The die-hard [suicide fighters] just stand up in the open, fire from the hip and stay there until they kill or are killed.”

washington posthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54125-2004Apr6.html

I quess we will have to put the second guy down in the “no” column under “hearts and minds won over”…

[Uncommon_Sense]

I think what ought to happen is this;

-State the goals we have accomplished and the ones that we have not or cant. -Make comparisons between the pre-Saddam days and the Iraq of today to show progress among the Iraqis. -Make one more millitary surge to restore order as much as possible. -At the height of this "peace" we make a statement to the rest of the world that we are supporting (X) group (of Iraqis) to run the new government (which wont be democratic per-say) and that we would like to support them with money, weapons and logistics.
-State that our goal of setting up a democracy is unattainable and that a strong US presence in Iraq is no longer needed. Afterall, we have Saddam, the WMD thing is behind us, and our goal at this stage is what?
-Ask the UN to step in and help support the group that we have choosen to back.
-Scale back troop involvment to the point that we can guide our choosen ally in Iraq with limited risk to US soldiers.
-Also state that we would like to see stability, but we realize that in the end the people of Iraq will decide how peacefully they can live with one another.

I realize the US is somewhat to blame for the current conflicts between rebels of different factions and much of the resistance is directed towards the US soldiers.
I think a push to stabilize the countrys infrustructures and keep the peace is the last strong effort we need to make here. Backing out with our head held high while making it known that we have done all that is reasonable to stabilize the country.

[Spavined_Gelding]

@furt

This is absolutely asinine. If you thought this woulb be quick or easy you are an utter fool. This is exactly the kind of chickenshit lazy fat-ass puss-out attitude that makes me think America is in decline, and makes people like ObL want to speed the process.

It’s hard. It’s war. It takes time. We may yet lose. It may prove in the end to have been a horrible mistake. But the kind of handwringing infantile impatience we see on the BBC and in posts like this pretty much ensures a failure that will be bad for everyone.

Friend Furt, disregarding the fact that your post is off topic (where do we go from here?), whining that war is hard (true by definition) and this is likely to be a long plod (a view dismissed by the Administration when we went into this thing) and an expensive plod both in American lives and treasure (another view disparaged by the Bush Administration as unpatriotic and pessimistic by the Administration), the inescapable conclusion is that we went into this thing with vague and unspecific objectives based on a rational that was a jerry built compromise that lacked a critically examined basis in fact. What on earth happened to the “Powell Doctrine” that was so effectively applied in 1991–the insistence that we go to war with a clear objective, a clear end game and overwhelming force. We have junked the PD. We have tried to accomplish what has turned into a classic example of mission creep on the cheap. Don’t tell me that the US (and by implication the Western Democracies) are teetering on the edge of disaster because of lack of will (The Triumph of the Will, where have I heard of that before?).

Why are we in Iraq?

Is it to disarm Iraq? Mission accomplished. It looks like they were disarmed before we started.

To combat terrorism of the sort seen on September 11? It is starting to look as if we have energized the Jahadists.

Is it to depose Sadam? Mission accomplished. But we have an obligation to replace that regime with something.

Is it to secure reliable bases in the Middle East? You only get that with a reliable or submissive or dependent local government that is in effective and permanent control of the territory and the population. It may be a while before we get anything that looks even remotely like that in Iraq, certainly in central Iraq where the bigger piece of the cities and the people are.

Is it to establish a liberal western democracy in Iraq (note the lower case letters)? That is just not going to happen–not in the life of this generation.

The last time we tried this was in the Phillippines starting in 1898. We did not finish that job until 1946. Admittedly the Second World War got in the way, but Douglas MacArthur was virtually the Generalissimo of the Phillippines on the eve of the war. Are we prepared to occupy a sullen and half wild population for fifty years?

Just carry on carrying on is not a satisfactory answer. We have to decide what the objective is. Right now we seem to be preoccupied with fending off the alligators. We have to decide whether we are in Iraq to drain the swamp or to just muddy the waters. Our carrying on seem to be directed toward muddying the water. That can’t be the objective, can it?

[mack]

@Uncommon Sense

I realize the US is somewhat to blame for the current conflicts between rebels of different factions and much of the resistance is directed towards the US soldiers.

Somewhat? Saddam kept a lid on all the internecine squabbles in Iraq and we blew the lid off. All they want to do is get rid of us, and once we’re gone, they’ll be free to fight amongst themselves.

Afterall, we have Saddam, the WMD thing is behind us, and our goal at this stage is what?

Preventing the utter devastation of civil war, for one.

Wasn’t this - whatever you call it - supposed to stabilize the region? Initiate a sort of democracy domino effect?

And No - the “WMD thing” is not behind us. Well, come to think of it, it is, in the sense that it’s going to bite us on the ass everytime Bush’s credibility comes into the equation.

Backing out with our head held high while making it known that we have done all that is reasonable to stabilize the country.

The nature of “backing out” is not one that would cause one to hold one’s head high.

I think a push to stabilize the countrys infrustructures and keep the peace is the last strong effort we need to make here.

Just a itty bitty “push” ? We can say “we tried”? No - we are obligated to stabilize the country’s infrastructure. We are obligated to keep the peace.

[ralph124c]

There IS NO peace in Iraq to keep! The Shi’ites are now ALLIED with their (hitherto) mortal enemies, the Sunnis! Both groups now are attacking the US troops AND the Spanish, POLISH, UKRAINIAN, ITALIAN, BRITISH troops.
What has come to pass has proven that the Iraqis DO NOT WANT anybody helping them-they want nothing more than to be left alone.
Actually, this is the same attitude that the Somalis had…they did not want help from the US (or anybody else)-and we are too stupid to realize that they mean what they say.
So, I would arrange a cease-fire, and get the hellout. The longer we stay, the more we will be hated and attacked.

[Mal_Adroit]

@mack

Somewhat? Saddam kept a lid on all the internecine squabbles in Iraq and we blew the lid off.

That’s what so many of the patriotic fist-pumpers and Bush apologists seem unable to process, that the security of the world didn’t hinge on our getting a madman out of there. The security of the world, as has become hideously apparent, actually hinged on keeping him in there.

[XT]

@ralph124c

There IS NO peace in Iraq to keep! The Shi’ites are now ALLIED with their (hitherto) mortal enemies, the Sunnis! Both groups now are attacking the US troops AND the Spanish, POLISH, UKRAINIAN, ITALIAN, BRITISH troops.
What has come to pass has proven that the Iraqis DO NOT WANT anybody helping them-they want nothing more than to be left alone.
Actually, this is the same attitude that the Somalis had…they did not want help from the US (or anybody else)-and we are too stupid to realize that they mean what they say.
So, I would arrange a cease-fire, and get the hellout. The longer we stay, the more we will be hated and attacked.

Look, I know that to you it looks like its all gloom and doom but you are over reacting a bit. For one thing, you are seeing Shi’ite and Sunnis as monolithic entities…which they aren’t. They are riddled with factions. You are seeing this as a general uprising…its not. Its an uprising of various factions within those two groups. Afaik we are still talking about a relatively small (though still significant) percentage of the over all population. Not trying to sugar coat this, its definitely serious AND disturbing…but its simply not the end of the world you are trying to make it. A few FACTIONS of Shi’ite militia, lead mostly by a guy that seemed to be losing his chance for glory after the US bolts and various factions of dis-enfranchised Sunni pining for the glory days does not an alliance make…nor is it necessarily representitive of the population at large. If 20 million Iraqi’s were rising up there is no way in hell 110k US troops could keep the lid on with, what? 20-30 casualties now? Get real. Nor would the civilian bloodshed be so (relatively) light if it was a general uprising.

So, get a grip. Its serious, its fucked up, we shouldn’t be there, should have never been there…but its not the end of the freaking world.

For the OP: No, we can’t and shouldn’t withdraw. There are various reasons, most of which have been already stated. We can’t withdraw because WE kicked over the ant hill and its our duty and obligation to make sure that the whole thing doesn’t explode killing millions. We can’t withdraw because what would that do to American credibility (such as it is) in the future? Its our mess and we need to stay the course until something resembling stability prevails (I’m pretty much giving up hope of ‘democracy’ but a stable government of any form would be good at this point). My only hope is that when Kerry is elected he stays the course and doesn’t yank our troops out of there pulling the rug out from under the Iraqi’s. I don’t THINK he will anyway…

-XT

[PatriotX]

@Spavined Gelding

Friend Furt, disregarding the fact that your post is off topic (where do we go from here?), whining that war is hard (true by definition) and this is likely to be a long plod (a view dismissed by the Administration when we went into this thing) and an expensive plod both in American lives and treasure (another view disparaged by the Bush Administration as unpatriotic and pessimistic by the Administration), the inescapable conclusion is that we went into this thing with vague and unspecific objectives based on a rational that was a jerry built compromise that lacked a critically examined basis in fact.

First,
IMHO, Furt’s point seems to be that what’s going on now falls within the parameters of acceptable given the scale, scope and nature of the venture we’re engaged in over there. Furt’s discussing the justifications for the idea that there’s no pressing need to change things now, which is on topic.
YMMV.

Second,
IIRC, it’d be more accurate to say:
“war is hard…and this is likely to be a long [slog] …and an expensive [slog to] both… American lives and treasure…”

Third,
Furt’s objections are well founded. I myself’ve voiced sentiments sentiments similar to this:

If you thought this would be quick or easy you are an utter fool. This is exactly the kind of chickenshit, lazy, fat-ass, puss-out, attitude that makes me think America is in decline, and makes people like ObL want to speed the process.

Pre-war, Pentagon sources were projecting that we be down to 30,000 troops in Iraq by September 2003.

@Spavined Gelding

Just carry on carrying on is not a satisfactory answer. We have to decide what the objective is. Right now we seem to be preoccupied with fending off the alligators. We have to decide whether we are in Iraq to drain the swamp or to just muddy the waters. Our carrying on seem to be directed toward muddying the water. That can’t be the objective, can it?

"Sometimes, when you crack and egg, it looks like muddying the water, until the swamp is drained and you can eat your omlette. "
I’m not saying…
I’m just saying…

[Squink]

@xtisme

Look, I know that to you it looks like its all gloom and doom but you are over reacting a bit. For one thing, you are seeing Shi’ite and Sunnis as monolithic entities…which they aren’t.

In the interests of not freaking out, this’d be a good time for people to renew their interests in the various Iraqi Blogs. I’ve grown to enjoy Bahgdad Burning, the lady who writes it appears to have a good head on her shoulders. If that site’s not to your taste, there are a number of others to choose from. The press is currently sucking badly, so it behooves us to find other sources of information.
OTOH, BB ends today’s Blog with this cheery tidbit:

And as I blog this, all the mosques, Sunni and Shi’a alike, are calling for Jihad.

[PatriotX]

@ralph124c

The Shi’ites are now ALLIED with their (hitherto) mortal enemies, the Sunnis!

This strikes me as a peculiar statement. How do you mean this?

[Uncommon_Sense]

@mack

Somewhat? Saddam kept a lid on all the internecine squabbles in Iraq …

In the same manner that I would use a hammer to kill a fly.

He merely supressed them with force. The hatred is still there, the violence is still there. And how do we really know what happened before the occupation?..so many stories of brutality on his behalf, he himself, made up for the violence.

The issue of the WMD is behind us in the sense that I think we figured out what happened and where it went wrong.