That was a good post. I liked reading that, primarily because it was both honest and magnanimous. Personally, I’m still in the boat which says “We dug it, we fill it…” but I don’t have any problems conceding that posts like the one I’ve just quoted also make for a compelling case too.
One thing I will note about the current Iraq tragedy is this - it seems almost unfair in a way that a domestic political battle within the United States will inexorably force itself as a conclusion upon Iraq, regardless of what the Iraqi’s themselves truly want. Perhaps, if there was some sort of fantasy way of safely holding several referendums within Iraq (which were secure and free of rorting), perhaps we’d be able to find out what the MAJORITY of Iraqi’s want right now. Do THEY want us to stay? To try and sort things out? Or do THEY (the majority) just want us to leave and then let the cards fall where they may?
Certainly, I’d like to see such a fantasy referendum take place, if only because it seems pretty apparent that the current federal government there is pretty dysfunctional at the moment.
The war is producing some strange bedfellows-I heard about a local arab sheik who allied himself with the Americans-because Al-Queda was interfering with his local racket (smuggling stolen oil to Syria).
Small victories, but hey, ya gotta go for what you can get!
So a government in deadlock isn’t a government now? What’s Lebanon got then?
Yeah, some puppets if they have cordial relations with the Iranian government, allocate ministries to the Sadr bloc, and raise objections to the building of security barriers to lessen insurgent violence.
Yep, puppet government, move along now, it’s just a puppet government.
The Iraqis don’t want you there. It’s their problem, and they have a government now. Either it’ll last or it’ll be replaced; either way, the situation will not get worse, it’ll remain bad until such time as the conflicts are resolved, one way or another.
The “you broke it, you bought it” philosophy is plainly idiotic. If you come into my house and break my coffee table, I don’t want you to stick around and break my china cabinet, I want you to get the fuck out.
Then we simply disagree on the facts. Continued American presence prolongs and worsens the war. Every day the U.S. remains guarantees the war will last one more day and that more people will die than otherwise would have died.
No matter what, sooner or later the U.S. will leave, and then Iraq will fight its civil war and reorganize itself. If the U.S. chooses to stay 2 years, then there will be 2 years of this shitfest, followed by civil war. If the U.S. chooses to stay 2 weeks, then there will be just 2 weeks of shitfest, then the civil war. Why not just get it over with? Failure is inevitable; just accept it, cut your losses, and move on.
I appreciate that the generals will try their best, and their men and women will try their best, but they are going to fail. This is an Iraqi problem now, solvable only by Iraqis, not Americans. American involvement simply means death, destruction, and the continued lack of an Iraqi government capable of sustaining itself. It’s going to be ugly, in all likelihood, and yes, a lot of it is the fault of the United States, but that’s s sunk cost now. Time to move on and maybe concentrate some more effort on finding Osama bin Laden.
Sorry, that’s not a fact - merely an opinion. Presenting it as a fact, even letting it be an imposter as a fact, still doesn’t hide the reality that your position is ultimately an opinion. Indeed, there is a strenuous body of counter opinion which argues that an immediate withdrawal will actually open the floodgates on a mini-Rwanda on the Euphrates. If such a thing were to happen, the numbers who will die will doutbless be greater than if the USA stays. That’s an opinion which is no less valid.
To be fair however, consider this… the most stable, peaceful 15 years in Lebanon’s history this past century have been when Syria occupied the country after the civil war of the mid 1980’s. After Syria pulled out, Lebanon became an exercise in anarchy, and lo and behold, Hizbolla started going nuts on the Israeli border - something they NEVER would have done while Syria still ran the place.
My example is perfect example, in the Middle East no less, of how an occupying force can actually be a force for good. It’s rare, but it can happen. Lebanon was an absolute shithole back in 1989 - a total shithole. Granted, the occupiers were a local country and not the United States - which means that if the USA pulls out of Iraq, there is an extremely high likelihood that a neighbouring country(s) will do a Syria and fill the power vacuum and invade Iraq out of pure self interests. This last outcome is an outcome not many people are considering it seems to me.
There’s no reason why we should. Nobody’s suggesting we leave the region, and we can easily keep enough bombers and troops nearby to keep Iran (or anyone else) from bringing an army over the border.
When you’ve got a military like ours, other countries’ armies are easy things to stop. Massed troops, tanks, etc. are easy targets for all the conventional weaponry we can bring to bear. Our adversaries within Iraq are much more of a challenge, because we can’t identify them.
I should refine that last post somewhat. If a country we’re on good terms with (Saudi Arabia, Turkey) should decide to send an army into Iraq, we would be unlikely to bomb it due to political considerations. But they’d be unlikely to do so except in extreme situations, for the same reasons.
The problem is, (a) we’re going to leave sometime, and (b) there’s no evidence to suggest the situation in country is improving on account of our staying.
So the proper comparison is not between what will happen in Iraq in 2009 if we leave in 2008 v. if we stay, but if the alternatives are between leaving in 2008 or leaving in 2014, what will happen in Iraq in 2009 v. what will happen in Iraq in 2015.
There’s zero evidence I can see that what will happen in Iraq the year after our inevitable withdrawal will be better as a result of our having stayed longer. Maybe you can provide some.
So you now have The Shiites starting to engage against you too. Not exactly what you were hoping for, is it? Unless its a Reverse Surge you wanted. Never mind that it also demonstrates, as the many polls have shown, that outside Kurdistan, you’re universally reviled.
Oh, and BTW, least some of you think it’s only Sadr’s group that thinks Malaki is just a non-functioning American Puppet, this is what the Sunni side in Government have to say:
Shiites have sometimes attacks Coalition forces on and off ever since the invasion, but you know what? Shiites aren’t a monolithic bloc, neither are the Sunnis, in which some support the insurgents and some in which are aligning themselves with the Iraqi Government.
So I’ll say, again, why are you saying there is no Iraqi Government when in fact the governments there, it’s just heavily divided, as say Lebanon.
