A friend passed her copy of TIME along to me because of this article. It is stunning and well worth the read. I hope that you will pass it along to friends. This is unbearable.
Life in Hell: A Baghdad Diary by Aparisim Ghosh
It gives insight into the daily life of Iraqi citizens. The original article was published in the August 14, 2006 issue of TIME magazine.
You’ve got that right.
A few would have problems going too. The old prostrate is acting up, and where’s the Metamusil?
What costs are you referring to? Our troops, or to Iraq? I’m not really sure what the criteria is that you are using. Are you saying to stay long enough to avoid panic in terms of the collapse of the government and civil war, or in terms of our troops panicking over a full scale retreat?
I’m not exactly sure what bug you are talking about eating so I really can’t judge you on it.
A conference sounds like a good idea under any circumstances.
It looks to me like your advocating a full and complete but orderly retreat, completely abandoning Iraq. Is this right?
Our troops. There is no government to collapse. There is only Greenzonia, war, and the ferverswamp dreams of Bushiviks.
Oh, horseshit! You know exactly what I mean.
Nice spin. 2 points.
From this article article. (bolding mine)
So, the mission isn’t done yet? Then what was all that business on the aircraft carrier about two and a half years ago?
That Mission was Accompished. This Mission is Impossible.
No. That’s why I asked.
You could have just said “Cut and run” and saved us both some effort, you know?
Why should I, when I’m sure you will?
Scylla: I think part of the disconnect here is that your phrase “complete abandonment” implies that elucidator’s plan is to completely forget about Iraq, do nothing about it, and let it sink or swim on its own, which, as he already said, isn’t what he was saying. At most, he’s advocating a complete physical abandonment of Iraq, not on a political or diplomatic level.
Oh, come on. With 'luci this kind of stuff is effortless. 
At least, he makes it seem that way.
Anyway, he’s got a point. There’s an argument to be made that our continued presence is equivalent to a grain of sand ground into the midst of a suppurating wound. It’s not going to heal as long as that grain is in there.
As much as I agree with you on your overall stance, I don’t think what you mention here is as much of an “option” as you seem to be implying. You aren’t just getting regional powers together so you can save face, you have no choice but to bring at least the level of order that existed prior to the invasion.
That can be done in a few ways, but I agree, all are unsavory.
I agree with Gen. Abizaid that they will follow you home. The disorder has already brought about Hezbollah II: Moqtada’s Revenge! One can be certain other far less patriotic types have already been created, just receiving less airtime. One way or another, the situation has to be pacified.
I hate to ever be in agreement with Bush (and at the same time be on the same side as Scylla while arguing against you), but you either have to stay or find someone to outsource it to. Considering that Lebanon is proving tough enough to find contractors for and that’s not nearly as bad, I’m not sure what it would take to get regional powers to help.
The Turks, the Iranians, and the Syrians, for starters. They all have several dogs in this fight. The Russians would likely seek a seat at the table, as well as the Chinese, as honest brokers if nothing else.
The Iranians and Syrians, okay… maybe they can help a little since one has sway with political forces and the other can provide Arabic speaking troops. But Turks? And Kurds? Do you see not see a simple shifting of the hotzone to the only place where calm is found?
The Chinese? Please. I think the U.S. is already asked-out in regards to Lil’ Kim and the various trade issues. The Russians? Maybe, but I don’t think Pooty Poot is too happy about the slighting he received about his WTO bid at the G8.
But if I could suggest something, how about Jordan and Libya? They can easily provide 100,000 troops between them. That way when you clear Ramadi, they don’t re-settle in Mosul and so on and so forth.
I have no idea why this administration insists on trying to do this with ~150K troops.
Is there such a thing as an honest broker?
In high school, I had a history book that showed a turn-of-the-century editorial cartoon. Depicted in the cartoon was a dragon, the head of which was wearing a queue, and it was labeled “China”, so you knew it was meant to represent China (along about the time of the Boxer rebellion). The dragon was prostrate on a serving platter, and surrounding it were several animals, brandishing carving knives, and with napkins tied around their necks. The animals were, if memory serves, a British Imperial Lion, a Russian Bear, an American Bald Eagle, and an Austro-Prussian double-headed Eagle. All of the animals were regarding each other with suspicion, and not paying much attention to the dragon.
The clear implication was that the world’s imperial powers were poised to carve China up for their own ends, and each one wanted to make sure that none of the others took a share so large as to put them at a disadvantage. Although I did not have the idiom in 1974, the comic raised a response in me that today, I would call “sucks to be Chinese.”
Anyway, that’s the first image that came into my head when I read your list of regional players, elucidator. Well, you did say “disagreeable, even repulsive.” It’s very troubling to think that my nation is responsible for setting into motion a chain of events in which the most realistic path to healing begins with an image such as that.
I’m not implying that our suggestions would have any impact, or anybody gives a rat’s about what we want. No one is going to ask us to choose the delegates. The cherry atop this turd sundae is this: we don’t have options. They have the options.
Unless you consider pissing away our blood and treasure into the Godforsaken Desert an “option”.
Because they tried to do it on the cheap at first, and adding more troops would be an admission that they made a mistake. They are perfectly willing to kill an unlimited number of people before doing that.
Unfortunately, it is in one form or another. You can’t argue that some very unsavory characters have taken form (the Al-Jihadis in Iraq variety). These are the folks who will be firing rockets into Saudi Arabia and Jordan if they’re not dealt with before departure.
So you’re either spending life and treasure on some level there, or you’ll be spending it at home with a collapsed economy and far more terrorist attacks. Unless the U.S. can severely curtail it’s energy reliance in the region as well as substantially increase security at home, it’s bound to remain until this is somehow settled. Unfortunately, the administration’s repeated mantra of “we fight them there so we don’t have to fight them at home” has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So be it. But the longer that policy is pursued, the longer and far more painful the mop up effort will be.
I don’t see how anyone aware of the situation in Iraq could possibly characterize the situation as ‘going well’. The situation is rapidly spinning out of control in fact…and I think I’m being generous by saying ‘rapidly’ instead of ‘is already fully’. Seriously, what parts of Iraq do you think are ‘going well’? Have you been watching the increasing sectarian violence? Did you note the bloodshed over the weekend of religious pilgrims being used for target practice like ducks at a range?
As for the rest, I agree…they deserve a safe country. I’m also of the opinion that the US shouldn’t simply bolt and leave the Iraqi’s holding the bag. I further agree that if we DO cut and run without doing everything we can we will deserve the disgrace that will surely be heaped (rightfully) upon our collective heads.
I agree. However, I want to see some fucking progress. Without going into details, its rather personal for me and my family. I’m all for giving things a chance, etc etc, but I’m unsure that Bush et al has a fucking clue as to how to improve the situation at this point. They seem, to me at least, to be doing the same old same old as far as their tactics and strategy goes wrt Iraq. Maybe there simply ISN’T anything they can do at this point to make things better…in which case all is essentially lost and its time to think about saving what we can of our own army and getting the fuck out. If not…well, I want to see some progress. I want to see some improvement.
At this point I’m willing to entertain a timetable to see if this lights a fire under the Iraqi’s to get the fuck off their ass and start taking a firmer hand in trying to prevent things from completely flying apart. As well as lighting a fire under our own ass to try and think outside the solid steel box the administration has its head in and come up with some solutions to this mess they have gotten us all into. I want to see some progress…not further degenerations of the situation. I want my fucking son home, alive and in one piece.
Am I asking for too much after 4 years?
-XT
I don’t think the recent attempt to blow up airlines was stopped by us being in Iraq.
The idea that terror networks will appear in Iraq if we leave has some merit, but it is idiotic to think they will take over, Shiites hate Al-qaeda, and I remember reading reports that the Sunni barely tolerate them, the foreign terror groups are less than 10% of the rebel force. IMO a turkey shoot with Al-qaeda terrorists as targets is to be expected once the US is out of the picture, add to that the idea that many plans for the US leaving are really not cut-and-run, but cut-and-stand-by with air power and quick interventions if terror bases, WMD making or genocide are considered by the de facto or official rulers.
Once leaders appear that show some measure of control (how can they show they have real control unless we are making moves to leave?), they will have a lot to lose if they get the idea to follow us home, I would prefer them rather than our soldiers to be the ones surprised by blasts (from above) if they misbehave.
I do think leaving now with a clear understanding that there is a sword hanging over them is the best way out, the longer we stay we will fall into the last Vietnam mistake: by the time genocide appeared in nearby Cambodia, the political will to intervene was gone in the USA.
The idiocy of following the current course will lead to us losing the will when it becomes clear to even more Americans what they were had when after all the years of rosy predictions they now see it was all BS, I think right now we have a window for going out in our terms, rather than the terms of a insurgency that in the near future will set his own terms to us.
For I think the current Sunni based insurgency will include now the Shiites that will identify us fairly or unfairly as not only occupiers but colonizers.
For those who say that our leaving will lead to a civil war in Iraq, I’d like to pull up the button on the old Westclox Big Ben to point out that Iraq is already in a civil war. We aren’t helping that, we are only encouraging it.
For those spouting the ever-popular “cut and run” meme, let’s recall that’s exactly what we did, under the Bush-Rumsfeld-Rice leadership, in Afghanistan. We turned over the capture of Al-Qaeda bigshots to warlords who have spent their entire careers in smuggling and heroin production. They not only neglected to capture ObL’s top dogs, they escorted them across the border into Pakistan.
Our fearless leader keeps saying that, “We’ll stand down when Iraq stands up.” However, we aren’t serious about achieving that. When US troops go into basic training, we declare them ready for combat in six weeks or less. It takes a long, long time to train Iraqis. Why? Because we don’t really want them to stand up. We sent over a dozen trainers for the Iraqi police. Why? We don’t really care if they ever get ready. We haven’t made enough money yet. Mr. Bush said yesterday that we won’t be leaving Iraq as long as he is president. Meanwhile, the stock price of Halliburton is ten times what it was at the start of the war. What did it cost to buy a profitable war? How many dollars must a man pull down, before you call him a war profiteer?
Did you know that Dick Cheney still gets “deferred income” paychecks from Halliburton, and that his “retirement” package amounts to more than he made as CEO? Did you know his “blind trust” holds Halliburton stock options at pre-war prices? That’s awfully nice of them. It’s just business as usual, of course, and there’s no reason to assume that anything shady is going on. The vice-president says he exerted no pressure on the assignment of contracts. So, that’s that.