And this just in…
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq
Defeat Lite.
Rubbish, sounds like a holding action. Placing troops on the borders of two protagonists whilst whoever in Baghdad is in charge gets their shit together. Vietnam had linebacker, and the Christmas bombings, Iraq gets this.
Presumably we would be imbedding members of the ISF who are already cooperative.
I thought you already pointed out that we’d be looking for bi-lingual Iraqis, of which there are many. So “A” seems a little irrelevant. As for “B”, it’s a good point. Maybe our troops wouldn’t trust the guys. But we already do trust them to perform some important security functions, so maybe there could be some basis for trust. Perhaps they could be imbedded as translators/observers w/o a combat role?
It’s not about us. Or defeat. It’s about which option is worse: a nightmarish occupation in the middle of a civil war, or a withdrawal of forces and full-scale genocide and partition.
Are they? Are they performing “important security functions” or are they standing at the post gate and saluting incoming officers? How does the committment required for their “security functions” compare with direct combat? How closely does the Iraqi word for “translator” compare with the term for “collaborator”.
We don’t know, we cannot know, the consequences of our actions. There will almost certainly be some level of armed struggle between the Iraqis. Take that as a given. A genocide? Possible, no way of guessing. It might be nothing more than a brief spate of violent bluster followed by a wary accomodation. Could just as easily be the wholesale massacre of Sunni by Shia, followed by a Middle Eastern armed clusterfuck as Sunni dominated nations attempt to protect their co-religionists (though, frankly, I doubt that committment will amount to much more than hand-wringing and bewailing…)
We hear many dread and dire predictions of horror if we withdraw. Which suggests that our presence there is a preventative. Have we effectively interceded in the Sunni-Shia conflict? Do Shia militia cringe in fear of us? Sunni insurgents no longer hostile? Or are they simply too busy whomping on each other?
I suspect that the Shia dominated government is entirely happy to 'sic us on Sunni insurgents, and will continue to do so as long as we will permit our troops to be used as their auxillary. Why not?
What I think has been amply demonstrated is that our position in Iraq has no positive benefit. Won’t “win” because the defined victory is a fantasy. Won’t lose for pretty much the same reason.
While there are legitimate doubts as to the ability of the ISF to independently take over responsibility for Iraq’s security, your caricature of the ISF as glorified doormen is contradicted by the evidence. The ISF is involved in day-to-day security. They *lead *counter-insurgency operations in 60% of Iraq. ISF forces are in charge of 90 sq. mi. of Baghdad province. ISF forces are performing combat missions now.
I don’t believe the proposition that there is nothing the US can do to prevent a worsening of the crisis. More importantly, I don’t believe you could possibly have evidence for your contradictory belief since we haven’t even tried all possible solutions. We might have enough evidence to conclude that whatever we’re doing now isn’t preventative, but we certainly do not have enough evidence to conclude that no matter what we do, it can only get worse.
How was this been demonstrated?
Denial, not just a river in Egypt:
Like Hitler and Brezhnev, Bush is in denial
Pack you toys and your boys. Take responsibility for your crimes, give them tons of money in compensation for destroying their nation. Go home. Get on your knees and beg the world forgives you.
The End.
You’re confused. No one here is arguing that the Iraq War has not been a catastrophe. The extent to which Bush has not accepted that is irrelevant to this discussion.
I’ll ask again, though I don’t expect an answer: you think we should pull out even if it means letting Iraq slip into full-scale genocide?
How does this scary thing compare in plausibility to the threat of a mushroom cloud over an American city that helped bamboozle us into invading Iraq in the first place? It’s the same people promoting this new theory of why we have to stay. Have they suddenly gained credibility?
Not in the least. I was simple reinforcing 'luc’s point which you questioned. You’re welcomed to go back and read your own post and query – which appears to be the source of ]your confusion.
Beyond that, it is rather silly to say that your CIC’s attitude towards the mess he got you in is “irrelevant” to a discussion as to how to proceed in Iraq. Might want to save that for 2009 in case you’re still there. I doubt it though – I can picture the last chopper flying into the distance much before that.
Good thing I didn’t highlight and color the bit about 500,000 deaths directly attributable to your illegal and immoral invasion…oh, wait, I did!
What was I thinking? Of course there’s a difference between “full-scale genocide” and the “simple genocide” you’ve unleashed in Iraq. :rolleyes:
Here’s another good article for those that still insist on staying despite of all the harm you’ve already caused:
Taking Responsibility for Iraq
Amen to that.
That’s silly.
First, it’s not the same people. Do you see Bush and Cheney arguing that pull-out means genocide? No, it’s reasonable people on both sides. Even ardent supporters of pulling out admit that the results might be similar to the partition of India (see Jack Murtha’s NPR interview).
Second, obviously it is a lot more plausible. It is already happening on a small-scale and is being prevented in some places by the presence of coalition troops.
But I’ll cop to the charge of hyperbole. **Elucidator **is right in pointing out that we just don’t know what will happen if we pull out. The question for anyone that is still sanely looking at this is: given that staying and going both have horrible consequences, which is worse? A lot of you folks seem to think the answer to that is clear. I don’t know where you’re getting that confidence.
Wherever American troop presence has been reduced in Iraq (in certain provinces), security has deteriorated. One or the other faction has taken control and slaughtered the other side. I think it entirely reasonable that a full-scale pull-out will lead to the full-scale version of what has already happened when US troops have left cities like Fallujah.
I was questioning whether the presence of troops was holding back much worse violence. Your quote had nothing to do with that point.
Why? The correct answer to the question of how we ought to proceed has nothing to do with what Bush thinks.
You didn’t answer the question. 500,000 have already died, so 1 million more is irrelevant? That’s hardly an argument. If you take a look at the study you’re indirectly citing, you’ll see that most of those deaths are a result of sectarian violence and failed infrastructure. Do you expect those two problems to get worse or better if we leave?
Sadly, no. GeeDubya has shown that he is stubbornly determined to believe that victory is just around the corner, the next six months will be crucial, etc. He waits for the day when it begins to rain ponies, and all his detractors can only mumble words of abject apology that they ever doubted his leadership and his resolve.
As a result, he bends and twists reality to that. He will use any and every conceivable rationale to prevent withdrawal of American forces. He will certainly lend an ear to words like “moderate” and “phased”, so long as he is the Deciderer of what is moderate and phased.
The spectre of massive and bloody paroxysm suits his purposes nicely. It suits his purpose to present such a spectre as entirely inevitable if American forces are not on hand to prevent it, as they are, presumably, doing now. Outside of a grave and sombre presumption, what have we? What evidence can we ponder, from an objective and reliable source?
You put the question starkly, without qualifiers. I presume for rhetorical advantage. Am I willing to take the chance? Yes, of course. How much of a chance? There is no way of knowing. I am certainly unwilling to lose more of ours simply on the word of a man who has lied to me without let or hindrance for years.
And who knows but that our presence isn’t *the * aggravating factor that prevents a political accomodation? The Shia majority need not sacrifice their own to oppress a Sunni insurgency, they can use ours! Why wouldn’t they continue for as long as it takes us to wise up?
Yup, guilty of the same crap that got us into this mess in the first place, claiming possibilities as fact. The two are not the same, and our foreign policy would be less fucked up if we all made an honest effort to keep that in mind at all times. I realize that it’s easier to score rhetorical points when you set up a straw man like certain genocide if we pull out, but that does not advance the cause of actually figuring out the best course of action.
Now, that’s not fair. I didn’t say it was going to happen. What I asked was whether we should pull out if it meant genocide. It’s a valid question, if hyperbolic.
Also, are you going to respond to the rest of my post, or just try to score a cheap shot?
What conditions would make a genocidal conflict inevitable, such that we can be entirely sure that it would result from our withdrawal, and only from our withdrawal? What evidence can you offer that it is entirely our presence that prevents such a result? How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice *without knowing * if you are doing the needful thing, or no? Would I risk my son for that? No. Would I have the gall to ask another father to risk his? No. Not just no, HELL! no!
Your threshold appears higher than mine own, mine was reached months ago.
And Bush never said that Iraq posed an imminent threat. He gets a kewpie doll for that, but there’s no reason in the world to put up with the same type of ‘hyperbole’ a second time, whether it comes from the president himself, or some guy on a message board.
What evidence would convince me that withdrawal would more likely than not precipitate genocide? Well, for one, I’d look at what has happened in provinces where US troop presence has been reduced. Has sectarian violence increased or decreased there? That seems to me to be a pretty good indicator of the effect of US troop presence.
Of course, genocide isn’t a discrete event. And it might not even be the right word to describe what will happen. I think the reference to what happened in India at partition is probably more apt. There is little doubt in my mind that leaving means more sectarian violence. Do you agree with that? If so, it seems to me that the question is how much more sectarian violence are you comfortable with?
That’s nice. Obviously I disagree with your assessment of my rhetoric, as I pointed out in the substance of my previous reply to you. Since you continue to ignore my arguments in that vein, would you care to say something about the actual issue at hand?
What’s clear to me is that whether we stay another five years or if we begin withdrawing tomorrow is that a lot of Iraqis are going to die. In the former it will be protracted, whereas in the latter it will be over a shorter time span. Well, hopefully anyway. The sooner we leave, the sooner the healing can begin, hypothetically.
What’s not clear to me, and what I’m interested in seeing how it plays out, is how powerful the Shia are militarily compared to the Sunni and what their goals are. Once the gloves are off will the Sunni be able defend themselves? Will there be an eventual equilibrium? Or will they have no chance and be overrun? Where do the Kurds fit in here, are they just off in their own little bubble pretty much and no one cares much for them?
Depending on the answers to some of the above questions I don’t see why calling it genocide would be hyperbole if all the non-Kurdish Sunnis are purged from the country.
We’re going to stay in Iraq for awhile though, you guys know that right? Bush will carry the torch faithfully until 2009 and you know whoever the new president is will dick around over there for a couple years. Maybe the Dems and/or Congress as a whole will surprise me, but their supine equivocating over the past four years doesn’t fill me with any hope. As long as things stay about the same over there I can see us being there until 2015 easily.
Sure, lets ask ourselves how much worse things will get if we spend a couple years propping up what is already a minority government, and training and equipping its troops to battle the Sunnis and Kurds.
Will we stop partition by abandoning Anbar to the Sunnis?
According to tonight’s AP rundown, no, and nothing else we’re doing is likely to help either: