Is the war now being fought only because the other side is fighting back?
Is there a realistic expectation of improvement in a year to five years prolongment of the current war, as it is being fought now?
If the other side agreed to a ceasefire with US withdrawal* and to cease attacks on civilians, and to ensure the protection of the civilian population, should the US withdraw? Is there any groups that would instigate attacks on the civilian populace just for the pure heck of it, that would negate such a treaty?
In this hypothetical solution, the US and Coalition’s troops would be withdrawn to international bases in Afghanistan and south Europe, ready to step in again if the other side did not keep their promises.
Would the other side, given back control over Iraq, take steps to rebuild the country’s infrastructure and stabilize the region?
Please, I do not think this as such constitutes a classic surrender situation, and I do think this situation is sufficiently unique that comparisons to previous wars isn’t sufficient debunkment.
If there were no insurgency, there would still be a vast American military presence in Iraq. That was the neocons’ plan all along – to use Iraq as a “coaling station” from which to project military power in the region. The same role the Philippines played in Southeast Asia and the Pacific in the early 20th Century.
The original intentions aren’t really the question here though, BG. The question is “would America agree to withdraw if it could count on the insurgency stopping violence?”
I think (hope) we would. But there’s no way to enforce such a ceasefire after American troops are gone, so it’s a pretty unrealistic scenario.
One has to realize that there are many factions involved here, it is not just hyperbole that this has been called a “cluster fuck”
You have Al qaeda that is, as the best information says, less than 10% of the other side. They are fighting to kill anyone.
You have Sunis that were the power during the Saddam era, fighting to get us out and kill Shiites.
You have the Shiites that are the majority and they are fighting to get us out and kill Sunis.
You have Kurds that are inciting the Kurdish populations in Turkey and Iran and they in turn are getting provoked to intervene in Iraq.
And then the more we stay we have the situation of turning Iraq into a defacto colonial state, a prospect that on many occasions has united and I think it will unite them (for this time only) into pointing all their weapons to the occupier’s forces. A chaotic situation is best to make excuses. If the idea takes hold for the Iraqis to join forces, I see no better reason than to be united against a common enemy (meaning us). If a faction gets too strong, then we will see the same ethnic cleansing going on but X10
All those depressing elements tell me that the current US administration would not like to see any faction or a new strong government in Iraq get the upper hand.
Sure, after several years of this we could declare then that this has been a defeat of the other side. A Pyhrric defeat.
Who goes first. If we retreated to the base would the violence stop. Iraqis refer to the US as occupiers. As long as we are there it will cause resentment. We are never leaving. The oil is still there and it belongs to the oil companies. We must protect them.
Afghanistan is suited for no purpose but the cultivation of opium, and just possibly a natural-gas pipeline. Afghanistan is the quintessential ass end of nowhere. It managed to keep its independence throughout the period of colonial imperialism largely because it was not worthwhile for Britain or Russia to take it over. Iraq is closest to the Middle East’s biggest oilfields.
Or Israel, Turkey, Kuwait or Dubai. We’re not exactly hurting for allies in the region. After all, we didn’t have to launch an amphibious invasion when we attacked Iraq.
I’m sure that getting a new base of operations in the ME was a plus in the minds of the planners of the Iraq invasion, but I’m skeptical that was the main purpose.
What does a country need to put a military base in it? A flat piece of land to build an airfield on and some impoverished natives to hire for a few dollars to do the laundry and clean the dishes.
Location, location, location. Afghanistan is too remote from any seacoast for a base there to be supplied or supported by the U.S. Navy. Except for Iran, it borders no country where the U.S. might have any strategic interest. Iraq borders Iran, SA, and the Gulf States, and is accessible via the Persian Gulf. It is the perfect place from which to launch airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear plants. It is also within striking distance of Iran’s richest oilfields, in Khuzestan, for possession of which Hussein went to war. It can even be used to launch an invasion of Syria, if the Admin goes completely insane.
Stated in terms of simply military bases, you are probably right. However, it was a key point in Wolfowitz’s term paper that became the Neo-Con blueprint prior to the election of GWB that if the U.S. could get a Middle Eastern country to embrace Western Democracy, it would become the linchpin of the trans-generational effort to establish democracy around the world. Iraq was specifically chosen in that paper as the one state that other Muslim countries disliked, from which we could keep a very close eye on Iran, and that “just happened” to have a stable oil supply. Thus it was the “perfect” client state from which we could extend our power in the region, bringing the beneficence of democracy (and Amercian capitalism) to the benighted lands of the Middle East.
In a blue sky, dreamer’s gaze into the future, it was not a horrible idea–as long as one ignored the reality of the factions already in the country, the seriously disrupted infrastructure, the general hostility of the entire region to Western meddling, the immense debt the country already owed to other states in the region, and a few other “minor” problems.
(Dismissing the analyses of the actual military advisers regarding the resources needed, transparently lying to the world about WoMD so that we alienated even potential allies, setting up no-bid contracts exclusively with American corporations to give the very clear impression that it was nothing more than an American colonial land grab, and lumping Iraq into a fictional “axis of evil” with Iraq’s worst enemy were simply extra trimmings chosen to doom the event after it had been decided upon and were not part of the original term paper.)
I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at here. The ‘war’ is being fought because multiple sides are involved at this point. There are multiple factions in Iraq that are fighting not only the US but the current Iraqi government, as well as each other. The US is obviously there and they are fighting for…well, I suppose for us not to lose, and for some kind of stable Iraqi government to emerge and perhaps be our friend (or something). The Iraqi government is fighting because…well, they want to be the government and other people don’t WANT them too. Thus conflict ensues. Getting into all the other various factions and what THEY are fighting for is beyond my abilities…and would probably take up books. Suffice it to say that, at least IMHO taking the US out of the equation would not stop the fighting (if thats what you are getting at)…nor would taking the US AND the current Iraqi government out of the equation halt the fighting.
Depends on your definition of ‘realistic expection’ to be honest…as well as ‘improvement’. Depending on one’s definition of those terms however, and in broad brush strokes: I’d say its quite improbable that there will be any kind of impovement in a year. The probablilty of there being SOME kind of improvement in 5 years time is greater however…if the whole house of cards doesn’t simply fold, or if the US doesn’t simply tuck tail and bolt. If the US DOES bolt (without some other outside power filling the vaccume) then I’d say the probability of there being an improvement in a 5 year time frame is…very small. YMMV, and at a guess there won’t be many who agree with me around here.
Who would we get such an agreement from exactly? Which factions? There isn’t any groups faction large enough to have any meaningful negotiations WITH…not if you realistically expect to have such a treaty fulfilled. If you are simply looking for an excuse to cut and run and you don’t care that Iraq will be left holding the bag (and that a hell of a lot of civilians and a large percentage of the current government will probably end up posing for gun fire) then I suppose it would be ok.
What ‘other side’? The Sunni? Which faction? The Shi’a? Again, which faction? The Kurds? One of the myriad OTHER splinter faction? The current Iraqi government? Some coalition of factions? Iran? Space aliens?
Seriously, what are you talking about…and where do you get that there is some ‘other side’ we could turn things over too or negotiate with in the chaos that is Iraq?
No…its not surrender, true enough. Its cutting and running and leaving the Iraqi’s to hold the bag. Simply put, there isn’t anyone TOO negotiate with…not realistically. So, it would be a sham, something to save some face (though only some shlub in Outer Mongolia would believe it WOULD save face for the US at this point) while washing our hands of the situation…and letting the Iraqi’s face the music we started.
We have a mess and Bush is hiding it. I think Bush is hoping for all the Iraqis fighting against the occupation die of heart attacks at the same time. He wants to hang on for a miracle that would save his loss. But he can never be forgotten for lying us into the war…
