Friend RT is holding a similar thread, so this becomes redundant. I request we meet over there for tea and calumny. Mods may lock, according to thier whim.
See ya there.
I think that these discussions of c&r may be an indicator that this war is viewed somewhat differently than WWII. One could prob’ly come up with a dozen or so good reasons why WWII is seen so differently by the American electorate with only nominal effort. Primary among them would be that this was an optional, elective and preventive war, (opposed to a pre-emptive one)*.
This is only supposed to be rhetorical noise, correct? You aren’t seriously citing this as proof that things in Iraq are about to get better any minute now are you?
From the Center for Contemporary Conflict, the research institute of the Naval Postgraduate School’s Department of National Security Affairs:
**Preventive War vs. Preemption **
Although the terms often are used interchangeably, “preventive war” and “preemption” are different strategic concepts.
Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war. Preventive war thinking seems to dominate U.S. planning about Iraq: it is better to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime now then to deal later with a regime armed with nuclear weapons. Preventive war thinking, however, can turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy (treating war as inevitable helps make it inevitable). It also can lead to unnecessary conflict because few things are inevitable: Saddam could die of natural causes next week, producing a significant opportunity for the United States and its allies to shape Iraqi politics and policies.
Preemption is nothing more than a quick draw. Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike. Preemption or launch-under-attack are strategies that can be adopted by states that fear preventive war.
That’s not the point. As I said, you have two options and you have to look at which one is worse, not simply the fact that you don’t like one of the options. I never said things were going great, only that they will most likely be worse if we leave.
Please quote me where I said that. I gave an explicit reason for not leaving, and never said “because we musn’t”. You sound like you painted yourself into a corner and are simply lashing out because you have no argument to make.
Ah, there’s the rub. You want Bush to be humiliated so badly that you are willing to ignore the obvious catastrophy that would ensue.
Please, explain to us how our leaving will result in a better situation than we have now. Not just for the US, but for all the parties concerned.
Hmm. Sounds like you decided you’re not getting anywhere with your argument and so you want to cut and run… 
The argument seems to be that we must stay, to accomplish . . . and after that it sort of bogs down.
We can stay. No one can kick us out.
But we cannot accomplish anything beneficial to anyone, no matter when we begin leaving.
Whoever supports us will be marked for death on the day we leave.
Everyone there knows that.
So, the independent government of Iraq is a fiction, and every one knows it is a fiction.
And we must stay, to build this fiction.
And while we stay, every day costs lives, and builds hatred, and sews the seeds of another decade of terrorism.
There is a way out.
We surrender.
We ask only for one concession: that our troops are allowed to withdraw without harassment. We retreat out of Iraq in as quick and orderly a manner as possible.
We lost this war the day before we started it.
It was a stupid, arrogant thing to do, and we did it.
We build the basis of terrorism each day we continue to be as arrogant and stupid as we have been.
No one can impose democracy on another nation.
Tris
Well, John-boy, you can think whatever you bloody well please, now can’t you. My story is we don’t need two threads for the same conversation, and I’m sticking to it.
Kindly refrain from mind-reading demonstrations. Miss Cleo you ain’t.
I disagree. This is only one possibility. We MIGHT accomplish a wide range of things, from a full scale democracy (an outside possibility at the moment, but not totally un-probable), a partial democracy of some type, to some other stable government along more totalitarian lines (probably the greater possibility). There are a whole range of possibilities, only one of which is that when we leave the whole thing goes tits up. And that will depend on our political will as a nation. If we leave now, I can almost guarentee that the situation will fly completely out of control and a hell of a lot of folks WILL die. Is that what people REALLY want, just to embarrass the current Administration??
Its a fiction right now. It will be a partial fiction in June (in theory). However, it won’t STAY a fiction indefinitely…one way or another, eventually Iraq WILL govern itself (or various groups will govern in the region we presently define as ‘Iraq’).
We must stay because WE are the ones who upset the apple cart in Iraq and its our duty to stay until something resembling stability returns. Where are you getting all this fiction bullshit from? BTW, do you ever use paragraphs?
Why would we do that? In addition, this isn’t our ONLY option, just the easy road that most in this thread seem bent on choosing. Why is that? Whether the war was right or wrong, we are in it, we are there…and we are the ONLY thing holding it all together atm.
We need to stick it out at this point. In addition, I’m seeing a lot of needless (IMO) handwringing and gloom and doom here. Lest we forget, at least to THIS point, what we are seeing in Iraq ISN’T a general uprising…not even close. If 24 million Iraqi’s decided they wanted us out (or if even 1 million Iraqi’s did) we’d have a whole hell of a lot more trouble than we are presently experiencing.
Well, thats true enough. If the Iraqi’s are bent on not wanting democracy (personally I think the vast majority are indifferent at best), they will get something else in the end, no doubt. And they’ll get it in the end without the benifit of a lubricant too. If the majority continue to sit on the fence and do nothing they will probably get what they get…an watered down version of Saddam to lord it over them again. Maybe someone like the Shah of Iran…
Why is it time NOW to think this? Because of the recent ‘uprising’?? Both Kerry and Bush are right if they are both saying that its far to early to be thinking to tuck tail and bolt, elucidator. I’m just not seeing how things are THAT bad in Iraq that our only option is to leave the country to disintigrate into complete chaos…and have the blood of HUNDREDS of thousands instead of the tens of thousands presently on our hands. Hell, maybe millions. Is that REALLY what you want? We broke it…no matter how tough it gets, we need to stay there until something resembling stability is formed that can stand on its own.
Only feasible way? If the US absents itself, who do you suppose will make sure Iraq doesn’t fly apart?? The UN? The EU? :rolleyes: Get real. They are wisely not going to stick THEIR dicks into the meat grinder, and thats assuming that they COULD do something…which I strongly doubt. Face facts…the US has probably the ONLY large standing and deployable military on the scale needed to keep Iraq from going tits up.
The US caused this, whether it was right or wrong…its our duty to stay until things are at least stable. Besides, I don’t think you can make a case that the situation in Iraq is FUBAR yet. The US has certainly made its share of mistakes…but its done SOME good things too. In addition, at least from everything I’ve read, the vast majority of Iraqi’s are sitting on the fence for this one. You have a very militant minority that pretty much hates the US (and everyone else IMO, they’d do the same shit if the UN was there, again IMO), a minority of folks that love the US (for various reasons), and the vast majority that are somewhere in the middle of those extremes…i.e. they don’t particularly like the US, nor do they particularly like the militiants, and are just waiting to see who will end up ruling them in the end.
We do that and we condemn a hell of a lot more Iraqi’s than have died to date to a pretty grim future.
In short, no. Its not time to even begin to contemplate this. Things simply aren’t that bad. If this ‘uprising’ becomes more general, if the military situation begins to look like we can’t hold, if the majority of the Iraqi’s either continue to sit on the fence or even begin to actively resist, if June comes and goes without even a token effort to begin the process of putting an interrim Iraqi government in power…THEN we might want to start thinking about the unthinkable. But its kind of crazy to even discuss this right now, given the current situation and also given the fact that if Kerry wins he’s going to need SOME time to evaluate the situation and decide what HE thinks he should do. If Bush wins :eek: …well, lets hope he’s willing to RE-evaluate the situation and make some positive changes.
-XT
Good question. A point needs to be made that Iraq, the US and the world will be better if the occupation leaves (and because the occupation leaves). Although there is also a point that everything will be worse if the occupation stays (and because the occupation stays).
I think I could make the former point. I think I could gather the cites to support it with zillions of statements by the involved parties in Iraq. Unfortunately no time for that. Still hope to contribute to this thread.
Has anybody ever noticed how moderate all involved parties in Iraq are? Sistani firmly believes in separation between Islam and politics (to the point of not putting cites for me on his website!) Al-Sadr is extreme and not much supported in Iraq, but refrained from calling for violence until completely provoked.
(lack of time prevents me from continuing)
Iraq will not “fly apart” when the occupation leaves. (Actually this statement is a bit stronger than I really believe; I don’t pretend to foretell the future with absolute accuracy, but I hope you get the point…)
The Al Q angle keeps coming up. I have to chime in here and debunk this. Of course, under Saddam, Al Q was rigorously persecuted. Without Saddam, their movement (incl. affiliates like Ansar al Islam) still finds very little support among Iraqis (Iraqis would typically refer to them as “Wahhabists”). The intercepted Al Zarqawi letter lamented just about this! I think the Iraqis would much better be able to fight Al Q in Iraq (imagine how easy it is for them to recognize people from out of town, as opposed to how hard it is for occupation forces).
I think this is the fundamental difference of opinion on the matter. What will actually be accomplised by occupatoin military force in Iraq? When is overwhelming military force appropriate? Sides will probably never agree about this.
Interestingly, I agree with the latter part. Things aren’t yet as bad as they could be. Staying in Iraq will make them.
[
We did this in Falluja. Seems to be working really well for the Iraqis so far (and for the occupation too) although the jury is still out for the eventual judgment.
Al Q were greatly disliked by most Afghans (IIRC) - and seen as Arab outsiders very foreign to the local (non Arabic) culture - plus both Al Q and the Taliban seemed to have a lot of Pakistanis (who also caused resentment with the locals) - Al Q has never been about charm contests - they don’t need to win love and affection, they can buy that with whatever remains of Bin L’s millions (or other Saudi money).
Al Q has never operated on “home ground”. They just need somewhere the Americans can’t operate.
As to lamenting lack of support - sounds reminiscent of letters sent by the early American revolutionaries bewailing the problems they were having getting any interest at all.
(IIRC what changed things was the behaviour of the British troops.)
OK, I see your point now. Sorry if I misunderstood originally.
In any case I agree that terrorism and Al-Q-like movements need to be taken seriously. So I’m not saying that all terrorism will automatically cease if(when) the occupation leaves Iraq.
As I said in RTFirefly’s thread a couple days ago, it does serves no worthwhile purpose to remain as an occupying power in Iraq if you have no workable plan for transitioning power to an authentic Iraqi government so as to permit a planned draw-down of troops.
It has become abundantly clear that the White House has no such plan. Indeed, I believe they have proven themselves to be so spectacularly ignorant and blindly ideological that it seems impossible to me that they are even capable of formulating a workable transition plan.
But largely for the reasons noted above by others, I do not believe that we can pull out in the very near term. We have to make some attempt to fix this mess, even if the prospects of success are negligible. We broke it, we bought it. For now. If these useless s.o.b.'s get re-elected this fall, I will heartily endorse an immediate withdrawal and handover of power to anyone or no one at all, as the best means of limiting the Bush administration’s ability to fuck things up even more.
Whats the rational behind “we surrendered in Falluja”? I’m not up on the latest rantings on this subject. From what I remember it was pretty much a stalemate, with the US poised to go in, and the militants refusing to negotiate. However, the US going in would have set off a powder keg with the possibility of a high Iraqi body count AND the specter of a general Shi’ite uprising.
Seemed like a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenerio for the administration. Had the Administration of sent in the troops, people would be ranting about that (and about the US and Iraqi casualties). Withdrawing to let the Iraqi’s have a shot at it with what constitutes their army seems to be having the same effect if this is any indication. Personally I think it was one of the smarter moves the Administration has made.
What will be accomplished through the military occupation? Basically time…time in which something stable might be put in place and kept there. When is overwhelming military force appropriate?? How does this question relate? There are all kinds of scenerio’s where military force is appropriate. However, right NOW, in Iraq, military force is essential to keep the entire country from boiling over. Again, WE set up this situation by toppling Saddam. Its up to us to maintain order and buy the Iraqi’s time in which to at least attempt to have a future.
Or, conversely, staying might prevent them from getting truely bad. Because things could be a HELL of a lot worse…and will be, IMO, if the US simply pulls out. I guess I’m just not seeing how the US staying necessarily will make it worse, nor am I seeing at all how the US leaving will be better than the US staying. To my mind, the US staying might be bad…the US leaving will be a complete disaster. I’ll take bad.
-XT
You’re right, I’m not. Miss Cleo is a fraud.
I notice you did not refute (or even address) a single one of my arguments or deal with the fact that you failed to make an argument in your OP. Just cheap shots at the side issues.
Oil.
From what I remember it was the US that was refusing to negotiate and bent on going in guns blazing. (Yeah, cite wanted here, there was alot of bloodthirsty rhetoric from the occupation side.) Fortunately Iraqis stepped in to negotiate, and eventually cooler heads prevailed, recognizing the powder keg and Shi’ite uprising situation. In any case I agree it was a smart move, however interpreted; I credit the aforementioned cooler heads in the occupying forces for it. And admittedly, the Administration, for eventually coming around and going along with it.
I can follow your reasoning. Still disagree on the conclusion. My interpretation is that, right NOW, in Iraq, military force is causing the entire country to boil over.
Actually, no. I was thinking in terms of this thread limping off and everybody posting to the other. You may rest assured I am not cringing before the rhetorical force of your argument.
On the other hand, niether can I, in all honesty, make in irrefutable case. We have no facts, or damned few of them. Consider, if you will, the following from Lt. Gen. William Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency:
“…We have already failed. Staying in longer makes us fail worse … I think we’ve passed the chances not to fail. And now we are in the situation where we have to limit the damage…”
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8552589.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
I am wholly sensitive to the argument to responsibility: we broke it, we own it. But the issue is not responsibility, the issue is feasibility. Can we fix it? Or is our very presence counterproductive? Polling of Iraqis, as noted by others, indicates that we are not losing the fight for “hearts and minds” so much as we have already lost it. And note well: this poll was conducted before the outrageous revelations about the conduct of some of our troops and “contractors”, a word that is quickly becoming loathesome.
We can pretend that no cost is too high, no burden too great. But we know it isn’t true. There are limits. Have we reached them? I don’t know. But if things go as they have, we will reach them.
Ask yourself this: if Bush would hint that a “Get the Hell out of Dodge” exit strategy was being contemplated, would Iraqi’s pour into the streets in thier thousands to beg us to reconsider? Clearly, the Kurds want us to remain, but does anyone else?
We are running out of options, if we haven’t already. The application of brute force doesn’t lead to disaster, it is the embodiment of disaster, it is the thing itself. Besides which, do we even have brute force to deliver? I very much doubt that our level of troops will suffice against a determined resistance. But I am by no means a military expert, perhaps you have some evidence to offer to prove otherwise.
Failing that, I fear we must admit that without the consent and cooperation of the Iraqi people, our “exit strategy” is just so much smoke and mirrors. If we can fix it, by all means, lets do so. Honor and justice, not to mention the respect of the world, demands no less.
But simple realism demands that we ask the question: without the consent and cooperation of the Iraqi people, can we succeed? Can we obtain that consent and cooperation? If so, how?
Because if we cannot, I submit that our presence is futile, inflammatory, and self destructive.
I trust, John, that this will pass muster as a response. If you have some evidence to offer, please do. Truly, these are dreadful thoughts, and I take no pleasure in them.
Indeed, I’m a bit insulted by your suggestion that my only interest is a form of rabid partisanship, my fervent desire to see GeeDubya brought low…make that very insulted. As, no doubt, you would be insulted by the opposite canard.
How 'bout when a pro-war poster accuses a critic of just wanting to bash Bush, the critics can just respond that the pro-war guy just hates our soldiers and wants to see them get killed? That’s a sure way to elevate the discourse.
It’s unclear at all that Gen. Odom is advocating a cut and run strategy.
We broke it, we own it is only part of the equation. Again I ask, draw us a picture of what that part of the world would look like 6 months after we executued a “cut and run” strategy, and how that situation would be better than what we have now. I see Kurds slaughtering Sunni, Shi’a slaughtering Sunni and Kurds ( and vice versa), Turkish Kurds aiding Iraqi Kurds, Iran aiding Iraqi Shi’a, al Qaeda (or something similar) aiding Iraqi Sunni. Syria being pulled in to “protect it’s border” possibly even Jordan. How could it be anything but an absolute disaster.
It’s one thing to advocate a stragy that would end the loss of Americans lives, but quite another that would bring a bloody civil war to one of the flash points in the Middle East. What other scenario would play out?
Better than a “cut and run” strategy (if we really think the situation is hopeless) would be a partition stragey. Admit that the country can’t be held together and divide it into 3 autonomous zones, with a clear assurance to Turkey that its borders will be defended. Even that would be messy, as you can’t just cleanly draw geographic lines separating ethnic groups. But you’d minimize the areas of tension.
Well, according to the polls (in the other thread) most Iraqis (in all 3 major ethnic groups) say they would feel less safe it we left. Granted, a majority say they want us to leave and I agree that we should have a clearly articualted exit plan: We will be gone by such-and-such date and/or once such-and-such milestones are met. Bush has failed to do this, and I think that is part of the problem.
No insult was intended, so I apologize if one was felt. It did appear that your rabid partisanship (which you have proclaimed yourself on many occasions) was blurring your vision to the reality of what a cut and run exit would actually mean to that part of the world.
I’ve said from the very beginning of this war that the best outcome I expected, 5-10 years hence, would be a Musharif-type strongman in power in Iraq. A tough ruler who can quell ethnic violence without being a horrendously brutal dicatator. Maybe a bloody civil war WILL in fact be the outcome even if we stay on for several years, but that outcome is as near as possible to an absolutely certainty if we leave now. We have not even passed the milestone of the first elections-- it’s just too early to call this an inevitable failure. The stakes are to high.
True enough, in the sense that he makes no advocacy. Nonetheless, it a bit difficult to interpret “we have already lost” in a sunny light.
You ask the impossible, as I’m pretty sure you realize. But your question implies its opposite: that these dreadful occurances would be the result of a “Get the Hell out of Dodge” strategy. What facts do you have at your fingertips to assure us that such horror is going to be prevented by US forces? Is it entirely possible that these things will happen anyway, the major distinction being in the very center of a shit cyclone, as compared to observing from outside? I sure as hell don’t want my kid in the middle of this, how do I dare ask someone else to take such a risk, without any plausible assurance of success?
See, that’s all you need to make your case, John, and convert me instanter into a Macevik. Give me one solid fact that indicates such a plausible prospect. Just one. Failing that, admit that the appalling prospect of cutting our losses and getting gone is not only feasible, it may be the only prospect.
I don’t know. Have I suggested that I do? Will the further sacrfice of American lives be certain to defer such consequences?
Put your finger on the primary stupidity: our firm and unflinching policy to keep a “federal” Iraq as a single entity, somehow force the Kurds, Sunni and Shia all in the same Procrustean bed. Iraq only existed because of Saddam, without his ruthless and brutal power, it did not exist. I submit that the best evidence is such that without that brutal force, which we are rightly unwilling to apply, Iraq cannot exist as we have idealized it. The Kurds alone are a virtually insoluable problem, even if the Sunni and Shia didn’t so much as exist!
My contempt for GeeDubya is entirely sensible, calm, and well-considered, there is no foam-flecked rage. I make no bones about that contempt, and heartily reject the notion that I am unable to consider alternative arguments. My vision, sir, is no more blurred than your own. To the extent that you are willing to make allowances for my “rabid partisanship”, I suppose I should feel some gratitude.
“Poor ol’ 'luci, his seething partisan rage makes him blind to the clarity of my arguments, poor fellow, poor fellow, not his fault, you know.”
Gee, thanks. I must be sure to offer some equally gracious comment to you, sometime.
That’s the best? Well, I suppose. After all, we went to war to disarm Saddam of his Nuclear-Anthrax Invisible Pink Unicorns, clearly, that threat is no more. Never was, of course, but never mind. Beyond that, John, “Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss” is small comfort. None, actually.
Sam: From what I’ve seen over the past year or so, for every Iraqi group that sees th UN as Saddam’s buddy there is one that denounces it as being a tool of the US. No doubt some hold both views simultaneous.
The only reasons I could see the UN having serious legitimacy in Iraq is that first of all the UN is not the US, and more importantly Al-Sistani has effectively dubbed it a legitimate arbiter of the Iraqi peoples’ interests. This gives it a non-trivial role in Iraq, at least as far as the saner Shia are concerned. I agree with you that the UN would be hard pressed to do more than provide a framework and schedule for transfer of sovereignty and perhaps observers for same. However, if this degree of internationalism persuaded a few countries to open up their purse strings it would be more than worth it.
I am still mostly on the side of “make Iraq work” if only because being perceived as a bully is far better than being perceived as a bully with a glass jaw.* hether we can afford to be perceived as an incompetent bully is a whole other question.
*Regardless of whether an American pullout would be the result of an unwillingness to inflict casualties, take casualties, or (so far most likely) pay for it, the perception that would be trumpeted would be that we are unwilling to spend our own blood