Well, in that case xt, “whatever it takes” will be using the troops to enforce a partition of Iraq into three nation states, if necessary with Anbar province being absorbed into Saudi Arabia, Kurdistan seeking unification with Southern Turkey and Baghdad becoming Iran’s second city. Just leaving Iraq to tear itself apart is not an option IMO. We must bite the bullet and sort out this fuck up properly while the troops are still there.
nameless…
“…What would it take to convince you that it was time to take our ball and go home?”
To me, this is about our efforts against terrorism. The War on Terrorism; “WOT”, if you will. Iraq is but one of the battlefields. A very important battle, indeed. Much of its success is to be determined sans guns and bombs. As long as the current/future power structure ensures that terrorism does not gain a foothold in its land and people, then we will have succeeded in THAT particular battle. It may take decades to see it through and a guiding U.S. presence (physical, if necessary) via military bases/installations make sense in this regard. Iraqis, and others, that understand the U.S. is not interested in permanent occupation, that their’s is but one of the battles in the WOT, and arbitrary timelines are myopic, will prove better allies.
“…Would a certain event be the determining factor a la the Tet Offensive? Or is there a certain number of casualties at which we become averse to continuing the fight? Obviously, it’s hard to draw lines here, but it seems that many on this board have already drawn their own lines in the sand and seen them crossed. So, war supporters, where are yours? Will nothing short of total victory convince you? Or do we all agree that there are some fights that aren’t worth continuing?”
Surely, there are many events in the ME that will impact our WOT strategy. Unfortunately, and I feel this with utmost compassion for those who have and will perish in this WOT, there is no body count too high that will/should cause the U.S. to abandon its response to 9/11. I guess the relevant question here is, more or less, when will the U.S. know “total victory” in the WOT? To me, the logical answer comes from at least 2 directions: (1) when global intel nets are able to prevent terrorist acts from occuring on U.S. soil and against U.S./Allies’ citizenry abroad, and (2) when those who push terrorism, do not have sufficient followers and/or resources to pose a threat. At this point, the terrorist-minded will be forced to focus their actions into diplomatically acceptable channels. Again, it may take decades, but it is noble fight and one worth fighting.
“…it was only right to see it through to the bitter end once we got in. I’m not sure if I still feel that way, and I certainly understand that there must come a time when I feel we are just throwing lives away–but I’m not wholly convinced we’re at that point yet. At the very least, I feel we owe it to the Iraqis to try and fix the mess we’ve created, but I am increasingly pessimistic about our ability to do so. At any rate, I am open to suggestion from either side. Your thoughts?”
My thoughts focus on the big picture and the long term.
Those who have perished at the hand of terrorism and the WOT will not have done so in vain, unless we turn tail and run.
Those expecting immediate and complete gratification in the WOT do not fully understand what we are fighting for and who the ultimate enemy is. Your words above, to me, are words of defeat, words of anticipated surrender. I suggest you expand both your scope as to what Iraq means and the time horizon involved. We have only just begun.
From a U.S. perspective, we will unltimately leave Iraq a better place than it was under Hussein’s regime. It will either become a valued ally or not. It will not become a breeding ground for those that would commit upon us another 9/11. That is our objective. We owe it to ourselves, the victims and tagets of terrorism, to see the WOT fight all the way through. Unfortunately, that may lead us into other ME countries. Events will tell.
But SentientMeat you’ve taken an absolutist position here. Are you saying that nothing short of a stable democratic Iraq will suffice? If we lose another thousand fighting men? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? It sounds heartless of me to ask this, but how much is a free and democratic Iraq worth?
Perhaps I ask the wrong question; you seem more concerned with a burden on our nation’s conscience than a burden on our lives and finances (and please correct me if I have misconstrued your feelings in any way). To that end, is our pride, our moral obligation worth an infinite number of bodies and dollars?
If enough Iraqi’s from the 3 major and myriad minor religous/ethical/tribal groups can’t come together and compromise for a greater good then there is no point in our staying SM. We absolutely can’t impose order on Iraq in the long term…merely give them enough time to try and create something stable in the short term.
If there just aren’t enough Iraqi’s who WANT a unified and stable nation, or who simply can’t compromise with the other groups in the country then I don’t see the US staying for decades and costing trillions as being a viable course…not for us or for them. I suppose that if either it all falls apart and either the constitution falls through (with no sign that new special elections will be held to try again) or the various militia groups suddenly completely fracture the nation into a real civil war then perhaps the UN could step in for something like what you are proposing…some kind of partitioning of Iraq into multiple small statelets to either try for independence or to be absorbed by other regional powers (I don’t see that happening).
But I think at that point the US (and the UK) will have done everything they can to try and give the Iraqi’s time to make something happen…and at that point I think we SHOULD pull out. I’m with you that its our fuckup, I’m with you that we should do what we can to pay for that fuckup…but not indefinitely, and not if the situation becomes completely out of control and hopeless.
-XT
Hm. Framing Iraq as part of the War on Terror complicates things somewhat, and being that I disagree that it really is a legitimate part of that war, let us see if we can sidestep a potential impasse.
For the sake of argument, let’s compare the D-Day invasion to the War on Terror as a whole. In WWII, the Allies had multiple options for the invasion of Germany. They selected the beaches of Normandy as their route, threw a tremendous amount of men and equipment into the breach, and emerged victorious. But let us concieve of an alternate universe in which they instead decided to land in, say, Pas de Calais. Let us also assume that this invasion did not go well. Men, armor, guns, money–all of it went into a meat grinder. Would the Allies continue, or would they back up and attempt a different route? My guess is the latter. My point is that in any war, there are perhaps times at which a given plan of attack becomes folly, and that a different one is required. Personally, I thought Iraq was a poor choice for advancing the War on Terror, but most people thought otherwise. Again, I would like to know what it would take for you to say, “OK, this is accomplishing very little, let’s open a different front.”
This is a misinterpretation of my position. I advocate fighting an intelligent war on terrorism. I feel that a military force that refuses to adapt to new information and changing situations is doomed. Adaptation does not equal surrender.
At any point, we must examine the realistic consequences of our actions and ask whether things will be worse if we leave. It is ultimately the job of a soldier to act as a target so that fewer civilians die, and a difficult, drawn-out occupation which is expensive in both US lives and dollars would still be far preferable to the fate which would befall Iraq’s civilians if they left. How many Iraqis would realistically die in a civil war which lasted years? If the number of US and UK soldiers who died preventing such all-out war was considerably less than that number, as I believe would be the case even over decades (even if, yes, the number did top ten thousand in, say, 2015), that is what I would advocate. Nobody can predict these things perfectly, but that is my realistic appraisal.
Well, how many Iraqi lives is a US soldier worth? Like I said, I offer only my opinion based on sources and predictions I think are honest and realistic.
I see no “their” lives and “our” lives, since our actions would have caused those lives to be lost - all of them. I seek only to minimise the number of lives lost, British, AMerican or Iraqi, in total, from this point right now.
There is not an infinite number of lives and money on Earth. I seek to make a realistic guess about lives can be saved given the resources of the parties involved.
And, of course, while doing all our guessing and damage limitation, we must continually be looking behind us and asking who the fuck got us in this unmitigated shitfest in the first place?
And the reason this, which I happen to think wpuld be the least bloody alternative to a civil war which we caused, would not happen is because the idea of Iran becoming so much bigger would be opposed by … who? The ones who fucked it up in the first place!
I don’t really expect that my position has much support on either wing of US politics, actually. But I can see these pricks just running away from the civil war they caused and blaming the ungrateful Iraqis, even though so many people told them this would happen. They must reap their whirlwind, since I believe that no matter how many soldiers die, many more Iraqi civilians will die if they leave, however bad it gets in the next 20 years.
SentientMeat
I see. So a fair assessment of your position might be: We should extricate ourselves only when it becomes clear that our presence in Iraq is causing more life to be lost (regardless of nationality) than our absence would. A very utilitarian position, and, I think, a good one.
[QUOTE=nameless]
Framing Iraq as part of the War on Terror complicates things somewhat, and being that I disagree that it really is a legitimate part of that war, let us see if we can sidestep a potential impasse.
“Complicates things somewhat”? That is an understatement. Of course I tie Iraq to the WOT. Big picture. I have serious doubts whether we’d have gone in like we went in had it not been for 9/11.
For the sake of argument, let’s compare the D-Day invasion to the War on Terror as a whole. In WWII, the Allies had multiple options for the invasion of Germany. They selected the beaches of Normandy as their route, threw a tremendous amount of men and equipment into the breach, and emerged victorious. But let us concieve of an alternate universe in which they instead decided to land in, say, Pas de Calais. Let us also assume that this invasion did not go well. Men, armor, guns, money–all of it went into a meat grinder. Would the Allies continue, or would they back up and attempt a different route? My guess is the latter. My point is that in any war, there are perhaps times at which a given plan of attack becomes folly, and that a different one is required. Personally, I thought Iraq was a poor choice for advancing the War on Terror, but most people thought otherwise. Again, I would like to know what it would take for you to say, “OK, this is accomplishing very little, let’s open a different front.”
Comparisons just muddy the already murky water. However, if you just gotta, then perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare WOT to WWII as a whole and not a single battle or front. And, unless I wasn’t paying close enough attention in school, Normandy WAS a meat grinder. Through sheer perseverence, the objective was met.
Again, my time frame for Iraq is much longer than yours seems to be. And contrary to you, I believe we are in the process of accomplishing what we set out to do there. Other ‘fronts’ may indeed need to be opened. Syria, Iran? Time and events will tell. Stay the course. 1,000 points of light. yada yad. Perseverence.
Oh, not easily. And not every does like us personally. But the actual violence is being committed by a tiny part of he population. Moreover, there was a major change in the insurgency. The SUnni have in large part dropped out, and are having an internal conflict over what to do. We are now facing foreign fighters, and that’s a whole different beast from Iraqis.
I didn’t forget them. But they are not quite Islamist, though it’s still a danger there. Frankly, the Saudi’s are a basket case. Their only leadership is filled with greedy men who try to buy off extremists. But their governemnt and society is not wholly Islamist, Committe for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue aside.
Given our kill rates, there won’t be anyone left t fight us if they do.
Again, you don’t understand; we’ve already accomplished most of our goals. The mere fact that they are having a COnstitutional convention at all (along with the isolation of Iran and Syria) makes our enemies considerably weaker. We must now begin to work on Saudi Arabia, but our actions have forced the Arabians to take sides - and it is not clear that they are going to ally with their supposed Muslim brothers.
In fact, the Saudis are starting to come to open blows with Al Quaeda, though obviously tey are divided. I am even willing to allow Saudi Arabia its own evils, so long as they do not continue to support external ones.
Not even when we know that Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al were advocating military action against Iraq as early as 1998?
That is quite hard to evaluate though… obviously US troops are preventing more widespread violence… while at the same time certainly inciting islamic extremists to act in the area (we should in fact count casualties elsewhere too due to incitment provoked by the War). Iraqi troops aren’t likely to hold violence soon enough.
Xtisme… how do you avoid the trap of thinking the next good/essencial step in the fledgling Iraqi democracy isn’t just across the corner ? I understand that once its clear that Iraq is lost… but when do you really know that the politics won’t go democratic ?
What in the world are you talking about?! In fact, what world are you talking about and/or from? Because you couldn’t possibly be speaking of Iraq.
Instead of spamming it here, just read – and follow the links – in this post.
That’s reality – not what you’d like for it to be.
I think we may be closer to agreement here than you think. You seem to think I’m saying we shouldn’t prevent a civil war, when I’ve said just the opposite. My point was that if the US presence was NOT acting as a calming influence, there’s no point to remaining there.
“We broke it, we bought it” is a sensible position to take if our “buying” it will do some good. OTOH, we’ve all known that guy that screws something up and then apologizes profusely and keeps trying to make up for it when really you’d just rather he leave. He is self-centered, wanting to “make things better” so he won’t feel so bad, instead of asking the wronged person what they want. I see no reason to be that guy, and keep making things worse in an effort to salve my conscience instead of doing right by the Iraqis.
If a US-enforced truce is the best that can be done, so be it; but I think there would be other, better solutions, starting with partition. Iraqis were “living together OK” because they were under a dictator; but it is not a naturally-evolved nation-state, and in the end it might be wiser to respect the more natural divisions of language, religion and ethnicity instead of clinging to hundred-year old lines drawn by the British (actually, it might have been better to do that in the beginning, but that’s water under the bridge).
In any event, I suspect that even you would have limits, even if purely theoretical ones … the Troubles came to London in the form of IRA bombs. If the Iraqi Troubles came to the US in the form of nukes, you’d still advocate hanging in there if we lost a half-dozen cities?
To me the war is going well. re-enlistment rates are high, a mad man is no longer in power, a very low US causuality rate compared to most wars, and the WMD that Clinton and Kerry warned us about are now a non-issue.
Withdrawing would be a retreat, which I really don’t see as an option since we are winning. The only real reason is if we got into a major beef with China and need to realocate forces.
Other then that I think we should be hitting them harder and stealing some oil.
YMMV
Stay until:
- The government is stable and the military is able to defend the country from threats internal and external.
or,
- The duly elected government, one that we accept as legitimate, asks the U.S. to leave.
The likely outcome that I can see is that the insurgency will continue indefinitely. So the ‘exit strategy’ is to get a stable government in place that reflects the will of the people (a Democracy or Federal Republic is fine, as long as basic humans rights are enshrined in a constitution), and to get Iraqi security strong enough to handle the insurgency by themselves. As the Iraqis take over more and more responsibility for security, the U.S. can gradually draw down.
The insurgency is driven right now by a strategy of running out the clock. They can see support for the war fading in the U.S., and increasing agitation against it by opponents in the U.S. As more politicians like Hagel come out and start talking about exit strategies, the insurgents can feel the tide is turning their way, no matter how badly they may be losing on the ground. The lesson of Tet in Vietnam has been well learned - the Tet offensive was a disaster for the Viet Cong. They were virtually wiped out as a military force. But it turned support for the war at home and energized the anti-war movement, and thus was a strategic victory. The same thing is happening in Iraq.
So the only way to change that dynamic is to remove the ‘temporary’ force and make the insurgents face Iraqis, who aren’t going anywhere. Then there’s no path to ‘winning’, and the insurgency will eventually fade. It will take a long time.
So the U.S. will have to leave Iraq for the insurgency to be beaten. But it can only leave when a credible replacement force is in place. That’s probably at least two years from now, and maybe three. In the interim, a force drawdown of maybe 50,000 soldiers could happen gradually, and afterwards there will no doubt be some form of presence left indefinitely, unless the Iraqis ask them to leave.
Leaving any time before control of security can responsibly be handed over to an Iraqi force would be an absolute disaster. Not only will Iraq be in big trouble, but the U.S. will lose the credibility needed to take other military action in the future. No one will believe that the U.S. has the staying power to see though any kind of protracted conflict, and that will embolden terrorists and dictators everywhere.
The U.S. simply has to stay until the Iraqis are ready. Doing otherwise would be grossly irresponsible.
Because I believe we’ll see a fairly clear progression one way or the other in the next few months. First off, if a Constitution isn’t ratified (that means if the Sunni don’t come on board) and they have to go back to square one with a new special election and new constitution committee, then this would be a clear indication that things aren’t going to work out IMO. If they DO get a new constitution and hold a general election then the next indications things might not work out would be looking at the various militia groups…and at the Iraqi military both from a loyalty standpoint and from a over all capabilities perspective. Assuming a new government is voted in with a general election following a ratified constitution (ratified by all three major powers and as many of the minor ones as can be) then we should see that central government taking control and defanging the various militia groups…and perhaps even conducting investigations into some of their activities (I’ve heard some horror stories about some of these groups). We’d also see the Iraqi’s taking more of a hand in the defense of their people. If these things don’t happen or if we aren’t moving towards that I’d say thats a good indication that its time to begin a gradual US withdrawl.
On the other hand if the Iraqi’s DO ratify a constitution and elect a government and are doing everything they can to gain control, but they are clearly being overwhelmed by the reactionary insurgent types (and perhaps foreign fighters) then I think the US should stay as long as it takes.
I’m slightly drunk so hopefully some of the above makes at least a bit of sense. If not perhaps I’ll take another shot tomorrow. 
-XT
I find that that morning eye-opener of straight vodka does indeed help. 
The OP is asking “War supporters”: At what point would you call for withdrawal?
I have read the 37 posts in this thread and I cannot quite figure out which of the posters are **“War Supporters”, ** and which ones are not.
Before I give my humble response to the OP, I’d like to briefly analyze the above 37 posts, so that you may appreciate why my response is totally different from most posters in this thread.
Out of the 17 posters, the only ones that appear to be “War Supporters” (based on their post here) are Sage Rat, Sam Stone, and yo no se, who seems convinced that the reason we went into this war was for the noble cause of WOT (see post # 22). Obviously yo no se buys the stuff coming out of the corporate media.
The following posters touched upon the realities of this war, but did not quite go to the heart of the matter. Here are some examples:
I am not a “War Supporter”, but IMHO the reason “The Master War Supporters” took us to Iraq was to stay there for ever. There is no exit strategy as there was never any intention of leaving Iraq when we invaded it, even if 50% of US “War Supporters” reach a point of calling “for withdrawal”. Iraq will be the US base in the Middle East, no matter what constitution is written in Iraq or how many of our soldiers die in a civil war there. Presence of US military bases and troops will become a permanent fixture in Iraq, even though we may withdraw some troops eventually if the insurgency cools down over time. The Iraqis will learn to live with our presence over time, just as the Germans, Japanese, South Koreans, and many other countries where the US has permanent military bases.
I believe the more the “War Supporters” begin to realize the geopolitical reasons behind the US invasion of Iraq at the first place, the less likely they will reach a point to call for withdrawal. This PNAC administration knows how to create events and use the complicit corporate media to numb the populace - no mater how many dead US soldiers or Iraqi people.
Absolutely, just as Britain, painfully, hung on in Ulster to successfully prevent sectarian war. In fact, I’d advocate it all the more strongly in Iraq because in the indescribably unlikely event that Iraqis did nuke US cities, we both know that there would be cries in the US to remove the troops from Iraq in order to nuke it.