KW wrote:First, I am not going to con you, I am a Democrat who was opposed to this war almost from the first. Actually, when Bush first announced his intention to go after Iraq early in 2002, for a brief few weeks I was teeter-tottering, since Saddam had defied the UN under Clinton. A couple of times, I even took Bush's side in arguments on this at the early stages. But after a few weeks I could not help but pushed away by the hyped up rush to go in there, plus the fact that there was little evidence that Saddam Hussein, awful as he was, was involved in 911.
Hussein seemed to be handing us an opportunity to get rid of him by not following UN resolutions to the letter. On the other hand, it seemed to me that Arabs, who have good reasons and bad reasons for not liking the US, might be radicalized by us invading Iraq. While they might not like us in Afghanistan and might protest, deep down inside I think most Arabs know that you cannot seriously harbor the man who sends planes into the WTC and not expect the wrath of the Number One military power to come down on you.
Iraq is a different deal, though. With no proven connections to 911, it seemed to me we ran the risk of having the Arabs think we were out to take over the Middle East, country by country. The Arabs might grudgingly agree that the Taliban had it coming, if only for being stupid. Iraq must strike them as our getting ready to rip through the whole region.
That is why I decided against the invasion back in 2002.
I am afraid that the radicalization of the Arabs is what has occurred.
I appreciate your honesty KW. Since the first part of your post deals with the reason we are there, I see no useful purpose in commenting on it........it is history and as such it is irrelevant to this discussion plus it has been beaten to death on this forum hundreds of times
I do admit that I expected a better reaction from the majority of the Iraqi community after we liberated them, but now looking back I can see the Shia are acting out of vengeance because Bush 1 ( Brent Scowcroft et al) abandoned them while Saddam butchered them ........ they feel betrayed as I would.
Quote:Emotionally, I am ready to jump on the "Bring 'em home" bandwagon. What is bothering me is the sneaking suspicion that future generations might curse us for doing so. How can a great power invade a country in a tinerbox region of great ecnonomic importance, depose the ruler, then say "Toodle-oo" and let various factions which have been building up a grudge for centuries have at each other?
We will not just pull out......al least not while Bush is in office. I did not suggest that we would.......I said that I thought we could BEGIN to pull out next year. I do think we should put them on notice that our patience is wearing thin and I think Rumsfeld did that in his very recent surprise trip there.
I think Coluber laid out a very likely Scenario but I don't believe Bush and Rice will allow this Jaafari to get too cozy with Iran and that Wacko hardliner who was just elected there......we still hold some strong cards and I think we will see some hard ball played out. Bush has no intention of allowing this thing to spiral out of control just yet. Once the constitution is written and the next elections are held he may lose control but not now.
I think the ultimate result will be a secular Gov't very similar to that of Turkey which is the best we can hope for given all the factors at play. I believe the administration never envisioned anything better than that......realistically.
I think we will have a military presence there for at least 5 years and mayber longer but the fighting force will probably be reduced to a quick reaction force of aircraft,and helicopters, with no less than two brigades of expert battle hardened veterans. This force will be mostly out of sight within 2 years
