Debunking the Reasons to stay in Iraq.

The "Terrorists will Win" Theory. Bush's current primary justification for continuing the war in Iraq is that a US departure would be a victory for the terrorist. The fallacy in this line of reasoning is that Iraq belongs to the Iraqis.

It is the legitimately elected Shia majority government who will "win" Iraq if we leave right now. They represent the majority of Iraqis. As it should be Iraq will be won by Iraqis.

The elected Shia dominated government by well over half of the country. They have the resources and the support to govern. They also have a powerful friendly neighbor that can provide support and even help suppress the insurgency.

When we leave the government can deal with the insurgency the way that all governments deal with insurgency. If they are smart, they will offer concessions to the Sunni minority, but there is no real danger of the insurgency winning (i.e. toppling the Shia majority government).

The Iraqis should rule Iraq-- and this means a government that will be dominated by Shia. If we leave now this is what will happen.

The China-shop Theory (you break it, you buy it) This is sadly very common with lukewarm apologists in the liberal camp. It says that since the Adminstration did the invasion and screwed the country up so much, the United States has the responsibility to stay until things are better.

This doesn't make much sense. What effect have the US troops had in Iraq so far?

The US troops are an agitant in Iraq. They put Iraq in the middle of the US-led "war on terror". The US wants this war. Al Qaeda seems to want this war.

Iraqis don't want to be in the middle of this. Why should they be thrust in the middle of a war that they weren't a part of before the war, and don't want any part of now? This isn't fair to Iraq.

If you withdraw the US troops from Iraq, the "war on terror" will go elsewhere. Iraq still has to straighten out its own mess which right now is a smoldering civil war between two ethnic groups. But waging the "war on terror" on top of this isn't doing the Iraqi's any favors.

The Crucial part of the "War on Terror" Theory. Until three years ago Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. Now Islamic militants have found a convenient place that they can attack Americans-- and by all accounts they are coming to Iraq to do just that.

The administration is purposely confusing two different wars. There is a civil struggle in Iraq between the Sunni (who were the ruling class) and the Shia, who are now in control and are the majority. Much of the violence in the insurgency is this struggle.

Since the invasion of Iraq, Iraq has become a battleground between real Islamic militants and the United States. But we basically invited them into Iraq. When the US leaves, this war between US and Al Qaeda will stop in Iraq. There will no longer be any reason for the Islamic militants to fight.

Why should the Iraqis die by the thousands for a war that they were not involved in, and the vast majority of them don't even want?

When the US leaves, there will probably be violence. But it will be a fairly normal civil war between Iraqis. It may even be resolved quickly as the Shia have the upper hand both politically and strategically. But the point is that this civil strife can be resolved by the Iraqis.

The "Americans dying in Iraq prevent Americans dying elsewhere" Theory This theory is a favorite of the strong Bush supporters. The idea is that if the Islamic militants weren't busy in Iraq killing thousands of US soldiers, they would be free to kill Americans elsewhere.

This argument implies that there is a set number of militant fanatics, willing to give up their lives. This means that nothing-- from the invasion, to the abuses at Abu Graib, to the fact that thousands have lost brothers, fathers, wives and cousins based on the war-- has any affect on the number of militants.

Of course this is not the case. Each person who dies from the war has family and friends. Each news story of the "inevitable" evils of war makes more people hate the US, and some will cross the line into fanaticism. There are a small number of people who are naturally militant fanatics, but every month the war drags on... this number gets higher and higher.

Look at the numbers. There are over 1800 Americans who have died in Iraq so far (and well of 2000 if you count our allies). This is more American dead from the previous 10 years of terrorism-- including 9/11. Since the war there have been additional attacks in London and Madrid. There is no rational argument that the war in Iraq means less dead-- even less American dead.

Someone on another thread asked me (paraphrased) -- "If we don't fight the terrorists in Iraq... where would you like to fight them?". The implication is, of course, that no Iraq means open violence in Chicago or Nashville.

The occupation of Iraq is wonderful for the core group of fanatics who want to fight the "war on terror" against the United States. It shows that violence makes things happen. It gives them a chance to kill and wonderful fodder for propaganda that killing is justified and the answer to their perceived problems.

The war on terrorism is really a war for hearts and minds-- and that is how I would like to fight it. Terrorism flourishes when the architects of terror can justify violence by nourishing hatred and bitterness. The best way to fight terrorism is to take away the foundations of this hatred. You don't do this with bombs.

You do this with openness. You do this by giving the people of the Middle East respect. You do this by acting fairly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You do this by demonstrating with good will that the US doesn't want to control the Middle East.

Withdrawing from Iraq is really the first step to winning the war on Terror.

Sadly, I can't debunk your debunking.

I hear there's a little get-together near Crawford....

How about this one?

A stable, democratic Iraq is good for the future of all mankind"

And the US has a really great track record of imposing stable, democratic governments by force.

Is that what you see the US as doing in Iraq?

That could explain a lot.

McG,

I think I address your point of view in my introduction...



My point is that the future of Iraq should be determined by the Iraqis. The United States should not insist on imposing its vew of a "democratic Iraq"-- espeically given the cost in blood.

Iraq belongs to Iraqis.

Well, duh. What do you believe the US is doing there? What do you suppose the democratic elections and constitution is about?

Let's look at this. If Iraq destabilizes, and the insurgents control the oil fields, they will be holding the US hostage. The US economy would come to a grinding halt. Other western countries would suffer too, to a lesser extent.

The difficulty is that America has boxed itself into a corner. Instead of looking ahead in the years past at alternate fuels, we have become very dependent on oil.

The US needs to make sure that the oil is controlled by friendly allies before we leave Iraq.

McG, what do you think the US is doing there?

I asked first.

The answer to your question is yes.

Yes? You believe the US is imposing a government in Iraq by force?

No, I believe the US is imposing its will in Iraq by force.

Imposing it's will to what end? What do you believe the US is trying accomplish by it's actions in Iraq?

The permanent bases the US is building in Iraq makes me think we will never leave there, unless the voting public demands it.