Scorpia wrote:blueveinedthrobber wrote:If we're going to be leaving the area unstable sooner or later, why not sooner. There's no stabilizing these people.
I understand that and can say that I've felt that way many times. But it's not just about today, or this administration. As much as I don't like it, I think that because we bit it off, we have to chew it. And I agree that that region will probably never be truly "stable." It never has and does not look likely that it ever will. But all I want to see a way to keep some face and bargaining power in that region when we run away.
I disagree with this.
Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. It is the Iraqis who must agree to a solution. It is the Iraqis who will figure it out, or suffer the consequences.
Iraq has been stable and can be stable.
Unfortunately what we are seeing now is a violent ethnic conflict. This is not unusal in any part of the world, but it is a very real problem in Iraq. But... thinking that the US can impose a solution is ridiculous-- especially given the understandable distrust of the US that people of the region have.
When the US leaves, there will perhaps be the violent conflict that everyone fears, but it will without question be much less extreme, and will be resolved much sooner with less bloodshed than with the US presence. The US is not helping, it is inflaming passions and making the problem much worse.
The US invasion was a mistake. The price for that mistake is high and unfortunate.
For the US to continue its occupation is a bigger mistake with even higher costs.
There is no reason to believe that continuing a mistake is a good idea .
