Hypothetical question...now what?

Steppenwolf, You didn't respond to my post, but let me ask you directly.

Why do you think we should stay in Iraq?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So far,we have people saying to impeach Bush.
So,ok,Bush is now impeached and out of Office.
Cheney is now the President and continues the war in Iraq.

Now what?

If Bush goes, Cheney will have been long gone!

Make your hypothetical somewhat real.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Steppenwolf, You didn't respond to my post, but let me ask you directly.

Why do you think we should stay in Iraq?

I'm afraid that our exit would create a power vacuum -- one that would inflame the whole region. If nothing else, we ought to ensure that Iraq has a functional military before we leave. I agree that our presence has often been a destabilizing force, but on the whole, I think an American presence is necessary to avert a full-fledged civil war. It's not just Iraq that I worry about. Civil war in that country could lead to violence in other countries, particularly if the Kurds asserted their complete autonomy (what will happen to the PKK in Turkey, for instance?). I also don't fancy the idea of basically handing Iraq to the Iranians, particularly given the temperament of Iran's current leadership. Finally, although our invasion itself likely emboldened terrorists in the region, I'm certain that our exit would only further embolden those groups and validate their actions.

Perhaps I'm an (unrealistic) optimist in assuming that things could get better under Bush's watch, but I'm just not willing to give up quite yet. I still hold out for the possibility that the administration will change our approach -- and change personnel -- particularly given their dismal public approval ratings.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
So far,we have people saying to impeach Bush.
So,ok,Bush is now impeached and out of Office.
Cheney is now the President and continues the war in Iraq.

Now what?

If Bush goes, Cheney will have been long gone!

Make your hypothetical somewhat real.

Since you and Blue said the same thing,I will answer both of you.

SO??
Even if that is true,the new president would still most likely continue the present policies.

So,I ask again...now what?

0 Replies

Things are worse in Iraq if we stay than if we leave.

1) Our troops there are not stopping the civil war.

Iraqis are currently dying in an ethnic conflict. Two ethnic groups forced a constitution that steam-rollered the will of a third ethnic group. The ethnic group at the losing end of the current polical trends are the core of a violent insurgency.

It is clear that our troops are neither helping the political situation nor stopping the resulting civil violence.

We are tangling a civil conflict with a passionate religious crusade. It is far easier to justify acts of barbarism when you can justifiably claim your country is being occupied. It makes the rhetoric stronger, the passions hotter and the violence even worse.

We are also giving true fanatical militants who want to kill Americans a cover among normal citizens who are angered because their country is under occupation. The US is mixing the two-- and this is just foolish.

If the US leaves, the militants will not have a place to hide or a reason to be in Iraq. Any conflict will be a standard civil conflict. Of course this is not desirable, but it is far preferable to the fanatical religious war we are turning this into.

Our troops make the violent conflict worse-- not better.

The civil conflict will happen whether our troops are there or not. Perhaps it will be a full civil war. Better to get it over with and let find the Iraqi's find a resolution for the Iraqi's.

2) There is no danger of a political vacuum.

The Shiites with their newfound Kurdish allies have enough power to get what they want. The Shiites want an Islamic government with ties to Iran. The Kurds want autonomy.

It seems likely that one of two things will happen. The Kurds are likely to gain autonomy any way. The Shiites want an Islamic republic. Either the Sunnis will form their own state, or the Shiites will be dominant in some future unified Iraq. Anyway, the major players have the popular support and the power to get what they want. There is no danger of anarchy.

The issue is whether what the Iraqi's want is what the US wants.

Iraq is for the Iraqis. That is the whole point. It is wrong for the US to try to dominate the country against the will of the vast majority of Iraqi's. But this is the sole reason that the US wants to continue the occupation.

If the majority of the Iraqi's want a close relationship with Iran, and their government, reflecting their will, moves in this direction-- what can the US do?

Over 80% of Iraqi's are "strongly opposed" to the continued occupation by British and American troops (according to a British military poll). The occupation is clearly against the will of the people.

Is stopping the Iraqi's from exercising their will a valid reason for continuing a bloody and violent occupation?

0 Replies

But if the COW leaves what about the oil? That was the reason for the invasion and occupation in the first place. Isn't that a worry?

0 Replies

What are you trying to prove, MM?

That your guys have left us with a helluva problem to deal with, and those who did not support it will be left to deal with it, or those who DID support it will be left to deal with it (since it seems you guys do not have the wherewithal to quickly put it to the people as to whether they continue to support the governing party, if the leaders are proven to have committed serious crimes, as my country is able to do....with the possibility that a new party may have government) since the omelet cannot be uncooked?

To echo you, SO?????

What is your point?

Shrugs...this is a shitty situation whatever happens.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

What are you trying to prove, MM?

That your guys have left us with a helluva problem to deal with, and those who did not support it will be left to deal with it, or those who DID support it will be left to deal with it (since it seems you guys do not have the wherewithal to quickly put it to the people as to whether they continue to support the governing party, if the leaders are proven to have committed serious crimes, as my country is able to do....with the possibility that a new party may have government) since the omelet cannot be uncooked?

To echo you, SO?????

What is your point?

Shrugs...this is a shitty situation whatever happens.

I am trying to show that those who oppose Bush are not thinking about anything except getting rid of him.
Nobody has actually come up with anything remotely resembling a plan,other then "get rid of Bush"

0 Replies

And those who support Bush? What's their plan? Just let him keep going and hope that he eventually gets something right? That doesn't sound like a plan to me.

0 Replies

ebrown_p-

I suppose you and I simply disagree about the likely consequences of a withdrawal.

I think we have a responsibility to make a good faith effort when the fate of so many people depends on stability in Iraq. One could adopt a fatalistic attitude -- as you have done -- and conclude that the sh*t will hit the fan regardless of what we do, but I can't subscribe to that school of thought.

As far as popular support of our occupation in Iraq, that's not a determinative factor to me. Even if most Iraqis want us to leave, the consequences of this war involve the interests of more than just Iraqis. Their support is worth something, but not everything. We need to keep other goals and interests in mind, including the likelihood that violence in Iraq could spill over to adjacent nations or distant nations (via terrorism, etc.). Ultimately, this all hinges on my belief that there will be a power vacuum. I may be wrong, but when I see that recent military campaigns to quell the insurgency involve 10 times as many U.S. troops as Iraqi troops, I can't help but conclude that the Iraqi military isn't ready for independence. Paternalistic? I guess, but the stakes are high.

0 Replies

I don't have a fatalistic attitude. I believe that the Iraqis have what it takes to form a stable government that most of them support.

This means an Islamic government based on the view of Al-Sistani which represents beliefs of the Shiite majority. Government based on the will of the people being governed is not a fatalistic attitude. The fact that this government will not be the proxy of American power and values that was the brash goal of the architects of this war seem irrelevent.

The US troops not only don't represent the will of the people being governed, they are strongly opposed by the vast majority. Whatever you feel about the ideal of government representing the will of the governed, this is not good situation to be in if you want to form any stable government.

Everyone agrees on this. There will be a period of violence before a stable government supported by the Iraqi people will emerge.

The US troops are making the violence worse and the task of a government supported by the people much more difficult.

Removing the US troops is the first step to things getting better.

0 Replies

What happens when we leave.

First the insurgency weakens.

When the US leave it takes the militants out of the picture. Instantly the insurgency will split between the secular Sunni insurgents (who were largely non-religious under Saddam), and the religious zealots (who allegedly are largely foreign). The zealots will leave (or the resulting fight will do in the insurgency anyway).

Second, the Shia and the Kurds work out a power sharing arrangement.

The Shia and the Kurds have a strong power structure and widescale popular support. They will be able to make a government with enought support if we let them. The US actually is hurting the effort (in our fear of Iranian influence).

With 80% of popular support, plus support from Iran, there is no question but that they will have the power to rule.

Which brings us to the real question, What is the real reason the US is afraid to leave

The answer is that the US is unwilling to give up its dream of American influence from Iraq acting in the greater Middle East.

There is no danger of a power vacuum, and little danger of anything worse than a moderate civil war (of the ordinary type) that will be resolved in the normal way.

The real fear is that the Iraqis will end up choosing a government that we don't like.

So the question is-- do we let the Iraqis truly form their own government, or do we insist on American domination of Iraq for American interests?

There is no "paternalism" here, what is in the best interest of the Iraqis is very clear-- and they will tell you very clearly.

Don't be confused... We are arguing about American insterests, not Iraqi ones.

0 Replies

eBrown_p

Yes, after reading the above two posts "fatalism" was an incorrect characterization -- I apologize. I guess you take a more optimistic stance about the consequences of our withdrawal than I originally perceived. I simply don't share that stance, nor do I agree that one needs to support a dream of American influence to advocate my position. In arriving at your conclusion about our "real reasons," you've made quite a few assertions that are simply statements of opinion, although you appear to be treating them as statements of fact. For instance, you make the bald predictions (with my comments in red):

ebrown_p wrote:

What happens when we leave.

First the insurgency weakens.

When the US leave it takes the militants out of the picture. Instantly the insurgency will split between the secular Sunni insurgents (who were largely non-religious under Saddam), and the religious zealots (who allegedly are largely foreign). The zealots will leave (or the resulting fight will do in the insurgency anyway). I appreciate optimism, but the zealots will just leave? What happened to the zealots when the U.S.S.R. left Afghanistan? Historically, a number of war-torn countries have turned to harsh and oppressive leaders instead of their tolerant and democratic counterparts.

Second, the Shia and the Kurds work out a power sharing arrangement.

The Shia and the Kurds have a strong power structure and widescale popular support. I don't agree given the difficult they have had in creating a constitution/government and fighting the insurgency. They will be able to make a government with enought support if we let them. That's just a raw opinion, no? The US actually is hurting the effort (in our fear of Iranian influence).

With 80% of popular support, plus support from Iran, there is no question but that they will have the power to rule. I don't have as rosy a view of the support from Iran given historical conflicts and the current attitude of the Iranian president. Do we really want another Iran?

Your predictions are no better than my admittedly speculative predictions, which are based on my own perceptions of the facts and human behavior, not on some sinister dream of influence.

As far as paternalism goes, just because Iraqi's "will tell you very clearly" what is in their interests doesn't make it so. That's the nature of my somewhat paternalistic stance -- I don't believe that the mass of Iraqi's know the consequences of our withdrawal any more than you or I. On the balance of facts I perceive, I think the consequences would be dire for Iraqis. I also said that my view was based on the interests of adjacent countries and countries that could theoretically face Iraq-bred terrorism.

You may find me a rather uninteresting debating partner on this one, e_Brown. I'm just a run-of-the-mill pragmatist. My views are based on what I've learned through news, friends, professionally, etc. rather than an overarching ideology. You're therefore unlikely to get much fire out of me on this topic. I simply think we disagree about the underlying facts and human behavior -- about the consequences of withdrawal.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

dlowan wrote:
What are you trying to prove, MM?

That your guys have left us with a helluva problem to deal with, and those who did not support it will be left to deal with it, or those who DID support it will be left to deal with it (since it seems you guys do not have the wherewithal to quickly put it to the people as to whether they continue to support the governing party, if the leaders are proven to have committed serious crimes, as my country is able to do....with the possibility that a new party may have government) since the omelet cannot be uncooked?

To echo you, SO?????

What is your point?

Shrugs...this is a shitty situation whatever happens.

I am trying to show that those who oppose Bush are not thinking about anything except getting rid of him.
Nobody has actually come up with anything remotely resembling a plan,other then "get rid of Bush"

What nonsense.

If Bush has lied (rather than being utterly incompetent) in getting you into this war do you want him to stay as leader?

What do you expect? The US (and Oz) are in Iraq. Prosecuting a criminal will not change that.

The same questions remain whether you have (as in your hypothetical) a crim at the top, or whoever the chain of corruption leaves standing there.

Why do you conflate the two? Did you think anyone believes a miracle will occur if Bush is removed, and all his doings will vanish from the face of the earth....Iraq will be uninvaded etc.?

You are raising the silliest straw man.

If he is removed then policies will be worked out as normal. Hopefully the powers that would be might take into account the lying basis for the invasion...shrugs....or maybe not. Are you saying a criminal should remain president because his deeds are not magically undone when he is convicted?

(And before I get savaged for daring to say criminal, I am going along with MM's hypothetical, where Bush is KNOWN to be guilty.)

Iraq will now remain an issue for many administrations.

Perhaps the decisions might be made by people of more integrity and mor eintelligence and vision.

The same choices remain....stay there and keep dying until some sort of government is properly established, with a proper army...if that can be done. I heartily hope it can..... If it can't...then you have the choice you had in Vietnam. Keep the killing going with Americans and allies involved, or let it go on without you, until some sort of equilibrium is re established...and hope like hell it is better than the pre invasion one.

Or, get out now, and have the killing go on until some sort of equilibrium is re established, and hope like hell it is better than the pre invasion one.

0 Replies

Right, Deb. The disaster which Bush and his cohorts have wrought will be with us for a good while, regardless of who is elected as the next chief executive, regardless of which party wins favor with the voters. And in this respect, at least, I agree with Mysteryman -- simply removing Bush will not solve the problem, desireable as such removal is. The problem of Iraq will remain a headache for years to come. Of course, the sooner we start to work on a solution, the better. And, certainly, getting a new leadership team into executive positions would be a laudable first step.

0 Replies

Hypothetical question...now what?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know