Should we leave Iraq completely?

Maybe it's just that the media in the US is so goddammed incompetent that they focus on only extremes and that's all we hear. Could that be the reason why we never seem to hear any ideas that aren't just polar opposites of each other? Are there no measured, thoughtful ideas out there at all?

0 Replies

It seems to me that we can never control the factions through a ground war. The only thing that will happen is that more and more of our troops will be killed. In the past, the one thing that made sense for a ground war was that the enemy was interested in self preservation.

The terrorists in Iraq don't give a damn, and would just as soon die, be martyred, and have their families compensated. I would suggest that a small ground force be left to guard the oil wells, anything else we do should be through the air.

0 Replies

I think I agree with that, but I still think that we need to keep a pretty big number of troops there for a good long time, to make sure things don't tip to the side of anarchy. I think it should turn into more of a peacekeeping mission instead of the lynchpin of the oft-mentioned, highly ominous WAR ON TERROR that the republicans like to call it. The democrats seem to have no answers but to just abandon the situation and let the chips fall where they may, which I think turns us into a bunch of hit-and-run country-defilers, and gives Al-qaeda a great safe haven from which to destabilize the region ever further.

0 Replies

you could leave iraq

but before you do, ask yourself the question why did we go in

in the first place?

0 Replies

I dont think that question matters at this point.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I dont think that question matters at this point.

well someone sometime somewhere is going to ask it. Just why did America commit to a war in Iraq that killed thousands of US and allied troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

0 Replies

I understand what you're saying, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on where we go from here.

0 Replies

I believe almost all conservative Republicans would welcome any plan that would bring a satisfactory end to the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The key word here is "satisfactory".

The only alternative so far advanced is to just pull out. That seems so nice and simple. Reduce American casualties and cost, while catering to those who oppose the war on terror. Why not?

The sectarian conflict in Iraq would probably intensify, and would in any case continue. Ultimately, one Islamic faction would prevail and the other would be suppressed, and oppressed. The leaders of both factions are already radicalized, and in the end any possibility of a secular government would vanish as Iraq fell back into despotism. Many thousands, perhaps a million Iraqi citizens would lose their lives. The U.S. would again be accused with some justification of fostering democracy, and then betraying those who share that vision by withdrawing. This lack of credibility and fortitude to continue in the face of what are still relatively light casualities is already a problem for us among those who hope to be set free from despotism.

Radical Islamic terrorist groups must today focus much of their resources in Iraq. If the U.S. were to signal withdrawal, the pace and intensity of attacks on Iraqi civilians and U.S. military forces would increase. Radical Islamic groups would tout their "victory", and would enlist more young people into Jihad. Strengthened, can anyone doubt that they will find another venue for their terrorist tactics? What will happen to all those volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen. We should expect to see more attempted and actual terrorist acts outside Southwest Asia as a consequence of an American pullout.

Iran's influence in Iraq and the region would increase. As a sponsor of the chaos in Iraq, Iran would also claim a victory over the "Great Satan". Iran would likely use the situation to extend its domination. Iran is ideally situated to seriously cut the flow of oil from the Gulf, and with the U.S. no longer in the equation blackmail would certainly be an option. With Iraq subjugated, Iran's intentions of attacking Israel would receive a big boost. Already convinced that the United States and the West will take no effective steps to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program, we should expect them to become even more intransigent. Iran might also campaign against the Kurds and make things difficult for Turkey. Volunteers and aid from Iran to Al Queda in the backwaters of Pakistan might easily result in another Islamic Republic dedicated to the most radical policies. The progress made in reducing the nuclear tensions between India and a more radicalized government in Pakistan would be lost.

Merely "ending" U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan would not end the War on Terrorism, but it would degrade our ability to strike back at those who quietly sponsor, supply and give sanctuary to terrorist groups. With fewer options for retaliation for attacks on the United States and Europe, the potential for escalation of violence should be a concern.

Like I said above, if any one has any ideas for satisfactorily ending the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, lets hear it. All we've heard so far is defeatism, partisan opportunism, and whining. The Democratic Party now has an opportunity to demonstrate that it is capable of resolving complex problems that may never have perfect solutions.

0 Replies

to answer your queston.... yes.

0 Replies

kicky...read the links below. Description of General Odom follows. You might want to have Asherman post his cv for our comparison. Alternately, he might paste a single post from the period of the commencement of the war which has proved even slightly accurate.

Quote:

William Eldridge Odom (born 1932) is a former U.S. Army General, and was Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan.

From 2 November 1981 to 12 May 1985, Odom, then a Lieutenant General, served as the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Headquarters, Department of the Army. From 1985 to 1988, he served as the director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, where he specializes in military issues, intelligence, and international relations. He is also an adjunct professor at Yale University, where he teaches seminar coures in U.S. National Security Policy and Russian Politics.

Since 2005 he has been at the center of some controversy by arguing that US interests would be best served by an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, calling it the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history. He has also been critical of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping of international calls, saying "it wouldn't have happened on my watch".[1]

General Odom is a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.

wikipedia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab

0 Replies

No doubt the sectarian conflict would escalate if US forces left Iraq. At one time, it might have been possible to have an international peace-keeping force -- which would have more legitimacy than US forces in the eyes of the Iraqis -- take the place of the American troops. That time, however, is long past: having seen the colossal screw-up that the Bush administration has made of Iraq, no other country would want to touch that mess with a ten-foot pole.*

But the sectarian conflict will escalate as long as each side in the conflict (and there are at least three) see some advantage in escalation, regardless of the presence or absence of American troops. For the Kurds, they simply want an autonomous or independent Kurdistan. For the Shiites and Sunnis, they want to dominate whatever is left of Iraq after this is all over (either as defined by its pre-war boundaries or else shorn of Kurdistan and perhaps some other bits of territory).

Unfortunately, the Shiite and Sunni goals of dominance are not only mutually exclusive (only one side can win), but they are fundamentally at odds with the notion of democracy. In other words, the Shiites and Sunnis can only achieve their objective of sectarian dominance in a non-democratic Iraq. That's why the conflict is being played out on the battlefield rather than in the parliament, which no one takes seriously.

If the US's chief concern was stability in Iraq, then it would support one side or the other in the Shiite-Sunni conflict and let the victor impose order. That would work, as Iraqi history has amply demonstrated -- the only times that Iraq has been stable have been those times during which it was ruled by a dictatorship. Of course, such stability would come at the cost of democracy, which would be incompatible with a situation where one group dominates the other. But then that is the problem: US troops are in Iraq solely because of Washington's chimerical quest to impose democracy on Iraq.

Now, of course, democracy is a really swell form of government, and, all other things being equal, is preferable to living under the rule of a dictator. From the perspective of the average Iraqi, however, I'm not so sure that an ineffectual democracy that is powerless to stop the sectarian violence is preferable to a dictatorship that can impose order and peace on the nation.

From the perspective of US strategic interests, I'm not sure why a dictatorship isn't preferable either. A democracy, after all, has the annoying habit of placing the majority in power, and the Shiites constitute the majority in Iraq. I don't know why the Bush administration is so eager to install a Shiite-led government in Iraq when it has such problems with the Shiite-led government in Iran, but that was a puzzle that should have been solved before the invasion. Once the US invaded, and made one of its stated goals the creation of a democratic Iraq, the administration was inevitably faced with the burden of creating a Shiite state that would be aligned with Tehran rather than with Washington (despite all of the absurd neo-con predictions to the contrary). Why we should be carrying Iran's coals in this manner is anybody's guess.

The solution, then, to the Iraq crisis is as obvious as it is simple: abandon the notion of creating a democracy in Iraq, install a dictator, and then withdraw all US troops. Such an operation could well be accomplished in six months or less. The nation would be stabilized, there would be a greater likelihood of a pro-US government in Baghdad (or, at least, not so anti-US), and there would be no need for a continued US presence in the country.

*see, I didn't forget about Poland

0 Replies

Quote:

That's why the conflict is being played out on the battlefield rather than in the parliament, which no one takes seriously.

They haven't made quorum since October.

Quote:

The solution, then, to the Iraq crisis is as obvious as it is simple: abandon the notion of creating a democracy in Iraq, install a dictator, and then withdraw all US troops.

But... but... peace! Democracy and freedom!

I don't disagree with you, but it will never happen; not because it wouldn't work, but because to the Republicans, the Iraq war isn't about freedom any more, or safety, or democracy, or oil, or anything other than being right.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't disagree with you, but it will never happen; not because it wouldn't work, but because to the Republicans, the Iraq war isn't about freedom any more, or safety, or democracy, or oil, or anything other than being right.

A dictatorship in Iraq is all-but inevitable. If we withdrew all US forces today, the various factions would enthusiastically kill each other until one side prevailed and imposed a dictatorship. If US forces remain, the various factions will enthusiastically kill each other, albeit at a slower pace and with far more US casualties, until US forces withdraw, at which point the killing will escalate until one side prevails and imposes a dictatorship. Given those two scenarios, I think the choice is obvious.

Of course, you're right: from a domestic political perspective, abandoning the goal of democracy in Iraq is a non-starter. But we should bear two things in mind: (1) the goal of a democratic Iraq is driven by domestic political considerations; and (2) whether US troops stay or leave, the end result will pretty much be the same.

0 Replies

Quote:

Isn't there another option? It seems that we have the republicans telling us that we need to jeopardize more and more lives in a neverending cycle of war and death, and on the other side, the democrats seem to be calling for a complete pullout. Is that what we're looking at? Are these the only two real choices? If so, I think we have to stick with the war and death party. Is there any democrat OR republican who has anything less extreme to offer as a solution?

What we need to do is find someone who could fully control ALL their different tribes/factions. Preferably an opposition to Iranian influence...Oh wait, we've hung him.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't disagree with you, but it will never happen; not because it wouldn't work, but because to the Republicans, the Iraq war isn't about freedom any more, or safety, or democracy, or oil, or anything other than being right.

A dictatorship in Iraq is all-but inevitable. If we withdrew all US forces today, the various factions would enthusiastically kill each other until one side prevailed and imposed a dictatorship. If US forces remain, the various factions will enthusiastically kill each other, albeit at a slower pace and with far more US casualties, until US forces withdraw, at which point the killing will escalate until one side prevails and imposes a dictatorship. Given those two scenarios, I think the choice is obvious.

Of course, you're right: from a domestic political perspective, abandoning the goal of democracy in Iraq is a non-starter. But we should bear two things in mind: (1) the goal of a democratic Iraq is driven by domestic political considerations; and (2) whether US troops stay or leave, the end result will pretty much be the same.

And that is why I call for an immediate withdrawal. Any other plan involving the removal of American troops is merely an immediate withdrawal which has been put off for some time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"Secretary of State Joe". I like the sound of that. Familiar. Un-french. Earthy and confidence-inspiring.

0 Replies

If I understand correctly, Joe's solution is for the U.S. to work a deal with the Shiites. We support them at the expense of the Sunni, and those who have taken the awful risk of bringing representative secular democracy to the People of Iraq. In return, Kurdistan presumably would be off-limits. Supporting this idea is (1) That's what the likely outcome will be anyway, and (2) it would get our troops out of harms way while Iraq re-emerges as a stable theocracy with strong Radical leanings.

Cynical betrayal is one of those accusations that the left makes so often against this Administration. How often we've heard that the Administration never intended that Iraq should be a democracy, yet that is one of the stumbling blocks to this proposal. I believed and still do that President Bush's sincerity in hoping for a better, more open government for the People of Iraq. The Administration is drubbed for supporting the dictators of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., but in this case it's alright because it would bring about stability in a nation that would be ruled by those who hate the United States.

Iraq doesn't exist by itself in a vacuum, but is an essential part of a regional complex regional inter-relationships. Iran would almost certainly have great influence in a Shiite controlled Iraq. Iran's influence would grow and with it their certainty that in the end they will emerge victorious over the materialistic, degenerate Western infidels. The terror organizations of the Radical Islamic Movement would be free and encouraged to spread out over the world to carry on their terror tactics.

I fail to see how this proposal is any better than continuing to support the democratic government of Iraq in its pursuit of becoming an effective government where all Iraqi's can be secure regardless of their religious convictions. The road would be easier if Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia were to keep their cotton picking hands out of the soup. Of course, that isn't likely to happen since all of them and the terrorist organizations all want to rule Iraq while annihilating everyone else.

Thank you Joe for at least trying to find some alternative to the problem.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

If I understand correctly, Joe's solution is for the U.S. to work a deal with the Shiites. We support them at the expense of the Sunni, and those who have taken the awful risk of bringing representative secular democracy to the People of Iraq. In return, Kurdistan presumably would be off-limits. Supporting this idea is (1) That's what the likely outcome will be anyway, and (2) it would get our troops out of harms way while Iraq re-emerges as a stable theocracy with strong Radical leanings.

I never expressed any preference for either a Shiite or a Sunni dictator. To me it makes little difference. Ideally, any dictator should be a secular, pro-western Muslim who could transcend the tribal divisions in the nation. The pretender to the Iraqi throne, Prince Ra'ad bin Zeid, would be a good choice, but I imagine that Iraqi support for the restoration of the Hashemite monarchy is probably around nil.

Likewise, I never said that an Iraqi dictatorship would necessarily be a theocratic dictatorship. After all, the last dictatorship wasn't (nor was the dictatorship before that or the one before that). The Iraqi mullahs have, so far, shown little interest in politics, and they neither demanded nor received any important role under the new constitution.

Asherman wrote:

Cynical betrayal is one of those accusations that the left makes so often against this Administration. How often we've heard that the Administration never intended that Iraq should be a democracy, yet that is one of the stumbling blocks to this proposal. I believed and still do that President Bush's sincerity in hoping for a better, more open government for the People of Iraq. The Administration is drubbed for supporting the dictators of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., but in this case it's alright because it would bring about stability in a nation that would be ruled by those who hate the United States.

I've heard a lot of accusations levelled against the Bush administration, but cynical betrayal has never been one of them. If anything, Bush has been far too loyal, even in those instances where cynical betrayal would have been a better policy to follow. How much more preferable would it have been if Bush, for instance, had exercised a little cynical betrayal on an international con-man and charlatan like Ahmed Chalabi.

Asherman wrote:

Iraq doesn't exist by itself in a vacuum, but is an essential part of a regional complex regional inter-relationships. Iran would almost certainly have great influence in a Shiite controlled Iraq. Iran's influence would grow and with it their certainty that in the end they will emerge victorious over the materialistic, degenerate Western infidels. The terror organizations of the Radical Islamic Movement would be free and encouraged to spread out over the world to carry on their terror tactics.

Anybody who favors a democratic Iraq favors a Shiite-led Iraq, since the Shiites are the majority in Iraq. I don't see why Iran would have less influence over a Shiite democracy than it would have over a Shiite dictatorship.

Asherman wrote:

I fail to see how this proposal is any better than continuing to support the democratic government of Iraq in its pursuit of becoming an effective government where all Iraqi's can be secure regardless of their religious convictions.

Because the democratic government is doomed to failure, sooner or later.

Asherman wrote:

The road would be easier if Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia were to keep their cotton picking hands out of the soup. Of course, that isn't likely to happen since all of them and the terrorist organizations all want to rule Iraq while annihilating everyone else.

I'm not sure why Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia should keep their cotton-picking hands out of Iraq, since the US couldn't seem to do it. Moreover, whereas the US is a temporary visitor to the region, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will still be Iraq's neighbors long after US forces leave, so they have far better reason to meddle in Iraq's affairs.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

kicky...read the links below. Description of General Odom follows. You might want to have Asherman post his cv for our comparison. Alternately, he might paste a single post from the period of the commencement of the war which has proved even slightly accurate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab

Thanks for the links Bernie. The guy makes a lot of very good points. Pretty pessimistic, but sadly, there don't seem to be many worthy reasons for an optimistic outcome here.

General Odom wrote:

"Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath, express fear that quitting it will leave a bloodbath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a failed state, or some other horror. But this aftermath is already upon us. A prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists."

0 Replies

Should we leave Iraq completely?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know