I think that the US' bungling in Iraq merely effected the start of a change that was made inevitable by the earlier bungling manipulations of the British through their League of Nations Mandate, the stringing together of a country, ignoring geographic, ethnic, and political divisions to meet their own imperialist ends at the expense of the interests of the peoples therein. I see the breaking up of Iraq somewhere along the lines of its aforementioned pre-Mandate divisions.
How do you think that might be accomplished without increased bloodshed? If the U.S. were to signal an early withdrawal, there would be nothing to check an even greater bloodbath ... with the radical Islamic elements of both the Sunni and Shiia, and Iran being the principle beneficiaries. Unfortunately, the opponents of a democratically secure Iraq already have reason to believe that all they have to do to "win" is to continue terror attacks on the civilian population.
Establishment of a few more Islamic Republics trying to govern using 7th century Shira Law would only increase the commitment of terrorist organizations to carry out further and greater attacks in the West.
On the other hand, our packing up and leaving might result in fewer immediate U.S. military casualties for a brief time. Until those who have declared war on the materialistic and humanistic Western values (infidels) have abandoned their idealistic attempt at creating an world-wide Islamic Utopia, there will be no peace. Should those zealots come into possession of nuclear weapons, and they are so very close now, the probability of some sort of nuclear war is almost inevitable. Fight them now on our terms, or later on a battlefield we may not have the luxury of choosing.
I read Odom's view from some links posted by Bernie earlier and nodded.
What to do, what a whale of a question.
What anyone says we have to do may have to do with investment in zillions from all these recent maneuvers.. following the investments.
I see the whole region as some guys with desks' playing field, with indescribable losses, certainly not just to us, but from us.
Brutal, and dirty.
The US is merely slowing the spilling of blood, it certainly isn't preventing it. The US can set up a permanent presence in Iraq if it wants to, but what will that accomplish? A smoldering of the conflict instead of a flare up? The peoples of Iraq will ultimately decide Iraq's fate, the US' opinions and interests notwithstanding.
The thrust of the conflict is centered around ethnic divisions, and the religionists surely are making a go at exploiting those divisions to accomplish their goals of establishing theocratic rule in their areas of control in Iraq. It doesn't look like the US' experiment of invading and occupying a Middle Eastern county and forcing a democracy upon it is panning out the way it expected, though. The government that it has propped is a lip-servicing joke, what with its leaders themselves caught up in the inter-ethnic struggle there.
For all of bombastic rhetoric of "world-wide Islamic Utopia" and what not spewing from those zealots, what their grievance boils down to is Western meddling and manipulations in their lands and countries. Western chauvinists can't see beyond their own paranoid self-absorption to consider this cause of violent reaction from these countries' peoples. After so many years of Western meddling, machinations, usurpations and oppressions the more fanatical of these people dared to take the fight to us, and the Western chauvinists feel affronted. The sheer hypocrisy throttles the mind.
I agree with all that, InfraBlue, but then what...
Good question. Certainly I don't want people all around the planet killing each other while a bunch profit from it. But even if a bunch weren't profiting, I'd rather see people work out bennies from living and working together. I'm aware that sounds sappy.
I'm not fully anti war, though very nearly. But I'd generally like to see neighbors work stuff out. Relative to Iraq, I quaver for the ordinary citizen of whatever faction, and quaver again for their sons and daughters.
This whole thing is entirely stupid and has decimated much.
Why we from the US are in there meddling is beyond me. Oil, sure, but how is it we own it, exactly?
I didn't sign up, patriotic as I am, to be some small fraction of a world conquerer.
Re what I want in Iraq, tomorrow morning, I'll get back to you. Hard to articulate.
For minutes at a time, I'd imagine people in any given neighborhood, a person about to set a bomb in a market or fearful family member, and many between... to gather and just talk.
But I gather that is a fantasy. Will try to work up what I realistically want, but tomorrow.
US Democrats draft Iraq challenge
Quote:Democratic aides have said the proposal could restrict US troops in Iraq to fighting al-Qaeda, training Iraqi forces and protecting Iraq's borders.
This seems like a good idea to me. We would be able to watch out for AQ and still help with training Iraqi forces but at the same time we would be out of the middle of the civil war.
completely what?
devastated?
probably
You folks will want to read the follow from Peter Galbraith. It is mainly Galbraith's work/ideas that Joe Biden has drawn on in the plan he has forwarded to decentralize Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions.
Quote:The Surge
By Peter W. Galbraith
On January 10, 2007, President Bush presented his new Iraq plan in a nationally broadcast address from the White House library. "The most urgent priority for success in Iraq," he explained, "is security, especially in Baghdad." He announced that he was sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Baghdad and Anbar Province. Baghdad would be divided into nine districts and US forces would be embedded with the Iraqi army and police in each of those districts. These forces would monitor the Iraqi units operating in Baghdad, support them with additional firepower, and provide training.
By reducing the violence, Bush hopes to open the door to political reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis. He said he would hold the Iraqi government to a program of national reconciliation that included disarming Shiite militias, a petroleum law guaranteeing the regions of Iraq a fair share of revenues, and a relaxation of penalties for service in the Baath Party. But unlike the Iraq Study Group report, Bush proposed no penalty if the Iraqi government failed to comply.
Bush aimed his toughest language at Iran and Syria, charging that they were allowing terrorists to move in and out of Iraq. The Iranians, he said, were providing material support for attacks on US troops, which he vowed to disrupt. To underscore his determination, he announced the deployment of an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, and a few days after the speech, US special forces staged a raid on the Iranian liaison office in Erbil and arrested six Iranian intelligence operatives.
Bush's strategy is the polar opposite of that proposed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton in their Iraq Study Group report. Where they recommended the withdrawal of combat troops, Bush announced an escalation. Where they urged a diplomatic opening to Iran and Syria, Bush issued threats.
Bush's plan is laden with ironies. Four years ago, military and diplomatic professionals warned that the US was embarking on a war with insufficient troops and inadequate planning. President Bush never listened to this advice, choosing to rely on the neoconservative appointees who assured him that victory in Iraq would be easy.
In devising his new strategy, Bush again turned to the neoconservatives. The so-called surge strategy is the brainchild of Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute who has never been to Iraq. And once again, President Bush dismissed the views of his military advisers. General George Casey and General John Abizaid, the commanders in the field, doubted that additional troops would make any difference in Iraq. They were replaced by surge advocates, including Lieutenant General David Petraeus, now the top commander in Iraq.
much more at link
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19950
From bernies article: By reducing the violence, Bush hopes to open the door to political reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis.
Any reduction in violence will only be temporary (with any surge). The sectarian and insurgency violence has left many in Iraq mad and ready for revenge.
The longer we stay, the more we exacerbate the problems for the longer term, because these sectarian infighting will only increase the division - not minimize it. More dead relatives only increases the anger for more Iraqis. Many Iraqi parents are now telling their children not to trust Americans, and the majority now approve killing American soldiers. This will not change with our staying in Iraq.
The solution? Train the Iraqis to take over their country with timelines to meet specific goals by district/city/area, while slowly removing our troops whether the violence increases or not.
Establish an end date on when we'll have all of our troops out of Iraq whether the Iraqis are ready to take over the security of their country or not.
Then wait and see what transpires. If it becomes a regional insecurity problem, let the Arab countries help settle the problem, and don't interfere with their diplomacy. Let them work it out or go to war; their choice.
The idiot opened Pandora's box. What more can one say? W wrecked the Middle East by re-opening old religious wounds thus leading to a civil war.
The reason the Iraq war was lost before the surge:
The stage for talks is long past.
Former U.N. envoy supports Iraq pullout
By ANN SANNER, Associated Press WriterSat Feb 24, 11:16 AM ET
President Bush should follow British Prime Minister Tony Blair's lead and start withdrawing troops from Iraq, former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke said Saturday.
"Engaging in a broad-based diplomatic offensive, and beginning a redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, represents the best way to secure America's interests in the region and combat the serious threat of terrorist networks," Holbrooke, who served under President Clinton, said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.
Britain will withdraw about 1,600 troops in the coming months and aims to cut more by late summer. The announcement came as Bush is implementing his plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq.
"Like our allies, the Bush White House needs to acknowledge some unavoidable, if unpleasant, facts on the ground. Plain and simple, there are not, and never have been, enough troops in Iraq to accomplish the mission as stated by President Bush," Holbrooke said.
The Bush administration has said Britain's troop cutback shows success in the region.
Holbrooke said withdrawing troops will give the U.S. more flexibility in fighting terrorists and will encourage the Iraqi government to take on more responsibility. He called for increased diplomatic efforts with countries who have a stake in Iraq's future, such as Syria and Iran.
