You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can america leave iraq?
- Thread starter buffys
- Start date
With the admission from generals in Iraq that militarily the situation seems all but done; the question is how long can the US bleed this “second big nothing” out? This article pretty much outlines in brief the situation in Iraq today:
Long ago I said that a populist nationalist uprising has never been quelled, and seems the reality in Iraq is dire for the “Liberators”. The Bush administration along with others will continue to justify American involvement in Iraq because Iraq is (and according to reality repressors) always has been the forefront of the “war on terror”. Sadly the US is not fighting in Iraq against those “terrorists” no matter how many times administration officials like to say “terrorists” in Iraq the reality is that the people fighting the US are Iraqi nationals. Iraq by all accounts is going to plunge into a massive civil war; the forces of history are just that powerful in Iraq. Should the US pull out? That is a question of the ages to tell you the truth. The US should leave only after an Iraqi election; the US created this mess and now has to clean it up. Once the US has achieved its supposed “goal” of democracy, and a Shi’a government takes over the US should leave. Here is an absolutely amazing article done by Carnegie:
Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the size, dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams, can call upon part-time fighters to boost forces to as high as 20,000 -- an estimate reflected in the insurgency's continued strength after U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 in April alone.
---------------------------------
''We're not at the forefront of a jihadist war here,'' said a U.S. military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity.
---------------------------------
The official and others told The Associated Press the guerrillas have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated.
---------------------------------
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-iraq09.html
Long ago I said that a populist nationalist uprising has never been quelled, and seems the reality in Iraq is dire for the “Liberators”. The Bush administration along with others will continue to justify American involvement in Iraq because Iraq is (and according to reality repressors) always has been the forefront of the “war on terror”. Sadly the US is not fighting in Iraq against those “terrorists” no matter how many times administration officials like to say “terrorists” in Iraq the reality is that the people fighting the US are Iraqi nationals. Iraq by all accounts is going to plunge into a massive civil war; the forces of history are just that powerful in Iraq. Should the US pull out? That is a question of the ages to tell you the truth. The US should leave only after an Iraqi election; the US created this mess and now has to clean it up. Once the US has achieved its supposed “goal” of democracy, and a Shi’a government takes over the US should leave. Here is an absolutely amazing article done by Carnegie:
The US is destroying any hope for real reform in the Middle East, as I’ve been saying for a while now the US is not much of a military threat (yes the US). The US cannot invade Iran ever, that is totally out of the cards, Syria is not going to be touched in the foreseeable future. The US instead of co-opting the most relevant players in the region, Syria and Iran the US has systemically ostracized them. The US cannot count on the Europeans for much help either, the population of Europe remains vehemently against this war, and no other major power is going to help the US. What I fear the most is that the US might indeed get bogged down in a Iraqi civil war, having to choose a side (Kurdish most likely) and spark a region war without precedent. If America wants to get out of Iraq remaining as a world power my advice is to get out when democracy is established. The US is playing with fires that has destroyed a great deal many empires before her.The American position in Iraq is untenable. The United States has enough raw military power to flatten Falluja and Najaf, but has recognized that this power cannot be used without dooming not only the U.S. venture in Iraq, but the entire U.S. position in the Middle East.
To this military defeat has been added the moral defeat of Abu Ghraib prison, which - domestic repercussions aside - has further inflamed Muslim anger from Morroco to Malaysia. In 1974, President Richard Nixon at the nadir of his popularity sought relief in a visit to Egypt where he was welcomed and feted. There is not an Arab capital in the world that President George W. Bush could visit today.
As a result of both defeats, it is obvious that American threats to use military force against other Muslim states are mostly empty. Power that evidently cannot be used is not true power. This revelation of actual American military weakness makes imperative a fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy, not only in Iraq but also toward the Middle East as a whole.
If the United States is to put together a regional coalition to stabilize Iraq and allow eventual U.S. withdrawal, one first step is essential. Washington should categorically renounce any intention to use Iraq as a long-term U.S. military base. It should commit to withdraw U.S. forces as soon as an effective international peacekeeping force is established.
This should be matched by a dramatic reduction in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, now set to become the largest in the world, with 2,000 employees. Ambassador John Negroponte should not be set up to run U.S. Middle East counter-regime operations from Baghdad as he ran U.S. Central American counterinsurgency programs from the embassy in Honduras in the 1980s.
Without such commitments, the U.S. presence and plans in Iraq will go on being seen as an immense dangerboth by many Iraqis and by neighboring states, Iran and Syria in particular. It will be extremely difficult for these governments to be seen to side with the United States in stabilizing Iraq. Muslim public opinion will continue to see the U.S. campaign in Iraq as part of a strategy of imperial domination of Iraq and the region, and Muslim states that give assistance as American lackeys.
Moreover, as long as U.S. bases are present, it will be much more difficult for any Iraqi regime to portray itself as truly sovereign and not an American puppet. Radical factions will seek support by attacking the bases. The U.S. in turn will be forced to support factions that defend the bases, however unsavory and unpopular they may be. The bases will fuel internecine conflicts, and U.S. troops will be repeatedly drawn out of their bases and into direct involvement in these conflicts.
Scaling back U.S. plans for Iraq would be seen by some in Washington as a military defeat. But we believe that it is essential if the United States is to salvage the current situation. With such commitments, Iraqis who now demand America's departure may welcome America's staying long enough to ensure a stable transition. A U.S. commitment to withdraw would therefore fundamentally change the political dynamics not only in Iraq but in the region.
A new strategy for the region should be modeled on the last two decades of the cold war, when the United States sought to contain threats from the Soviet Union by aligning with Communist China. In combating Al Qaeda and Baath Party remnants, the United States must reach out to states like Syria and Iran, which it has hitherto treated as enemies.
For the past two years, the Bush administration has replicated the failure of the U.S. elites before the Vietnam War to recognize and exploit the splits already developing in the Communist camp. In the late 1960s, the result was the tragic and absurd situation where American soldiers were dying by the thousands in Vietnam in battle against a supposed global Communist threat, even as Soviet and Chinese soldiers were fighting each other along their common border.
America cannot make the same mistake again. The support and participation of Iraq's neighbors is essential if that country is to be stabilized and America to be able to withdraw without humiliation. Without their help, it is highly unlikely that the United Nations will be able to play a successful role.Given the chaos America has created, few European or other states will wish to become involved. Without the strong support of the Muslim world, the United Nations will be seen by Iraqis as simply an American tool.
Iraq's neighbors have different agendas but all fear civil war and instability in Iraq. By relinquishing fantasies of a new imperial base in Iraq, by pledging and planning to withdraw as quickly and as completely as possible, the United States may yet be able to snatch political victory from the jaws of defeat.
Pangloss said:So maybe we should get, while the getting is good. Not because it's the opposite of what the Bush administration wants, or because "it's like Vietnam", but simply because we need to let these people stand up for themselves, or not, and either way decide what they want their country to be.
I think the real test of wether this is vietnam II will be seen now that the hand over has happened. I suspect a great deal of the fear of colonialism will abate if the people and new government really feel they're in control. If they feel and are seen as puppets it will continue to go badly. That's the short term, the long term question is, as you pointed out, what will happen after the election, will a fundamentalist theocracy emerge? Since bush himself is actively blurring the line between state and church it will be hard to complain if it happens in iraq after a legitimate election.
In a sense though it doesn't matter much in regard to the need of international (hopefully) involvement. No matter who becomes the next leaders of iraq it will be a few years at least before they can manage on their own, not because they're incompetent but because they're essentially starting from scratch. It's a country with no infrastructure. Imagine the towers falling in new york but having no hospitals, police, roads or fire fighters... thats what iraq deals with practically every day.
That's why i started the thread, I hated the war but I don't see how they can manage without help now that it's over. Will it become another vietnam? I don't know but abandoning them now seems unconscionable, ideally the international community will assume a more significant role now that there are no alternatives short of allowing iraq to spiral into chaos but bush has burnt a lot of bridges. Also america will want to get some returns on it's "investment" so I worry the US might have a hard time handing the reigns to others. Wether it's blue helmets or green helmets though, we (the international community) are needed, for a while at least.
Last edited:
I'll go along with that, except that the point about infrastructure is really more applicable to Afghanistan than Iraq. Iraq has infrastructure, it's just inadequate, and they just need to convince their people to stop blowing it up.
As far as whether the US will "have a hard time handing the reigns to others", I don't think that's an example of colonialism or wanting a "return on its investment". I think that will be determined by whether the Powers That Be are happy with the kind of government that's in place, but the determining factor won't be how much tribute that government pays to the US, but rather whether that government is a physical threat to the US. Does it harbor terrorists? Does it encourage or discourage violent behavior? That sort of thing.
What I was trying to say above is that even if a government is elected that is anti-American in some (or all) way(s), we should leave it be. If at some point they become a threat to the US, we deal with it then (hopefully not be bombing, but by some diplomatic approach at first). They need to learn how to stand on their own, and they won't learn that if we're there holding their hands, especially if much of the country perceives us as the enemy.
As far as whether the US will "have a hard time handing the reigns to others", I don't think that's an example of colonialism or wanting a "return on its investment". I think that will be determined by whether the Powers That Be are happy with the kind of government that's in place, but the determining factor won't be how much tribute that government pays to the US, but rather whether that government is a physical threat to the US. Does it harbor terrorists? Does it encourage or discourage violent behavior? That sort of thing.
What I was trying to say above is that even if a government is elected that is anti-American in some (or all) way(s), we should leave it be. If at some point they become a threat to the US, we deal with it then (hopefully not be bombing, but by some diplomatic approach at first). They need to learn how to stand on their own, and they won't learn that if we're there holding their hands, especially if much of the country perceives us as the enemy.
I didn't mean handing the reigns to iraq, that has been done (well, it's been started). I meant handing more power to other international groups should they get involved. I take your point about infrastructure but they still have intermittent power, few police or other services and more importantly serious water problems so I agree they're better off than afghanistan but that isn't saying much.
I disagree on one point though, I really do think a large group of people are going to demand the US gov't get a return because of the incredible amount of money being spent. Also, when I said colonialism I was referring to the perception in iraq, I'm not among the people that think the US wants to run iraq forever but it's their perceptions that matter and that belief is quite widespread. I think it will be very hard (even impossible in the short term) to convince them that is not the case.
I disagree on one point though, I really do think a large group of people are going to demand the US gov't get a return because of the incredible amount of money being spent. Also, when I said colonialism I was referring to the perception in iraq, I'm not among the people that think the US wants to run iraq forever but it's their perceptions that matter and that belief is quite widespread. I think it will be very hard (even impossible in the short term) to convince them that is not the case.
Undecided said:Who would that be? No one wants to go in, and exactly why Bush bungled this operation from the beginning.
I suspect (hope) that the need for assistance in the region will override the international dislike (to be polite) of bush. One motivation is they'll all be able to say, "told ya so!" to bush. I have a feeling that being able to knock him down a peg will be very cathardic.
Who would that be? No one wants to go in, and exactly why Bush bungled this operation from the beginning.
They would never have have gone in anyway, no matter who was doing the asking. The reason Saddam ignored the UN demands was because he knew full well that the only country that would ever do *anything* about them was the US.
(I think the US was justified in going to Iraq. I just think it was a mistake to do so.)
I disagree on one point though, I really do think a large group of people are going to demand the US gov't get a return because of the incredible amount of money being spent.
Oh I think you're probably right. And I'll even agree that that's probably a bad idea.
The support and participation of Iraq's neighbors is essential if that country is to be stabilized and America to be able to withdraw without humiliation. Without their help, it is highly unlikely that the United Nations will be able to play a successful role.Given the chaos America has created, few European or other states will wish to become involved. Without the strong support of the Muslim world, the United Nations will be seen by Iraqis as simply an American tool.
Hope is not a policy initiative, stabilization is Buffys. Nations are pulling out of Iraq, populations are getting anxious at the beheadings, and people aren’t so willing to go to Iraq due to the massive disruption of security. Yes I agree initially the failure to bring troops to Iraq from key international players (apart from nuclear power Nicaragua) was because of Bush’s cocky smugness, but now nations have legitimate reasons not to go. Militarily according to commanders the mission has failed. With the insurgency only growing and this interim gov’t not being able to do anything to stop the insurgency is severely putting this “liberation” at great odds. You do pose an interesting question about Vietnam, now I will get flack from some people here. But yes the US has reached the political levels of Vietnam, Kerry stated that he will not leave Iraq, and remain steadfast. The only way the US to leave Iraq with some dignity is to leave a relatively stable Iraqi military, but lately all attempts to get and Iraqi security force up and running have largely failed.
I think once power is firmly in iraqs hands these beheadings and other terrorist actions will reduce because there will be a lot of pressure from the average person on the street. As long as they can justify these killings as a defense against the evil americans it will continue. But without that whipping boy - the biggest reason I think the US should beg international organizations to take over and allow themselves to be lead by others in the reconstruction - I doubt the average citizen will be supportive (overtly or privately). The need for help rebuilding will have a big impact on how tolerant the average person will be of killing civilians and contractors. After all, it's hurting them worse than the US. I think self preservation will be the stronger force in the end.
Or I could be totally wrong, we'll just have to grit our teeth, wait and see.
Or I could be totally wrong, we'll just have to grit our teeth, wait and see.
The most graceful opportunity ever for a US exit from Iraq is right now. From here, it will get more ponderous every week, and less controllable every month, until becoming a titanic and listing political weight by November. Even another Attack on America, by flying monkeys or whatever, will only reinforce, as it did in Spain, that while "Bring it On" really works, we actually don't want it to work: We have learned the hard way that we, or people we know, actually get killed by this elective game, and then we all get poor with this bullshit of gasrats, draft boards, and Wall Street panicking. Americans will not accept what the next attack, and the next mean, as the media tells them it means- (we must "Stay the Course") when it isn't working out well at all. Events will be impossible to reconcile with notions that that Arabs dont really increasingly think we're assholes; That we only have to kill the bad Iraqis, Arabians, etc. Down that road, we soon find ourselves close enough to bowing before our "War is Peace" banners,to fully recognize the Shock and Awe of tyrrany in our midst.
Iraq not only will be militarily and strategically challenging. Owning the Iraqi Civil War is going to cost Uncle Sam many trillions. Wait and see- the best time out is ASAP, because this little reverse-domino theory is absolutely FUBAR, and we have sent 1,000 soldiers to their deaths, and gotten 30,000 or so maimed for life. W
Would you like some more casualties, Siddeek? The Mideast is happy to oblige: Bring it On, the desert is thirsty for new foreign blood, like the literal pools of Brit blood that soaked the sand the 30s: Much blood makes Arabs and Muslims function as brothers again, so they can grab their enemies by the testicles, and begin, slowly at first- squeeeezing and twisting the taps dry, laughing at the goddam Amerikans, while making sweet new EuroDeal: New refineries, new shipping, hold the colonialism, please.
America will be left standing in line not only for affirmation, but intermittently for fuel, clean water, generators, internet (gasp!) and telephone. Fritter and Waste Land can become just a wasteland within in a few short and precipitously tumbling years. We don't have very long to get smarter in this country, because they're onto us out there, and we should know that the Busheviks are leading the USA into a new life of crime. And Punishment.
Iraq not only will be militarily and strategically challenging. Owning the Iraqi Civil War is going to cost Uncle Sam many trillions. Wait and see- the best time out is ASAP, because this little reverse-domino theory is absolutely FUBAR, and we have sent 1,000 soldiers to their deaths, and gotten 30,000 or so maimed for life. W
Would you like some more casualties, Siddeek? The Mideast is happy to oblige: Bring it On, the desert is thirsty for new foreign blood, like the literal pools of Brit blood that soaked the sand the 30s: Much blood makes Arabs and Muslims function as brothers again, so they can grab their enemies by the testicles, and begin, slowly at first- squeeeezing and twisting the taps dry, laughing at the goddam Amerikans, while making sweet new EuroDeal: New refineries, new shipping, hold the colonialism, please.
America will be left standing in line not only for affirmation, but intermittently for fuel, clean water, generators, internet (gasp!) and telephone. Fritter and Waste Land can become just a wasteland within in a few short and precipitously tumbling years. We don't have very long to get smarter in this country, because they're onto us out there, and we should know that the Busheviks are leading the USA into a new life of crime. And Punishment.
Last edited:
perhaps I misnamed my thread, I don't care one way or the other if america stays or goes as long as someone is there to help. America is still responsible for most of the rebuilding money in my opinion because they said they were nation building, just because they had a bad plan is no excuse. If america stays or goes it will still cost them a fortune, no getting around that now without breaking their word. I think americas army can still have a positive impact as long as they let the policing be handled by someone else and focus on construction and possibly the protection of it as well. In short, shut up, keep a low profile and let someone else call the shots.
" I think americas army can still have a positive impact"
Please: Understand that this intervention is exponentially unpopular among Iraqis, is anathema to the entire overlapping Arab and Muslim Worlds, and is resented by our "friends and allies" the world over. We didn't just get off on the wrong foot, we also have continued to mess this up in every way, when it comes to "hearst and minds".
It's a painful experience, at the receiving end. Just as after discovering being raped, it is unusual for the victim to mull it over and ask the rapist to beat her up, fuck her dry, and make her hate herself again. If you can't understand this, I really don't know how explain it to you. Don't be such a boob.
Please: Understand that this intervention is exponentially unpopular among Iraqis, is anathema to the entire overlapping Arab and Muslim Worlds, and is resented by our "friends and allies" the world over. We didn't just get off on the wrong foot, we also have continued to mess this up in every way, when it comes to "hearst and minds".
It's a painful experience, at the receiving end. Just as after discovering being raped, it is unusual for the victim to mull it over and ask the rapist to beat her up, fuck her dry, and make her hate herself again. If you can't understand this, I really don't know how explain it to you. Don't be such a boob.
kinda missed the whole point there didn't ya. Someone has to help, if america left today iraq would collapse into chaos. I think bush should start doing some serious international dick sucking if that's what it takes to get someone else to take over. Until then the US can't leave, it's that simple.
If you can't understand that, I really don't know how to explain it to you.
If you can't understand that, I really don't know how to explain it to you.
Undecided said:There’s the conundrum, should the US leave? If she does the possibility of a massive civil war grows exponentially, but if the US stays then not only will she have more deaths, it will cost her more, and civil war is still likely.
bingo! That is the problem in a nutshell. I could have used you when I started the thread.
As Undecided said, the civil war is now inevitable, so there is no profit, or quality of mercy, in staying. The USA stepped over the line of reasonable action, everybody knows it, and now the USA must step back without any more bloody posturing.
Well, see your optometrist:
"...if the US stays then not only will she have more deaths, it will cost her more, and civil war is still likely."
"...if the US stays then not only will she have more deaths, it will cost her more, and civil war is still likely."
lol! again with the convenient omissions.
you missed the other half of his statement, "... should the US leave? If she does the possibility of a massive civil war grows exponentially...". I'm more than happy to debate hype but twisting quotes to fortify your argument is a poor way to make a point.
you missed the other half of his statement, "... should the US leave? If she does the possibility of a massive civil war grows exponentially...". I'm more than happy to debate hype but twisting quotes to fortify your argument is a poor way to make a point.