Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
How long did we occupy Japan? Germany?

[/ QUOTE ]

Japan and Germany were utterly defeated and had their wills broken which laid the groundwork for a revision of their beliefs, along with a firm helping hand up. Even so, it took many years.

Nothing of the sort has occurred in Iraq. The US has not utterly defeated and broken the will to resist of the insurgents, and neither the Sunnis nor Shiites has defeated the other and broken their will to fight for dominance.

So, the situation is far different.

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think if we pull out before there is a stable government that we won't be back in, and face far more difficult problems as the insurgents have time to regroup?

[/ QUOTE ]

That well could transpire, if attacks against American interests increase from sources within Iraq. Alternatively to boots on the ground, a heavy-handed precision bombing campaign might be advertised as the "will-happen" response to attacks on American interests.

I don't think we should be trying to play peacemaking mediator between the Sunnis and Shiites, as they obviously aren't even interested in getting along with each other, and that role is costing us dearly in lives and billions of dollars.

[ QUOTE ]
obviously there is no chance for democracy

[/ QUOTE ]

The mere act of voting does not a democracy make, in the way in which we consider modern democracies - although I daresay it is better than if they had all just chosen to stay home [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Let's simplfy our respective positions, and pose the question:

You think that democracy is feasible in Iraq and will likely occur, with our continued assistance. I think it is not likely feasible nor likely to occur. Admittedly, neither of us can know for sure. The question then returns to the OP's query regarding: how long the occupation?

So I would ask you, how long would be too long for your continued support if the improvements you are hoping for do not materialize? What is the outside time limit you would be willing to spend American lives and $10 billion/month without seeing material major improvement, and the establishment of a relatively stable, modern and secure Iraqi democracy? Or is your support to be unwavering and continual, even should it turn into a Hundred Years' Occupation? I realize it is not good to give terrorists a time limit which they merely have to "wait out", but you and I do not set policy, we are just gnats on a discussion board. So, what outside time parameter, if any, would make you ready to throw in the towel?

[govman6767]

Just got back to the U.S. yesterday.

To be honest I dont' see us going anywhere no matter what the gov tells you.

They are still addding more and more to each base and building up more and more.

By the looks of the contractors building the bases up I don't see us going anywhere soon

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Just got back to the U.S. yesterday.

To be honest I dont' see us going anywhere no matter what the gov tells you.

They are still addding more and more to each base and building up more and more.

By the looks of the contractors building the bases up I don't see us going anywhere soon

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, that helps confirms what I was already thinking.

The U.S. will require a large military base and presence in Iraq indefinitely, both because of increasing pressures on the world's oil supply in years to come, and if necessary, to deal militarily with Iran. Those of course are very different matters than "bringing democracy to Iraq".

[AzDesertRat]

<<<--never supported the war but recognize we have to stay there until we replace the power vacuum that our "leaders" decided to take out without much thought.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
<<<--never supported the war but recognize we have to stay there until we replace the power vacuum that our "leaders" decided to take out without much thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would add "if possible" and "within a reasonable time frame".

To project a bit: you wouldn't support staying there if it takes over 60 years to meet that goal, would you? Or, getting back to the OP's question: at what point in time would you be willing to throw in the towel?

edit: I'm not just asking this of you, or of Copernicus, as a rhetorical question.

The lack of good progress over several years, from not adequately securing the country - to perhaps more importantly, the different factions Iraqi government not coming together cooperatively - makes it a very practical question.

IMO this is the question that is looming larger and larger, perhaps even subconsciously, in the backs of most Americans' minds, as they realize that progress has been scant or nonexistent while expenses and losses continue to mount. And there is ever the nagging, growing, perhaps even subliminal doubt that just maybe, these people aren't going to embrace our kind of democracy, and that they are going to keep fighting amongst themselves, no matter how hard we try pushing them in the opposite direction.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
The big fallacy is the underlying presumption that a modern liberal democracy can and will occur in Iraq

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is off the table, except for feeding those who continue to believe it.

The purposes of the occupation, IMHO:

-Maintain large bases to control the world's on-off switch.

-Avoid defeat, so as not to encourage dreams of local (or anywhere else) control of the oil.

We will be there forever, no matter what the insurgency does (unless the public forces a pullout.)

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't this assumption openly often questioned? Why do politicians seem to accept it as a matter of fact and faith???

[/ QUOTE ]

So they don't give away the game.

[NewTeaBag]

In answer to the OP: We shouldn't continue to occupy Iraq as we are today.

What should we do?
IMO:

1) Admit the idea of installing/teaching Iraq how to do western democracy was a flawed concept from the beginning.

2) Take some credit for at least finally removing one of the most despicable despots and his regime in recent history.

3) Take huge blame for absolute shtt planning for the "after major combat operations" phase

4) Pull back to several large, isolated, easily defended bases towards the southern oilfields and near the Iranian border. This will allow a strategic force to remain "on station" to both protect the oilfields and forestall any direct overt Iranian military intervention.

5) Take the blame for the ensuing open civil war which seems inevitable.

6) Swallow giant humility pill, recognizing that despite the fact that our military remains vastly superior to any other seen in history when we give them a job that they are not trained to do we doom them to ultimate failure and death in vain.

7) Behead* fking lunatic politicians who send our countrymen to slaughter and be slaughtered with little to no forethought for the "Post combat" phase.

* Perhaps beheading might be a bit strong, but I grow wearier and wearier of Commander's in Chief who have little to no military experience themselves.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
For the supporters of the Coalition occupation, why should the Coalition continue have troops in Iraq and for how long?

[/ QUOTE ]

I slightly changed the question, 'cause:
a) It's a Coalition, not just a US effort
and
b) I think the use of the word "occupation" is an emotional term


But to answer the substantial question:

"I believe that the Coalition should continue to have troops in Iraq as long as the cost of having troops in Iraq is less than the likely cost of withdrawing."


Withdrawing troops is not likely to end the situation in Iraq. While it may not then matter to the New York Times, I genuinely believe that there would be an unprecedented mass murder and civil war in Iraq - which I believe would make the current situation look like a convent by comparison.

I can only shudder at the possible consequences of unleashing the various groupings upon each other, and the very likely chance that this will then spread into neighbouring countries.

Take, for example, one of the currently relatively peaceful regions - The Kurds in the north. Without a Coalition presence holding the country together, it would seem likely that the northern region would leave the rest of Iraq, and form a sort of Kurdistan. This has pretty serious consequences for the neighbouring region of Turkey (which has quite a large Kurdish population).

It is also difficult to imagine that Iran would sit back and not get involved.

It is also difficult to imagine that various terrorist groups would sit back and not get involved.

It is also difficult to imagine that Syria would sit back and not get involved.



One of the most common arguments for withdrawing troops is the current bloodshed in Iraq. However, if you're going to argue that, you need to show that the future bloodshed in an Iraq without Coalition forces is likely to be less.

[pokerchap]

the war is simple: our govt wants havoc there so we can steal the oil.

you mean to tell me the US couldn't clean up shop there?

[Josem]

after making my post, I came across this while looking for a phone number:

[ QUOTE ]
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Iraq would fall apart and regional wars would develop if US-led coalition forces were to suddenly withdraw from his country.

"The sudden withdrawal of American troops in Iraq would cause the collapse of Iraq and will lead to the disintegration of and division within Iraq," he told Alhurra Television in an interview.

"Sudden withdrawal would also mean regional interventions and conflicts. These conflicts will drag the region into regional wars," he told the Virginia-based, Congress-funded non-profit corporation.

[/ QUOTE ]