Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That well might be. However, that also well might be the case whenever the U.S. pulls out, be it in one year, five years, or fifteen years. Those groups are going to keep hating each other and the U.S. isn't going to change tht ugly fact. In my opinion, the U.S. cannot afford to maintain a large military presence, such as is deployed today in Iraq, indefinitely. Yet that is what those who are arguing as you cite, are in effect calling for.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
That well might be. However, that also well might be the case whenever the U.S. pulls out, be it in one year, five years, or fifteen years. Those groups are going to keep hating each other and the U.S. isn't going to change tht ugly fact. In my opinion, the U.S. cannot afford to maintain a large military presence, such as is deployed today in Iraq, indefinitely. Yet that is what those who are arguing as you cite, are in effect calling for.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a number of ethnic groups that previously wreaked remarkable havoc on each other, and then pacified after time - most of Europe was like that at one time or another.

However, it highlights the importance of the Coalition's focus on training Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for their own security. Of course, troops cannot stay in Iraq forever (although I assume that the US still has bases in Japan and Germany)

Wikipedia's article discusses this progress, with this handy little map showing the US Department of Defense's categorisation of the various regions:




Incidentally, I agree with leading Democrat Senator Durbin's comments in this recent CNN interview:

[ QUOTE ]
ROBERTS: Certainly. no one is questioning the dedication of the troops. What they are questioning is whether or not the troops are making any progress.

Senator Durbin, the Brookings administration went over there and said there is progress and they should stay on the ground at least until the beginning of 2008. Did you see any of the progress they were talking about?

DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: There were two important parts of this story, the military type as Senator Casey said the men and women were doing their best and making real progress. We found that today as we went to a forward base. The fifth year of the war, it's the first time we're putting troops on the ground to intercept al Qaeda. There's another side to this story the Brookings institution shouldn't miss. As we are seeing military progress, any political scene is discouraging. We are seeing the al Maliki government once branded the government of unity coming apart. We are seeing Sunnis and others leaving and not becoming the stability of this country.


[/ QUOTE ]


At the same time, there is still more to be done on the political front (as Durbin went on to recognise). This interview with Australian Prime Minister John Howard also neatly summed up the situation:

[ QUOTE ]
PRIME MINISTER:

Well there is progress being made [in Iraq], it's tough. It's not all negative and nobody pretends that it's easy, but the alternative urged on us by the Labor Party and others of pulling out will guarantee a descent into civil war and chaos and a victory for terrorism and we're totally opposed to that.

HADLEY:

And [President Bush is] under pressure at home to a certain extent too...

PRIME MINISTER:

Well he is under pressure at home, of course he is, but he's not a person who succumbs easily to pressure and he's right because if the United States were to withdraw from Iraq in circumstances of a perceived defeat that would cause enormous instability in the Middle East and it would be a terrible blow to American prestige. I mean, whatever you may have thought about the original invasion, you've got to deal with the reality of what is happening now and the reality is that if the terrorists win in Iraq that will be an enormous boost for them in the Middle East and all around the world, and if it's good enough to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, why isn't it good enough to fight it in Iraq?


[/ QUOTE ]

[75s]

Hey, I'm no expert, but why not split Iraq into different countries, who have proportional oil sharing rights and secure borders. At least make it two countries, Anbar and Iraq. Wouldn't that work. The Euphrates could be open to all.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That well might be. However, that also well might be the case whenever the U.S. pulls out, be it in one year, five years, or fifteen years. Those groups are going to keep hating each other and the U.S. isn't going to change tht ugly fact. In my opinion, the U.S. cannot afford to maintain a large military presence, such as is deployed today in Iraq, indefinitely. Yet that is what those who are arguing as you cite, are in effect calling for.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a number of ethnic groups that previously wreaked remarkable havoc on each other, and then pacified after time - most of Europe was like that at one time or another.

However, it highlights the importance of the Coalition's focus on training Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for their own security. Of course, troops cannot stay in Iraq forever (although I assume that the US still has bases in Japan and Germany)

Wikipedia's article discusses this progress, with this handy little map showing the US Department of Defense's categorisation of the various regions:




Incidentally, I agree with leading Democrat Senator Durbin's comments in this recent CNN interview:

[ QUOTE ]
ROBERTS: Certainly. no one is questioning the dedication of the troops. What they are questioning is whether or not the troops are making any progress.

Senator Durbin, the Brookings administration went over there and said there is progress and they should stay on the ground at least until the beginning of 2008. Did you see any of the progress they were talking about?

DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: There were two important parts of this story, the military type as Senator Casey said the men and women were doing their best and making real progress. We found that today as we went to a forward base. The fifth year of the war, it's the first time we're putting troops on the ground to intercept al Qaeda. There's another side to this story the Brookings institution shouldn't miss. As we are seeing military progress, any political scene is discouraging. We are seeing the al Maliki government once branded the government of unity coming apart. We are seeing Sunnis and others leaving and not becoming the stability of this country.


[/ QUOTE ]


At the same time, there is still more to be done on the political front (as Durbin went on to recognise). This interview with Australian Prime Minister John Howard also neatly summed up the situation:

[ QUOTE ]
PRIME MINISTER:

Well there is progress being made [in Iraq], it's tough. It's not all negative and nobody pretends that it's easy, but the alternative urged on us by the Labor Party and others of pulling out will guarantee a descent into civil war and chaos and a victory for terrorism and we're totally opposed to that.

HADLEY:

And [President Bush is] under pressure at home to a certain extent too...

PRIME MINISTER:

Well he is under pressure at home, of course he is, but he's not a person who succumbs easily to pressure and he's right because if the United States were to withdraw from Iraq in circumstances of a perceived defeat that would cause enormous instability in the Middle East and it would be a terrible blow to American prestige. I mean, whatever you may have thought about the original invasion, you've got to deal with the reality of what is happening now and the reality is that if the terrorists win in Iraq that will be an enormous boost for them in the Middle East and all around the world, and if it's good enough to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, why isn't it good enough to fight it in Iraq?


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

"take responsibility for their own security": they have to want to take responsibility for their own security first, don't they? Where's their effort? If enough Iraqis cared about it like we do, they would en masse vigilante the terrorists right out of the country. There are too many terrorist sympathizers or indifferent persons within the populace. We can't make up for that defect. What's worse, there are too many terrorist sympathizers, indifferents, and staunch partisans within the Iraqi security forces and military themselves. We can't "train" them out of those beliefs.

Also, the Sunnis and Shi'ites want to struggle for dominance, not to cooperate. We're going to make them get along with each other? I don't think so.

We don't have the manpower or resources to do maintain security on a long-term basis. IMO it's not working and it's not going to work.

[EN09]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh... The No War for Oil mantra. I love it. pokerchap, if it was solely the oil we were after, we would have had it a long time ago. Period.

The US could/should "clean up shop" anywhere, anytime.

Along these lines, any Country which is unsatisfied with the US Policy, whether it be Republican, Democrat, Left Wing, Right Wing, Liberal Loon or Neo-con, let them turn down the US aid most of them are receiving.

As far as I'm concerned, when the US was using our planes to enforce the 'no-fly zone' in Iraq, even during the Clnton years, and Saddam fired the FIRST Surface to Air Missile at it, that was enough for me to invoke war if the UN wasn't going to back it's Resolutions.

For wuite some time I felt we needed to give Iraq time to get on it's feet and not pull out. Now I believe we should pull to the borders of Iraq so neither Syria nor Iran can come in, and let the Sunni's, Shiites and Kurds get bloody kick-ass nasty with one another. Then pick up the pieces, if they're any to pick up.

I'm all about freedom and if the Iraqi folks want to shed blood, we should allow it to happen. As long as Hollywood doesn't toss'em a fundraiser ala Bono.

EN

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
For the supporters of the US occupation, why should the US continue to occupy Iraq and for how long?

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point, Colin Powell's assessment is still pretty accurate: "If you broke it, fix it."

We broke it. We should fix it.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the supporters of the US occupation, why should the US continue to occupy Iraq and for how long?

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point, Colin Powell's assessment is still pretty accurate: "If you broke it, fix it."

We broke it. We should fix it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The subjunctive is commonly invoked in such statements by politicians and pundits.

Just because something SHOULD be done, doesn't mean it CAN be done. If it cannot, then trying to do it may be a huge and costly error.

The initial mistake was trying to "fix" the Middle East in the first place, and this hubris and realpolitik interference started decades ago. The Iraq War is just the latest in a varied series of schemes to try to mold the Middle East into conformity with the West's conceptions and interests.

In my opinion, it is time to step back and look at the larger picture and recognize that the West will not be able to mold the Middle East into anything resembling a Western democracy or even a stable region. The Middle East is an irrational hell-hole, to be best left alone. If anyone or anything can ever fix the Middle East, it will be those who live and have roots there (and even that is probably be a long-shot).

I actually wouldn't be surprised if most of the arguments in favor of continuing U.S. military efforts in Iraq were not based in the subjunctive tense and corresponding outlook.

How about some good old-fashioned pragmatism instead of "shoulds" and "oughts" and so forth? Those fine-sounding imperatives all add up to absolutely nothing when you're tilting at windmills.

Just my take, and thanks for reading.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
true, although this goal was only proposed as the primary after our WMD goal proved to be bogus and falsified.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
woopie do - ask the 2 million refugees and 600K killed in the occupation whether Saddam or USA is worse and you'd probably be disappointed in the answer - at least Saddam could supply bagdhad with more then one hr's electricity per day, and what have we replaced him with? -

Now a 5 year old gets doused in the streets with gasoline and set on fire - despotism by the masses is no better than that by an individual.

and then when are we gonna go after all the other despots? - you know who they are - the ones that sell us oil? LOL

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

[/ QUOTE ]
agreed - too bad the principals who planned it will never do so - it'll be our fault for not "supporting" them

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
probably necessary - should be factored in with the phased withdrawl though.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
see answer to three - the day this administration takes responsibility for any of it's failures is the day the sky caves in.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
not to mention sending them over without adequate equipment or initial numbers to do the job and continuing to finance their operations thru supplementals instead of the regular budget process.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
oh yes, please!

RB

[AlexM]

Why should the North continue to occupy the South?

[Josem]

Spreading mistruths seems to be an odd way of complaining about other people's alleged lies.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
true, although this goal was only proposed as the primary after our WMD goal proved to be bogus and falsified.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is rubbish. The justification for war has not just been about WMD - it was also about ensuring "that Iraq complies with its obligations as set out by the United Nations Security Council in 17 resolutions."

Whether or not weapons were subsequently found, while relevant, is not the determinant of whether such issues were falsified. Iraq was in clear breach of UN resolutions that authorised war.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
woopie do - ask the 2 million refugees and 600K killed in the occupation whether Saddam or USA is worse and you'd probably be disappointed in the answer - at least Saddam could supply bagdhad with more then one hr's electricity per day, and what have we replaced him with?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another mistruth which does not help the situation. According to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ (a left wing group critical of the Iraq war) you have over-estimated the number of people killed by the occupation by almost 10 times.

[ QUOTE ]
Now a 5 year old gets doused in the streets with gasoline and set on fire - despotism by the masses is no better than that by an individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. So let's stop the barbaric butchers who do that stuff - not leave them to torture and mutilate and douse a helpless populace in gasoline.

Why, when you tell a story of a 5 year old getting doused in the streets with gasoline and set on fire, would you think that the correct moral response is to leave him to burn? That's truly abhorrent.

[ QUOTE ]
and then when are we gonna go after all the other despots? - you know who they are - the ones that sell us oil? LOL

[/ QUOTE ]
When the UN authorises the use of force to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
probably necessary - should be factored in with the phased withdrawl though.

[/ QUOTE ]
This focus on oil might maintain your oil prices, but it does nothing for the safety and security of Iraqis.

It's about time that you stopped advocating for the blood of Iraqis to be shed so that your petrol-guzzling cars can run cheaply.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
see answer to three - the day this administration takes responsibility for any of it's failures is the day the sky caves in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hang on! You're advocating a policy cause that will lead to unrestrained civil war! The Coalition is advocating a policy that will avoid civil war!

It is absurd to advocate something with very clear consequences and blame this on your opponents.

If you want to advocate a withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq, that's fine - but you need to recognise the very clear and obvious consequences - A 21st century disaster that will make Cambodia, Rwanda, Somalia, and elsewhere look like playgrounds.

I think those consequences will be bad. I think those consequences are avoidable.