[BRussell]

I generally don't agree with the idea that we should get out of Iraq now. My view is that "we broke it, we bought it." We are now responsible for what is happening there, and we have to do the right thing, whether we like it or not, and whether we agreed with it in the first place.

But maybe getting out really would be the best thing for Iraq. Maybe it's our presence in Iraq that is causing the problems. Maybe if we left, we'd take the wind out of the sails of this insurgency/terrorism or whatever it is, and things would stabilize.

Are we really doing any good there? Are we really stopping a civil war from happening? I'm not so sure.

[Landos Mustache]

Ah, they would be twice as pissed at the US as they were before 9/11 and make things worse.

The only option is to kill every last one of them or enter piece talks.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I generally don't agree with the idea that we should get out of Iraq now. My view is that "we broke it, we bought it." We are now responsible for what is happening there, and we have to do the right thing, whether we like it or not, and whether we agreed with it in the first place.

But maybe getting out really would be the best thing for Iraq. Maybe it's our presence in Iraq that is causing the problems. Maybe if we left, we'd take the wind out of the sails of this insurgency/terrorism or whatever it is, and things would stabilize.

Are we really doing any good there? Are we really stopping a civil war from happening? I'm not so sure.

Some prominent experts have suggested that a premature US withdrawal would see violence in Iraq reach levels much higher than they are already - though it's hard to imagine what could be worse than the current situation.

On the other hand, the US presence in Iraq hasn't brought any tangible benefits to Iraqis in terms of security since Saddam's removal. I met with some Iraqi academics visiting in London, one of whom described how Iraqis have found it very difficult to comprehend the fact that whilst the US so easily removed the hated and feared Ba'ath party, they were unable to maintain even a modicum of security. Such post-war failures have contributed to a deep resentment amongst Iraqis which has and continues to fuel the insurgency. He also said however that he thinks now is the time for the US to leave - Iraqis have endured many wars and have always managed to re-build themselves.

I think it's a catch 22 - leave now and Iraq might disintegrate - can't really be certain of that. If that occurs then America's effort will have been a failure, a waste of lives and damaging for future US foreign policy in the Middle East. But if the US stays and the violence continues they're just aiding the insurgency.

As for the possibility of a civil war - it's not going to happen. There just isn't the intense level of hatred between groups in Iraq as there was, for example, in Lebanon, 1975. Iraqis retain a strong sense of nationalism.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

- though it's hard to imagine what could be worse than the current situation.

Not really THAT hard. Think former Yugoslavia. Post-war Ukraine, etc. Just about anywhere in central Africa. It would be bad, like that.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Some prominent experts have suggested that a premature US withdrawal would see violence in Iraq reach levels much higher than they are already - though it's hard to imagine what could be worse than the current situation.

On the other hand, the US presence in Iraq hasn't brought any tangible benefits to Iraqis in terms of security since Saddam's removal. I met with some Iraqi academics visiting in London, one of whom described how Iraqis have found it very difficult to comprehend the fact that whilst the US so easily removed the hated and feared Ba'ath party, they were unable to maintain even a modicum of security. Such post-war failures have contributed to a deep resentment amongst Iraqis which has and continues to fuel the insurgency. He also said however that he thinks now is the time for the US to leave - Iraqis have endured many wars and have always managed to re-build themselves.

I think it's a catch 22 - leave now and Iraq might disintegrate - can't really be certain of that. If that occurs then America's effort will have been a failure, a waste of lives and damaging for future US foreign policy in the Middle East. But if the US stays and the violence continues they're just aiding the insurgency.

As for the possibility of a civil war - it's not going to happen. There just isn't the intense level of hatred between groups in Iraq as there was, for example, in Lebanon, 1975. Iraqis retain a strong sense of nationalism.

I think one of the reasons why our forces haven't been able to maintain some modicum of security is for several reasons.

First it's the way this administration has been fighting the war. It needs to be fought more like a war than a white glove, we have to please everyone type of war. It doesn't seem like the military is being allowed to do it's job and use ANY means necessary to bring about peace.

Second it's the Media involvment in the war. There is too much of it. Too many good soldiers are being falsely accused of things because either some eager news reporter or reporterette is trying to make a name for themselves. As well as falsely being accused by others in teh military who might be trying to make a name for themselves.

Third, troop morale in many places is low. This is due to the above 2 reasons. Since the administration is tying the hands of our troops it's caused more of them to be killed or wounded.

Pulling out early from Iraq is going to cause more chaos than is there now. It may even have many Iraqi's hating us more.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by typoon

Second it's the Media involvment in the war. There is too much of it. Too many good soldiers are being falsely accused of things because either some eager news reporter or reporterette is trying to make a name for themselves. As well as falsely being accused by others in teh military who might be trying to make a name for themselves.

Huh? Where is this happening? It seems that the big scandals of abuse/murder/torture that are coming out of Iraq (on a daily basis) are proving more often than not to be true.

I can only imagine what atrocities would be happening if there wasn't media there.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Huh? Where is this happening? It seems that the big scandals of abuse/murder/torture that are coming out of Iraq (on a daily basis) are proving more often than not to be true.

I can only imagine what atrocities would be happening if there wasn't media there.

Let's see I can name at least 2- 3 that have been proven false but since the Media has jumped on it the knee jerk reaction of everyone seems to think that they are guilty without having all the facts. Big scandels of Murder? Which ones?

Are you talking about Haditha? Hamandiya? Those 2 are still in the early stages. Nothing as been proven yet. Are they guilty just by being there? Or on the "allegations" from some disgruntled Marine or some terroist? The Media and Murtha think so. Murtha as gone as far as to call them murderers when NOTHING has been proven yet. Up until recently their wasn't even a charge sheet on those marines from the Hamndiya incident until that press conference by the Military the other day trying to cover their @sses.

The Media tried to convict Lt. Pantano when he was "alleged" to have pulled out a terrorist from a vehicle and shot hime without provocation. This was a big story. He was found innocent. the Media and the Military tried to throw him under the bus. What about that video shot by that camera man of the Marine killing a wonded terrorist after a gun battle? Once again in that case the soldier did his job but were badmouthed by the media for "killing this wounded insurgent" All because of that one video.

The media has blown the "alledged" abuse at Gitmo out of proportions. These Prisoners at Gitmo are given even more freedoms than our 8 Marines that are currently being held at camp Pendelton who are in solitary confinement and still have to have a guard with them when they are allowed out for that whole hour. The prisoners held at Guantanamo get 3 meals a day, get prayer rugs, are allowed out, aren't in shackles. I'd call that abuse

Any "abuse" that is "alledged" to have been perpetrated by are soldiers is NOTHING compared to what the terrorists have done to our soldiers and to innocents they have killed.

[Y3a]

Cutting and running like Kerry and their ilk suggest would set a bad precedent, and would lead to other places being overrun with islamic terrorists who would feel they could get away with it since the US appears to be a coward.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by finboy

Not really THAT hard. Think former Yugoslavia. Post-war Ukraine, etc. Just about anywhere in central Africa. It would be bad, like that.

You forgot to mention Cambodia, which lost roughly a third of its population following America's pullout from Vietnam. Imagine having 6,000 Iraqis die a day for the next four years...

I'm not saying this would happen, but there is historical precedent. Rwanda comes to mind as well.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by typoon

I think one of the reasons why our forces haven't been able to maintain some modicum of security is for several reasons.

First it's the way this administration has been fighting the war. It needs to be fought more like a war than a white glove, we have to please everyone type of war. It doesn't seem like the military is being allowed to do it's job and use ANY means necessary to bring about peace.

Second it's the Media involvment in the war. There is too much of it. Too many good soldiers are being falsely accused of things because either some eager news reporter or reporterette is trying to make a name for themselves. As well as falsely being accused by others in teh military who might be trying to make a name for themselves.

Third, troop morale in many places is low. This is due to the above 2 reasons. Since the administration is tying the hands of our troops it's caused more of them to be killed or wounded.

Pulling out early from Iraq is going to cause more chaos than is there now. It may even have many Iraqi's hating us more.

I think the primary reason pertaining to America's inability to maintain security relates to the ideological forces that have driven this war from its very inception. It was ideology rather than practicality or reality that informed the Bush administration's military strategy in Iraq. Designed to minimise the number of foot-soldiers and related casualties, the strategy put forward by Rumsfeld was a highly mechanised plan that would concentrate predominantly on American air-power.

That's the way I think politics has influenced this war. It is the military that should make such strategic decisions. Had that been the case the idiotic mistakes such as insufficient troop numbers and the dismissal of Iraq's well-trained and well-resourced army may not have occurred.

[Monique]

Nothing much, there would be less dead soldiers.

[davesimondotcom]

Let's see, the "insurgents" would then continue to disrupt the forming of a new government until an Iran-style government is formed with all those who aren't a member of the group who "wins" the power getting completely f*cked over.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Are we really doing any good there?

Yes. I have absolutely no doubt we're doing good there.

Originally Posted by Monique

Nothing much, there would be less dead soldiers.

True, fewer would die. But if you ask any of the soliders and Marines I know if they want to leave, they say that we should finish the job. By that, they mean help build infrastructure and support the Iraqi government until it can provide it's own security (which it has been getting closer to doing.)

And not to minimize the loss of any single member of the service, but 2500 in around 3 years is far from devistating losses.

More members of the US military died in a "dress rehearsal" of D-Day.

Think of Iraq as West Germany circa 1950. An outpost of the "good guys" in the midst of the region. At least in theory.

So what will happen is in 60 years, the Iraqis will be enjoying freedom and bitching about the country that gave it to them every step of the way. Just like Europe!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Let's see, the "insurgents" would then continue to disrupt the forming of a new government until an Iran-style government is formed with all those who aren't a member of the group who "wins" the power getting completely f*cked over.

That might be right, but it's not as obvious to me as it is to you. I think it's possible that the insurgency is much more about us than about Shiites vs. Sunnis, and to the extent that we play a smaller role, the insurgency does too.

The Democrats, as usual, are truly, truly awful at presenting an alternative. Just pathetic. The goal of any change in policy should be to improve the situation, not just getting out because we don't like it. That of course opens them up to the "cut and run" charge which rings true to people listening to the debate.

But that's why I posted this - we shouldn't reduce our presence in Iraq just because we don't like being there, we should only do it if we think it will improve the situation. The Republican's plan (as seems typical for this group) is to vote as a bloc and support whatever the party line happens to be, no matter the facts on the ground. How about Democrats be different and support a plan because it's the right thing to do?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

That might be right, but it's not as obvious to me as it is to you. I think it's possible that the insurgency is much more about us than about Shiites vs. Sunnis, and to the extent that we play a smaller role, the insurgency does too.

The Democrats, as usual, are truly, truly awful at presenting an alternative. Just pathetic. The goal of any change in policy should be to improve the situation, not just getting out because we don't like it. That of course opens them up to the "cut and run" charge which rings true to people listening to the debate.

But that's why I posted this - we shouldn't reduce our presence in Iraq just because we don't like being there, we should only do it if we think it will improve the situation. The Republican's plan (as seems typical for this group) is to vote as a bloc and support whatever the party line happens to be, no matter the facts on the ground. How about Democrats be different and support a plan because it's the right thing to do?

That was the point of my other thread, really. Not to pick on your thread, but simply to present that some people are only considering a single option. Get out.

Not because they really think it will make things better, but because they rationalize that it will.

Every politician is doing what politicians do. Bending over backwards to support those who think can help get them elected. (And by this, I don't mean the VOTERS, but rather lobby groups.) Democrats know that in order to get support from their base, they have to be seen as "anti-war" (if you don't believe that, see Lieberman.) Republicans the opposite.

It's easy as pie to sit and criticize. It's a lot harder to come up with viable alternatives. At least provide a "why" for the "what." If "get out" will make things better, tell me WHY you think it will make it better. And not just a phony "less people will be mad at us" or "it's our presence that is destablizing things."

Convince me to change my mind. But that's too much for politicians to be asked to do.