Should Democrats abandon "we're stuck in Iraq"?

[welshTerrier2]

It seems like just about all Democrats and many republicans can clearly see that things are not going very well in Iraq. Democrats are divided between a belief that "we're stuck there" and a belief that we need to set a timetable for withdrawal. For some, the timetable means immediate withdrawal; for others it means sometime in the next year or earlier.

Do you think Democrats who espouse the "we're stuck there" point of view should revise their positions and call for a timetable to withdraw from Iraq?

[applegrove]

1. You are stuck there until the Iraqi army is big and strong enough.

To leave and leave that place in mayhem would be unconscionable.

The good news is that once America goes...the insurgency will have lost its wind. Terrorism against local Muslims never worked in Egypt or Algeria. Not when civilians are getting killed.

So the second the Iraqi army can do it - they need to take over and the insurgency will piddle out (if the Americans can keep allies like Saudi Arabians or Egypt or even Syria from funding them).

What that means for the future of an American base is obvious.

[K-W]

3. So we should leave when the US puppet govt has military control.

A fan of empire I see?

We don't get to stay and determine Iraq's future, it is called occupation, and it is indefensible.

[applegrove]

6. Yes - and once the Americans leave..then the democracy becomes

less 'puppet'. Bush has already lost the people they tried to place in power. You bet your ass that the Iraqis are working with the Americans to keep them on board until the insurgency is broken or the Iraqis can take over.

I am not for empire. I am for democracy and I have been for 30 years (ever since I could read a newspaper). The neocons are the ones who are 'new' to the idea of dealing with democratic governments rather than strongmen. Neocon policy under Regan and Bush Sr. was to deal with elites and not worry about the people. And of course elite wealth within the ME has messed up America's finances (Saudis own too much) and these same elites have been funding the Islamist movement and skewing that in all the countries of the Middle East (Elites like it when the people are tribal).

Liberals have always been for any democracy at the beginning..as long as it starts the ball rolling and transparency and trust is learnt by the electorate. Including the part where the government doesn't get you everything you want.. but it gets you what you need. You must want a civil war in Iraq or something? Do you want to see Bush fail that bad? Because he has already failed... he went to war on the wrong reasons and that is that. They already lost that one. Now we are left with not compounding the errors and hoping that, if only for the Iraqis sake, they can send the American troops home and the insurgency will die the dance of one thousand deaths that terrorists who hurt their own civilians die - when they take on their own people.

So America has to leave.

Me - I'm not changing my 30 year position that democracy is "good" for any dam nutjob cabal in the WH. If you stare into the eyes of a sociopath like the WH acts like for long enough..they will dance you outside your own dam self.

Do you like democracy or not? Yes or no answer will do. Bush lost the war he planned. He lost it on the planning and on the ideology. That is over with and done. Do you want Iraqis to have a chance at democracy? Cause that is all that is left to pull out of this mess.

[K-W]

2. Anyone not calling for a timetable supports illegal occupation.

It's just that simple. Either the goal is to get out, and thus have a plan to get out, or the goal is to be stuck.

[Lexingtonian]

9. no

The Republicans made their bed, now let them lie in it. Democrats shouldn't take any responsibility for the outcome other than supporting the troops and civilization in general.

Oh, and lie they do.

It's going to end in failure. Our side needs no part in that and the Bush people reject any Democratic involvement unless it's about taking blame. Let the True Believers watch their Man Of God, Mr. Mission Accomplished, end this "accomplishment" by ordering a withdrawal and the inviable, blood on its hands, puppet government 'democracy' fall apart.

[Radical Activist]

12. I'm not going to support more people dying

just so we can score political points against the Republicans. Get out now.

[Massacure]

4. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

No matter what happens in Iraq, the U.S. loses.

[Disturbed]

5. "leave that place in mayhem"

Iraq is a stable country now?

The majority of Iraqis want the U.S. to vacate their country. Who care what they want, eh?

[jwirr]

7. I think we should leave but even if our

military were to leave there would still be the "oil companies" and their private hired armies. We will need to be prepared to watch them get their asses kicked out of the area without reentering to "rescue" them. If we leave we need to let all Americans over there that they stay at their own risk.

[LittleClarkie]

8. Somehow I don't think they're all going to turn into Kucitizens

all of a sudden.

I think Bush is more likely to give you your wish than the Dems. He'll need to pull out of Iraq to attack Iran, I think. It's either that or a draft.

[Ysolde]

10. Yes.

We must leave there ASAP. We need to withdraw the military. In its place we need to put engineers (preferably Iraqi) and start working on re-building that country one installation at a time. Concentrate on a single project so that it can be defended (beg for some UN peacekeepers so the force could be under the UN auspices) until the construction is finished and the project is up and running. Then move to the next project, etc. Yes, we broke it, but we're sure not trying to fix it right now and the military presence is not helping that at all. We need to show the Iraqis that we aren't occupiers (by getting the military out) by our actions.

[sandnsea]

11. Military Disengagement

Considering nobody actually has a withdrawal plan, perhaps we should start calling it what it is. Disengagement. How can anybody argue that after a military engagement, you have to disengage. In order for the Iraqi's to take over their own security, we have to disengage ours. It's the logical next step.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=899

[pstans]

13. I voted for other

I think we are there for awhile. We need to fix what we broke.

The Democrats need to start saying what is going wrong, how the Bu$h administration f'd upped, discussing the lies that led us to war, how Cheney is making money from the War, etc. This would make Americans consider what is going on over there and help them see reality instead of watching "reality" TV. Democrats need to come out with plans to build international support. Then more and more Americans would be against the War and go for the plan.

I just don't think enough people see the War in Iraq as a huge problem. They don't come home from work and get on DU, listen to AAR, or watch the brief news stories.

The avg American comes home, pops in a Jessica Simpson CD, eats their fast food dinner and then turns on American Idol/Survivor/Apprentice/etc and forgets that their are people dying for them to be able to keep living their lives the way they have been.