The Economist---Why America must stay (in iraq)

[Blue_Tires]

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=5214118&subjectID=348966&tranMode=NA

gotta register for the rest, as i cannot post the full piece

(note: I'm only posting, NOT endorsing/supporting the piece)

(snip)
Iraq is not Vietnam. Most Iraqis share America's aims: the Shia Arabs and Kurds make up some 80% of the population, while the insurgents operate mainly in four of Iraq's 18 provinces. After boycotting the first general election in January, more Sunni Arabs are taking part in peaceful politics. Many voted in last month's referendum that endorsed a new constitution; more should be drawn into next month's election, enabling a more representative government to emerge. That will not stop the insurgency, but may lessen its intensity. It seems, too, that the Arab world may be turning against the more extreme part of the insurgency—the jihadists led by al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who blow up mosques around Baghdad and Palestinian wedding parties in Jordan (see article). Though few Arabs publicly admit it, Mr Bush's efforts to spread democracy in the region are starting to bear fruit.

So America does have something to defend in Iraq. Which, for Mr Bush's critics, leads into the most tempting part of Mr Murtha's argument: that American troops are now a barrier to further progress; that if they left, Mr Zarqawi would lose the one thing that unites the Sunnis and jihadists; and that, in consequence, Iraqis would have to look after their own security. This has a seductive logic, but flies in the face of the evidence. Most of the insurgents' victims are Iraqis, not American soldiers. There are still too few American troops, not too many. And the Iraqi forces that America is training are not yet ready to stand on their own feet. By all means, hand over more duties to them, letting American and other coalition troops withdraw from the cities where they are most conspicuous and offensive to patriotic Iraqis. Over time, American numbers should fall. But that should happen because the Iraqis are getting stronger, not because the Americans are feeling weaker. Nor should a fixed timetable be set, for that would embolden the insurgents.

The cost to America of staying in Iraq may be high, but the cost of retreat would be higher. By fleeing, America would not buy itself peace. Mr Zarqawi and his fellow fanatics have promised to hound America around the globe. Driving America out of Iraq would grant militant Islam a huge victory. Arabs who want to modernise their region would know that they could not count on America to stand by its friends.

If such reasoning sounds negative—America must stay because the consequences of leaving would be too awful—treat that as a sad reflection of how Mr Bush's vision for the Middle East has soured. The road ahead looks bloody and costly. But this is not the time to retreat.

(snip)

[Erika]

1. So, we should take over the MidEast?

Do they want to declare where the troops or the $ should come from?

[Blue_Tires]

3. this being the Economist

they probably want more corporations to cash in on it

[win_in_06]

2. Sounds like your basic "stay the course" blather

[JDPriestly]

4. If we haven't destroyed the Zarqawi movement by now,

we probably won't ever do it. And if we really had a enough support from mainstream Iraqis, the Zarqawi crowd could not wreak the havoc they are wreaking. They can do what they do because average Iraqis are not turning them in.

[tsetaerg]

5. not a vietnam?

if we had won the hearts and minds of the Iraq people,al-Zarqawi would not have a rock to hide under. We have done what we came for...time to bring the troops home. Yes ,there will be civil war when we leave. The lines will be drawn.Kurds will have oil,Shia will have oil and ports,the few left will have nothing but sand.... welcome to democracy UN can send in peacekeepers and the Iraqis can decide their fate.In democracy the people decide their fate, we do every 4 years. We need to give peace a chance...sounds like one of those vietnam chants.

[TheWatcher]

7. Since when did Bush EVER give a SHIT about winning hearts and minds?

Our intention was never to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, because they were never, and never will be our concern.

Our reasons for going to Iraq had nothing to do with freedom, democracy, or any of the other nonsense Bush and his Cabal have spewed.

We went to Iraq based on lies and manipulated intelligence.

We went there to Steal Money and Resources, and to build a permenant Military Presence to enable us to do the same damn thing in every other MIddle Eastern Country in the region.

Instead we have slaughtered over 100,000 innocent Iraqi's and lost over 2100 of our own.

We need to give peace a chance? we need to STOP INVADING COUNTRIES WITHOUT CAUSE.

We need to turn out and JAIL the people respnsible for this whole filthy mess.

We cannot undo what we have done.

We need to do MORE than Give Peace A Chance.

We need to stop creating the conditions that destroy it in the first place.

We never should have been in Iraq. Period.

There is nothing to discuss beyind that.

[cliss]

6. Yup, this is what they think.

My brother in law subscribes to this magazine. When the latest issue came out, I sat down and read this very article.

The thing that pissed me off was, they never really gave a good explanation of WHY we need to stay. Oh, there's lots of fear-mongering, and scary stuff like terrorism will take over the world, and all that.

But the article never got around to the REAL reason for all the animosity: the U.S. is occupying a middle eastern country. Our pale white faces pisses off the Iraqis. Is that so hard to understand?

After reading the article, I just threw down the rag and vowed never to read that magazine again.