Can Iraq be "fixed" ?

[onenote]

The recent votes in Congress on whether/when to withdraw American troops from Iraq forced me to consider the following:

Our invasion of Iraq has been an unmitigated (and entirely predictable) disaster, causing enormous suffering, weakening our nation economically, politically, and morally. It has resulted in the deaths of over 2500 American troops, left thousands others maimed, and killed or maimed tens of thousands of Iraqis. It has unleashed forces we cannot control. For the indefinite future, our presence in Iraq will simply be part of a cycle of violence in which Iraqis and AMericans are killing each other (and Iraqis are killing Iraqis).

So my first reaction, having opposed the war from the outset, is that we should get out as soon as we can.

But my realist/pragmatist side keeps whispering in my ear: What happens when we do? And should we care? Will the civil war in Iraq continue and be as, if not more, disruptive and destablizing to the region as the current situation. Or is the situation now as bad as it can be?

And finally, from a purely political standpoint -- what is the risk to Democrats? Do we need to be able to spell out a vision for a post-pullout Iraq?

I never wanted us in and I want us to start getting out yesterday, but I wish I had a clearer perception of what happens after we go...

[annabanana]

1. What we do, or do not do, is of little import.

Iraq is already in the midst of a civil war. Only Iraqis can "fix" it, if it is fixable.

Remember that the country itself was cobbled together by the British out of three disparate populations, and topped with a dictator to keep them under control. Our troops are nothing more than sitting ducks over there in the desert.

[onenote]

3. but will that civil war continue to affect us after we're gone?

That's the question I wish I could answer. Will it affect us by creating more destabilization in the area, emboldening Iran, destabilizing other governments that, while no picnic (ie Saudi Arabia) arguably are better than fundamentalist theocracies. If the violence stays confined to Iraq and there is a bloodbath, but we are otherwise unaffected, do we do what we have too often done and look the other way? Or is there a scenario where our leaving actually spurs a process that produces a more stable, less violent middle east?

I don't think its the Democrats obligation to have a "plan" to fix Iraq. But at the same time, I don't think we can simply say get out without being able to articulate a vision of what we hope will happen as a result (beyond avoiding any more American soldiers dying in pursuit of a horrible error by the idiot in chief).

[annabanana]

6. What I'm saying is, "our" vision doesn't matter.

And the only difference between leaving now and leaving later is the number of Americans that die there.

[Igel]

2. And you've outlined the problem.

If Murtha/Kerry wind up pushing for a withdrawal before the country is stable, and all hell breaks loose (it's foolish to think that it has already) what's the moral and political fall-out?

Do we value American lives over Iraqi lives, if there's a plausible scenario in which a greater number of Iraqi lives are saved than American lives are lost, in the long run?

What's the geo-political outcome for the area and the US, not just Iraq proper?

No solutions, just questions, and one's assumptions has a great deal to say about the conclusions. Facts, or even predictions with claim to being likely, are in very, very short supply. And the facts that purportedly are there aren't accepted by everybody, or interpreted the same way.

[sandnsea]

7. The drawdown removes the fuel

The citizens will stop buying into the idea that they're fighting the occupation once we've begun to end the occupation. It's part of the plan to cool down the area. The people will then be forced to look at their own contributions to the violence, and choose whether to continue or seek peace. It will be their war or their peace, the way it always should have been. We should never have been on the frontlines of anything going on in Iraq. If we keep troops in the area, then they'll be there to keep any fighting from spiraling completely out of control. But that country requires an Iraqi solution and our troops are impeding that process, that's the whole point of beginning a drawdown.

[Igel]

8. That's the claim.

That's little more.

People said in 1993 that we should get the US out of Somalia, they'd solve their own problem. That was the claim. There was little more.

Civil war heated up a time or two since then; the UN has been in charge of feeding who they can, with help from NGOs and the occasional ship being taken over by pirates. In 2006, Islamist Courts finally establish a powerful enough militia to impose Taliban-like control over part of the country, ousting the warlords.

The people in 1993 were undoubtedly right. After all, nobody said how long it would take.

Is there any evidence for the claim? The more seductive the claim, IMO, the greater the need to view it critically. This is a very, very seductive claim.

[sandnsea]

9. Not even comparable

Nobody said withdraw diplomatically from Iraq and the ME. I'm not even going to play your Somalia game because nobody is suggesting we do anything like was done in Somalia.

[Igel]

10. That's true.

But the way it's done isn't what matters.

You can draw all at once, leaving the place in chaos; you can draw down slowly, knowing that the place will certainly collapse into chaos after you leave.

You may care, but that's the problem in some respects with DU (or any such forum), and with any group like DU--or any other. There's a range of opinions, and you interact in any thread only with two or three, while interacting with more would be a nightmare.

In any event, there are those that do not care; you may deny they exist, but they do exist. They want the troops out now; I've been told that we're the real problem, if we leave, the Iraqis will sort things out on their own. The 'insurgents' are merely resistance fighters fighting us. Perhaps those views are antiquated, but even at the time they were made they were naive. There are others that want a fixed time-table for withdrawal, regardless of what conditions on the ground are like. Superficially at least, and depending how quickly the drawdown happens, those sound very much like the post I was responding to.

It doesn't mean I think we should be there however long it takes. I have no opinion on that; can't sort out the few facts I know from the many fictions I also call fact, I can't sort out the role that will to power by the Sunnis and Shi'ites plays versus those played by religious supremacism and insulted honor and whatever else, and how to make predictions based on those factors and how they interact. I ask questions, but have no answers.

[KOBUK]

4. It was a terrible mistake !

I was against the invasion from the very beginning knowing exactly what would happen,is happening.It is only going to get worse!Someone in the Democratic Party needs to call these rat bastards out on a daily basis. We need to get the United Nations involved along with support troops from the Arab world and hand it over to them and bring our troops home.
Of course this will not happen voluntarily with this administration. Their plan all along is a permanent presence in the region to control the oil. They must be forged to leave. No more American blood for oil.

[Capn Sunshine]

5. No, it can't

We essentially spilled something that can't be put back inte bottle, broke something that can't be reassembled, or whatever cliche you want to use.

Occupying Iraq for the sake of Oil companies is nothing but bad news, death, and destruction for all parties involved.

The repercussions of this will mean us paying dues for perhaps a hundred years into the future; and by dues I mean constant attacks on American people and interests worldwide, but particularly at home. We've created more psychos and nuts than there are police to handle it for years to come.

Yet, they allow us to persist with this charade of demanding we get out now, all the while building fortified permanent bases that indicate we are going to be there like Korea, for 50 years or more.

[AusGail]

11. It would be easier to put toothpaste back in a tube

than to fix the problems caused by Bush and his coalition of the killing in Iraq. There doesnt seem to be any easy solution to the problem. Maybe it would be best to leave, and have Bush face the World Court for war crimes. He and his buddies (Howard included), should be remembered in history, as the criminals who destroyed the Middle East.