Do you support the occupation of Iraq or think we ought to pull out? Why?

Saw some polls this last Sunday that indicated a majority of Demos want to pull out, and a small majority of Americans think we ought to pull out.

For me it's a tough call. I wish we had never done this, but now that we're stuck there, I'd hope that progress toward the goals would be brought to a certain point and then pull out. But then I think that the best way to rectify a mistake is to get the heck out. Quick!

Bush can't do that, though. Too much face to lose, shows weakness, would have to admit to a mistake.

Iraq may or may not pull itself togther. It might split into smaller states. As far as terrorism goes, I doubt things would be any worse than they are now.

So I'm tending toward an orderly withdrawl now rather than trying to pull off what might very well be impossible: democracy in the ME.

Is that still the goal? Or are we down to a test of wills?

Regardless of whether we should have invaded or not, I think at this point we don't have a choice but to stick it out for the long haul. If we pull out the troops and abandon Iraq now, we'll condemn tens of thousands of Iraqis to death. It is also likely that Iraq would turn into an Afghanistan, becoming a fertile terrorist training ground along with various factions warring against one another. If we pull out now, we'll likely be sending troops back in 15 or 20 years to clean up a worse mess than the one we left behind.

It's hard to believe that anyone would give serious thought to pulling out now. We have a job to do and just because we meet obstacles that's no reason to quit. All that would do is embolden terrorists, terror-sponsoring states and despotic regimes all over the world. Is that the world you seek? Cripes, even our ex 'surrender-in-chief' Clinton doesn't support this move.

The more I think about it, the angrier I get. Supporting a pull-out now is tantamount to supporting defeat. I can understand dems going this route, after all they only seek a return to power. Even at the expense of the country. But how could any responsible American support it?

I can't imagine why anyone would support a withdraw now. We'd be leaving a country in total anarchy, and looted and bombed to the ground...worse than the criminal dictatorship it was before.

I am curious why we haven't introduced some sort of direct involvement within the Middle East itself (in setting up an Iraqi government and policing activity). The only suggestions I've heard are that either the UN or we make the attempt to negotiate a new government. Perhaps the best course would be to involve Muslim countries (preferably the more western-friendly, somewhat secular type) in the process.

The problem with pulling out is not finishing what we started and causing anarchy and chaos to ensue worse than what it is already. The only thing keeping the Kurds and the Turks in line is us. There would be an all out religious and ethnic civil war breaking out if we left. It would be like the way we abandoned Afghansitan after the Soviets ran away.

The Muslim world would not look too kindly at us if we left Iraq to become an anarchy

I say get out. Now.

The whole purposes of invading Iraq was to disarm them. Since they were never armed to begin with, we don't compound our mistake by imposing our culture on another at the expense of more American lives. Regardless of what we do, Iraq will be run by another dictator as soon as we leave. So, if we're not going to make Iraq our 51st state, keep that money in our economy to pump it back up. We have 400,000 people a week losing their job and we're giving everything away to a bunch of people that would just as soon kill us given the opportunity.

We seriously screwed up here, but trying to whip Iraq into shape via brute force will not work. Let's count our losses and go. That entire country is not worth one American life.

As the late Gregory Peck once said, You're in it now boy---UP TO YOUR NECK!

The U.S. can't bug out of Iraq. Even those of us who opposed the war know that leaving Iraq in its present state will only ensure factional warfare, anarchy and a breeding ground for terrorists.

But the Bush Administration has not leveled with the American people why we went to war, how long we will be there and how much will it cost and what was the plan to rebuild Iraq and establish a democracy where none had previously existed. Once and for all, it's time for Bush to drop all the crap about the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction.

The United States said it was going into Bosnia for one year. It's been almost eight years. Afghanistan is heating up again and The Taliban is regrouping. Osama bin Laden is still out there plotting to do us harm.

Meanwhile, Rumsfeld and the neo-cons continue to rattle sabers at Iran and North Korea. Don't we have enough on our plates already?

It's time for the Administration to level about what it's going to take to win the peace in Iraq.

As much as I'd like to say get out now because we had no business being there in the first place, we really can't. What we should be doing is setting up the basics of government and transferring control to the Iraquis as fast as we can, get them back on their feet and the US in an advisory role, rather than running the whole country.

Congress is going to pull Bush's funding very soon, like it or not. We simply cannot afford to bleed money in Iraq forever and Bush won't let anyone else help.

The Americans didn't just take out a dictator; they destroyed the infrastructure and civic institutions of the country. You can't just leave.

In other words, we were bomb-happy. Anyone surprised?

Cephus - please be constructive in your posts. It's very difficult to debate one-liners (especially when they have little to do with the topic. )

FDR never told the American people how long we would be in Europe and the islands of the Pacific nor how much it would cost.

We need to set up a (hopefully) benevolent dictatorship now. Set up elections for 2008. It is time now to put an Iraqi citizen in a position of power and support him in the transition period. A moderate Shiite would probably be the best choice.

Of course we can. Just pack up and go.

We got ourselves involved in Vietnam based on the justification that if we didn't stop North Vietnam, that whole area would be communist and a threat to world peace. Well, 10 years and 50,000 dead Americans later, they bailed out, North Vietnam took over, the whole area went commie, and Vietnam is nothing more than a bad dream. Nothing everybody was afraid of ever happened.

Same with Iraq. That country has been around for thousands of years, has weathered war after war and leader after leader. It is sheer arrogance to claim that they can't do anything without our help. They have the culture and resources to rebound without anybody's help.

We've shown we can't win guerilla wars. And no sense letting more people die trying to prove that wrong. We lost this war before we went in. Americans don't strap explosives to their bodies and assasinate civilians to win at any cost. Until we do, we have no way to fight this war - let alone win it.

To me it's about doing more harm than good. In the current atmosphere we are unable to protect anyone, to create law, or defend order. There are two separate issues, security and reconstruction.

Regarding security, unless anyone knows of a change in the current plans, it makes no sense to say we have to keep going this way for the good of the Iraqi people. It's already anarchy. Anyone helping us is only putting themselves and others at risk and causes a violent reaction from our enemies. We aren't even sure who all of our enemies are. If I believed staying would promote peace and security I would be all for it...but in reality we are creating the opposite just with our presence. As far as security goes I think we need to back off...pull back to Kuwait while international forces and the Iraqi army take over the bulk of the security issues with the US offering back up forces when needed.


As for the reconstruction, it's proven to be an embarrassment and offers all the probable cause necessary to explain why we invaded in the first place. US Corporations are making billions of dollars and milking the US taxpayers and Iraqi people for all they can. The contracts that continue to be written as well as those already given need to be refigured with most being thrown out. Executive Order 13303 should be the first to go. The conflict of interest is so obvious and is so exploited it wrecks any credibility we had in invading and any we would have in rebuilding. Executive Order 13303 is completely over the top, even for Bush.

Just look towards Nigeria to see what kind of strife and crime this order will bring. Enforcing it will keep our troops in Iraq forever, and it will never help us compensate for even a fraction of the costs we are paying right now much less the costs we will incur for years to come. The only ones who win are the Oil Companies...all at our individual expense. Link

If nothing else THAT has to be taken out of the hands of the US. This reconstruction is a failure and our soldiers are dying over it. This administration has made no move to change their ways even as the country falls apart around them. The Iraqi's rightly feel their land is being raped and pillaged and their people are living in misery. All this for Haliburton, MCI, and Shell? No more.

Until this stops we are the bad guys. Period.

They want us out and we have no right to continue a hostile occupation of Iraq when we have nothing positive to show for it. Sure we have the military might if we want to continue to force ourselves on them. But that's not what we are about...at least not what I thought we were about and it's not something I will support. It's not right to make our soldiers stay and die to protect US Corporate interests or their despicable activities. They haven't even proven themselves to be competent! The Iraqi's themselves rebuilt their own country after the last Gulf War and they did so faster and better than these companies who've been allowed to take over.

Every day the immorality of what we are doing only increases. Without a major overhaul of operations and control I can't support what is going on.

We should transfer occupational/reconstruction responsibilities to the United Nations and begin the withdrawl of United States troops. Besides the continued loss of American lives, this war and the subsequent occupation is costing us untold billions of dollars when we already can't afford it.

It is time to announce when we are pulling out.

There should be a definitive plan and time table. I am in fair agreement with DaytonRocker. To stay indefinitely treading water, losing soldiers continually, and spending billions is lunacy. We can not fix all problems. We can give it our best shot (which I predict will not work) but ultimately, the region will have to solve its problems on its own.

It has been a fools mission from the get go. There has been little chance we could change the middle east to an eden of democracy. We have put our foot in it so we are bound to give it a try. We are not bound to stay there until it is peaceful democratic society. I would give Iraq a couple of years of assistance at most. That is minimal time but will satisfy the ethical responsibility we owe for the disruption we have caused.

The problem is there is no time table because Syria won't shut down it's terrorists, so they let them spill into Iraq, same with Iran, and the UN wants to split because it's too scared to get it's hands dirty and sacrifice like it has done in the past.


nighttimer:


He hasn't rattled sabers at Iran and North Korea lately. Besides, it's North Korea that's rattling the sabers, not Rumsfeld



Bosnia: The UN said they would relieve us but that was a joke.
Afghanistan: Yep...things happen. But it's not like Iraq.
Osama: Who knows where he is. For all we know he's 6 feet deep and saying hello to Satan

I think we need to do what should have been done long before military action started, design a good system for getting out of Iraq and leaving behind a stable country.

The longer we remain as an occupying force the longer the many problems of Iraq are ours.

We should heavily fund a reconstruction effort that stimulates the growth of profits for Iraqis and creates jobs and stability in the country. As much as possible (not that I think the Bush administration is capable of allwing this) we need to hand over provisional authority to other countries.

I think Mrs. P was dead on when she suggested help from arab countries in this. Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait should be able to help here.

As long as our troops are there it will be as an occupying power. We will not be seen as liberators but as reminders of defeat and disgrace.

We need to build the coalition that should have been in place before the war and rely heavily on other nations (and share authority heavily)

This btw will never be done. The word I am thinking of is Quagmire.

Actually I think there is a good chance that a Iraqi government will be installed before Nov 2004. Particularly if Bush trails in the polls.

And if another SH come into power, or the actual SH comes back, so be it? We have an obligation to rebuild this country and become friendly with its new gov't, anything short of this is a waste of time and resources.

CP

Edited to remove unnecessary quote - we can all scroll, CP. -J

Actually, it has a lot to do with the topic. The fact that we went into Iraq and basically blew the crap out of everything is one of the major factors in the length of time we're staying to rebuild. Now our troops are faced with "What, you people want water and power? We... um... blew it up, sorry. Our bad."

Now, not only do we have to set up a new government to replace the one we bombed out of existence, we have to set up an entire country, upgrade their water, power, waste handling, etc. I don't think Bush will walk away until Baghdad is a modern city with a US-friendly democracy and that will likely bankrupt us in the process.

I don’t think the u.s has any real clue or plan on what to do in Iraq as of now. More or less is living by the seat of their pants on a day to day basis. I also don’t think our presence or lack of it will change and or stop much anything. I think most of this war was over before it started and now has just come down to anarchy and a general hit and run type of slugfest with no real direction by any side. I do imagine the death toll of people overall to be supplemented daily by the general chaos of it all, a multitude of strategies that wont work to be applied and overall I think that the u.s will only stay there in certain areas or withdraw in a decade anyways.

I also do not see any other nations and or the u.n getting in any form or heavy involvement in Iraq, i don’t think that will ever happen. I could see small amounts of things here and there for various reasons but never any large or sustained actions by any non-u.s forces.

I vote for pulling out.

Actually, if I were the UN or the EU, and the US requested help, I would tell the US to "go to hell, you made this mess, now clean it up, unless there is a regime change in your goverment, and GW submits to war crimes trials"- very similar to what we do to other countries, it would be poetic justice indeed! But not likely. Hopefully we can have a real leader for a president out of the next elections (though I doubt it) that can cut our losses and run, and blame the whole mess on GW. Our nation simply can not afford 4 billion a month on this.

Actually we did as much as could be done in a conflict to avoid harming the infrastructure. It is guerillas who are making it difficult to supply basic needs such as water and electricity. Of course now we are getting off topic, as Jaime stated.

That's not true at all. We've won against guerrillas in the Banana Wars, in the South Pacific during WW2 and in Panama in 1989. Even in the Vietnam War, the U.S. military was generally successful against the NVA and the VC, all of the major battles and campaigns of that war were American victories. For the U.S. the Vietnam War was a tactical success, but a strategic failure. While we were busy supposedly trying to win hearts and minds in Vietnam, we forgot to first win hearts and minds in the U.S.

Fanatacism is also no guarantee of victory. We've faced it before, both in the Japanese who followed the code of Bushido, and in the brainwashed SS men of the Nazis. Fanaticism couldn't prevent militant fascism from being destroyed.

So long as the American people are firm in supporting the effort to rebuild Iraq, we will win the peace. Whether or not we win this peace will be determined back here in the States, rather than in Iraq. It depends on the will of the American people, and possibily the ability of our politicians(Dems and GOP) to do the right thing even if public opinion is against it.

As usual the will and desire of the Iraqi people is irrelevant to the pro-war camp. No wonder we're losing the peace. It's not as simple as you make it sound and the only variable is not the will of the American people.

Twisting his words a bit?
Perhaps Paladin was operating on the reasonable assumption that Iraqis want a stable, free, and prosperous life for themselves regardless of how the US public feels?

I think that assessment is dead on right. The majority of Iraqis are going to continue to strive for a better Iraq. The question is: Is the US going to help them, or run?

Well, I would be hysterically happy to see the US free Iraq (that is to say, geting out of it)


The U.S. has illigally conquered anouther soverign country, and now occupies it. Iraq is in a state of active revolt, the US should ideally withdraw immediately in defeat and allow the local political process to sort itself out. Whatever goverment emerges (either Baathist, Islamist or Communist, in that order of likelyhood) from the ashes should receive war reparations from the United States for the illigal invasion and colonialization.

This is imperialism, as simply and obvious as the British Empire's colonial expansion a century ago (of course the US has slightly more subtle forms of imperialism as well).

Iraq has been conquered illigally. To think that the criminals occupying it have an obligation to determine how it turns out now that they're in there is absurd. Thats like saying that a bank robber ought not to have stolen the money, but not that s/he has it, s/he ought to figure out how to spend it well.

Why should the UN be able to rule Iraq either? The UN has by its own estimates killed 1.5 million Iraqis with it's sanctions before the America-Iraq war. No where in the UN charter does it make it the responsibility of the UN to command a military occupation of a UN memberstate that has lost it's goverment by way of a war crime of aggression.

Let's deal with what caught my eye first. "colonization".
Who's building colonies?! Whether this imperialism is stuff of another thread (I suppose I'll start one soon..) but colonization

Next, you base your opinion on one fact, the "legality" of the invasion. Rather than considering what is best for the human beings involved, you instead rely on interpretation of the UN's "international law" A body you just finished denouncing. Whether or not the invasion was legal under that law is a bit iffy (is there a thread about this somewhere?) but why make that the only concern

I doubt anyone could seriously argue that bombing people is in their best interest. Nor was the argument for war based on helping the Iraqi people...it was based on alleged weapons of mass destruction and imminent threat. Let's not lose sight of that fact. Without the argument of WMD's Bush would have never gotten the blank check he was given to start a war and he surely would not have had any support from the American people based humanitarian excuses alone.

Sheesh!
Spin mode in full force today, eh?

Obviously the people who were killed by bombing probably won't be affected by the outcome of the "occupation" that just leaves the other millions of Iraqis, the majority of which supported the war effort.

Of course bombing a country could be in it's best interests. It's all a matter of considering the alternative...

Define 'better'. Better for the Iraqui people or better for US interests? What if the Iraquis wanted another dictatorship? Would Bush allow it? What if the Iraqui people decide not to sell oil to the US? Would Bush allow them to do what they wanted?

I don't buy for a second that Iraq is going to end up being what the Iraqui people want, but what George Bush wants.

I believe I did include the distinction "better for themselves" speaking of the Iraqi people. As for "what George Bush wants". There has been no evidence that the Iraqi people support either another dictatorship or restricting oil sales to exclude the US. We can play with "what-if" scenarios all we want, that doesn't change whether we should stay or leave...

Colonization simply means exploiting the resoures of an occupied land. This can mean actually setting up small enclaves to settle people, as it means in Israel, or it can mean extracting resources as it meant to the British during their empire. America is not settling Iraq, it is colonizing it, it has taken control of its infrastructure and oil reserves and intends to make use of them, and it has given contracts to its own companies to make use of the land and oil. This is exactly like what the British did to most of their colonies (though obviously they had some very notable settlements as well)

I stand corrected, colonization does indeed apply under definition #2.

However, the parallel to the British colonies does not apply, there is no indication that American plans to maintain political control of Iraq indefinitely. That is, in my opinion, a key difference.

Open Foot, Insert Mouth...

Danya,

I was not saying the will of the Iraqi people is irrelevant. Most want their country to rebuilt and to be put on its own feet again. Even some of those who who do not care for the coalition don't want to see Iraq abandoned. It would be disastrous for them.

I don't believe the US plans to maintain direct political control of Iraq indefinately. I don't think the United Kingdom intended to maintain direct political control of its empire indefinately either. Thats not the way imperial countries work. The point isn't to expand forever, its just go in, extract resources, and get out. They are looking for a profit, they wont stay there longer than it is profitable to be in there.

If the guerrillas are successful enough to convince them that it is more expensive to occupy iraq than they could possibly recover in oil money, they will leave. If they believe a sufficently friendly regime has been set up and they can save money by letting it sell oil to the US at cheap prices, and allow the US to keep bases present, then they will leave.

The point is to exploit the country as efficently as possible. Its not efficent to stay there longer than is useful.

In that case, the 'efficiency' ended about ten years ago.

Oh yeah. and what do the North Koreans want? A NON AGRESSION PACT with America! How so unreasonable! Guess when Bush named them on the Axis of Evil they figured they were next on the list. Imagine that.

And I agree with Abs. We are in too deep to just pull out and leave them to their ruins. I say we get the United Nations to come in and take over the rebuilding while we stay as part of the UN taking orders from a UN official. Its time to show that America can be humble as well as powerful. It will legitimize the whole process in the Iraqis eyes and I think we would see a lot less resistance.

Rickmanx

I'm not saying that the Bush Administration is particularly smart about its imperialism.


I would guess they wont end up making any money in Iraq. The infrastructure (such as oil pipelines and power grids) is just far too vulnerable to guerrilla attack. A long tube filled with explosive liquid stretched across remote areas is pretty hard to defend. If the guerilla's are at all cooridinated they should be able to make it more expensive than its worth.

That doesn't mean the US will just pull out of Iraq, they are clearly willing to lose a considerable amount of money so as not to concede defeat. The political loss of leaving Iraq to the Bush administration would be overwhelmingly more expensive than the economic loss of staying in Iraq.

There are a number of factors at work.

Well, being the coalition cannot defend itself against attacks, or the local people for that matter, I guess it will be a difficult task to try and protect any financial resources in Iraq also.

I don’t know if its not giving to the coalitions public but do we have any real idea of the forces the coalition faces in Iraq, or do we just lump them all in the terrorist keyword.

I guess this all relates to the world era, but I don’t in any fashion see the u.n or any other nations making a strong presence in Iraq, I just don’t see it.

I'm honestly not trying to spin anything. I'm calling it the way I see it. Are you trying to tell me that the friends, family, and neighbors of those killed in the bombing's aren't going to walk away from that with contempt and hostility towards the invading army? That would fly in the face of human nature.

And please elaborate on when it's in a country's best interest to be bombed...just please do it from the point of view of the country that's on the receiving end.

I see a couple of premises you must have:
1) We can not leave Iraq as long as there are bad countries on its borders.
2) There are bad countries on its borders.
Therefore, we can not leave Iraq.

1) We need the UN to step in before we can leave.
2) The UN is not stepping in.
Therefore, we can not leave Iraq.

So you see it as a very long term commitment? It is not very likely all the bad countries in the middle east are going to go away. Essentially you do not think it we should pull out in any sort of timeframe, much less soon?

Do you also believe Iraq needs a third party to run it? Can we only leave if another third party, such as the UN, steps in when we leave?

Iraq has the world's second highest known oil reserves, the country with the highest oil reserves being Saudi Arabia. Speaking realistically, do you see our country's leaders, oil men Dubya and Cheney, abandoning these reserves to whoever comes out on top of the Muslim conflict or to the United Nations peacekeeping/government building force?

We're in it for the long haul, possibly for longer than we were in Vietnam, because of the oil. America's sons and daughters will be there for as long as oil is in our nation's interest.

Saddam Hussein, although a megalomanial tyrant, managed to keep the Muslim factions from out and out civil war and kept the oil supply safe. Apparently U.S. occupation forces can do neither.

Bush, Jr. has committed our troops and our taxes to occupying Iraq and keeping the oil reserves under American control whether they ultimately get claimed by the USA or not. Making life better for the Iraqis, even if it wasn't just window dressing to mollify the humanitarians in our country and the world, has become a whole lot harder if not impossible due to Iraqi and Muslim terrorist resistance.

The best thing would probably be to get out of there, but then I don't know how much we're depending on that oil or that area to stage future operations.

That comment has me thinking that you actually expect a mature adult in the position of power to tell the U.S. to "Go to Hell" & to get a "regime change " in your capital & for Bush to submit himself to a war crimes tribunal. Actually, it reminds me of an Anti-War demonstrator i interviewed for a high school newspaper.


Rickmanx:



They want a non-agression pact so they can get their aid back so Kim Jong can get his palace built.


Back on topic...:

If we pull out, who will fix the power grids? Not the Iraqis or they wuld be helping us. Some of the ones that know it who haven't left or died can't do it by themselves. Also, if we left, that would make us look bad for sure.

The Iraqi's fixed it last time. They've existed for centuries without the help of the US. As a matter of fact they have done it while the US and UN were making it as difficult as possible.

You still seem to think these people live in caves and have no education. They have engineers, architects, secretaries, IT people, etc. They are not like the people of Afgahnistan. There is no good reason for us to have to do it ourselves except for the dollars it allows the corporate raiders to rack up. The Iraqi people are not stupid.

We never allowed the Iraqi's to help...we kicked them to the side and brought in our own people who can't seem to do anything right.

Get out. Out out out out out out out out!!! NOW! We should never have gone in the first place. The longer we stay, the worse the situation grows. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis. It is their country after all. Let them dictate their own future just as we are allowed to dictate ours. Get out...leave today. Pack up the guns, the ammo, the supplies. Load up the tanks, break down the camps, close up shop. We have no business there and never did. Did an Iraqi fleet of warships ever land at our shores and unleash the mighty Iraqi Army into our country? No. Did they ever attack us in any way, shape, or form? No. Were they behind 9/11? No. Don't leave it to the U.N. either. They can't do any kind of good what with their brilliant sanctions and all designed to starve the masses. We didn't need the U.N. to create our own nation and neither does Iraq. They've been around longer than both the U.S. and the U.N. and they don't need our form of "help." They don't need our military running their cities. They don't need our soulless corporations raping their land. And they sure as hell don't need George W. Bush telling them what is and isn't good for them. I hope Dubya's dream of annexing Iraq and dubbing it New Texas will never come to pass. Imperialism at its worst.

You're right. Afghanistan isn't like Iraq because we're actually starting to wake up and notice that Iraq doesn't seem to be as peaceful as we imagined it would be by now. However, The Taliban seems to be regrouping and once again attacking our troops (two were killed last weekend).

As far as Bin Laden is concerned, you apparently couldn't be more wrong about his whereabouts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/959544.asp?0cv=KB10&cp1=1

The Bush admin is moving towards a broader role for the UN in Iraq. This makes sense, if for no other reason than to quiet some of those calling for our surrender.

Iraq is now the focal point for Islamic terrorists. Their targets are not solely the US. Their targets are anyone, including Muslims, who dare to not 'believe' as they do. The only good thing is that their efforts are so concentrated at present.

Any form of pulling out now means surrendering to terrorists and encouraging them to continue their attacks elsewhere, anywhere, on this planet. I guess some believe that's the way to go, appease them and cross your fingers in hopes that you won't be next. Fortunately for the rest of us, none of those types are currently in power.

Thank God!

um...no i don't



Okay...fine. we will let them repair their infastructure and let the citizens complain to THEM instead of us.


Nighttimer:

Sure. The taliban are re-grouping. But how many have we killed so far in raids and fights in the past week? 80. If Pakistan will get on the ball, then maybe we can stop them even more.

Look at the title of the article of your link: RUMORS of Bin Laden's lair. You do know what RUMORS mean?