I've been hearing from many, including those previously opposed to the war, that we need to stay in Iraq -- that we are now committed to see it through.

My opinion is that we were wrong to attack them and are wrong to occupy them. US soldiers and Iraqi civilians and rebels are dying every day, and it's clear that as long as the US is there, there will be resistance and opposition that will often times be violent. I don't feel that it's a good idea to stay in Iraq and would like to see us pull out, but I understand that option could be de-stabilizing if not done properly.

Questions for Debate:

If the US suddenly had a change of heart and decided to pull out of Iraq, what would need to be done to ensure that we were leaving Iraq in the most stable way that we could?

What other options do we have other than "staying the course" and pulling out now?

What type of reparations could we make to "right the wrongs" that we have made in Iraq?

I have been one of the more vocal opponents of the decision to invade Iraq, based on exaggerations, half truths and sold to the world as 'making the world safer', even though I have yet to have anyone tell me exactly how the world, or the US, is safer now that Hussein is out of power.

However, even I have to admit that to just pull out of Iraq now would be idiocy, it would leave the country with a complete power vacuum, and lots of different entities (both internal and external) vying to claim control of one of the richest oil-states in the world. Shi'ite, Suuni and Ba'ath remnants, supported variously by saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan and Syria, and likely others would all compete for power, and any guesses as to wheither the competition will be bloodless?

Worse, no matter WHO gets in power from that motly list, it will go badly for the US, who will be (correctly) seen as invading the country, causing huge damage both politically and actually, and then fleeing and leaving a bloodbath in their wake.


To answer your question, what other options does the US have? Actually, I personally think the US has zero options right now. leaving would be disastrous, but staying may not be a much better option. This unplanned, undetailed, unspecific pipe dream about 'establishing democracy' in Iraq is frankly laughable. Even if they held elections, as soon as the US left you would see another post-Soviet aphganistan all over again, a great-power puppet state trying desperatly to stay in power while the remainder of the country tried to bring it down...

Oh now come on, I think I put it best in another thread about whether a democracy in Iraq was possible.

Post

I agree that a pullout would likely be disastrous, Iraqi security forces must be adequately organized and government set on the road to general election if they are to have a reasonable shot at a better life. I think both of these events are well on their way to occurring.

Iraqis support democracy, if they are educated about how it works, they'll do just fine...

In Iraqi Towns, Electoral Experiment Finds Some Success
It won't be America overnight, but it seems they are already years ahead of say... Mexico.

I'm not really sure what your question here is. No one has ever suggested we were going to stay there permanently, the plan all along has been to arrange things so that we could pull out. Attempting to do that properly is exactly what is being done now. To do so will require that : 1) an Iraqi government be set up, and 2) an Iraqi security force be setup, (not necessarily in that order). You could probably add 3) restore Iraqi infrastructure to a functional level. Both (all three) of these are on-going currently....what I think points out is that there really isn't any other course other than the one that's being taken. You could argue that some of the roles we're undertaking could be taken over by the UN, but so far it doesn't really look like the UN wants to take on that role (even if we really wanted to give it to them). However, if other countries want to participate (yes, even France), I don't think we should let pride dictate the course of events--if they can contribute in a constructive fashion, the more world involvement there is, I think the better the situation will be. Note that it remains to be shown whether such participation would really be constructive or not--adding more hands in the kitchen doesn't always speed up the process.

Come on, we have been a Democracy for over 200 years and I think there are plenty of Americans who don't know how democracy works...

Now this is just my personal opinion and I can't cite anything to prove this out, but I believe that many Iraqi's aren't so concerned and educated about the Democratic process as they have a concern and desire for a capitalist economy like western nations. Given the kind of conditions they have lived in and the propaganda about western nations they have received I have a hard time believing that your average Iraqi knows anything at all about Democracy or Western nations other than we are rich. They don't know what a constant battle and daily struggle that democracy really is.

Now to answer the question for debate - I think we have no other options than staying the course at this point. The only question is how long will we have to stay the course?

It is my guess it will be several years at best and we will likely have to maintain some presence there even after we leave. If history is any kind of teacher, look at what happened in Yugoslavia after the Russians rolled up the carpet and left. Like Iraq, you had a very authoritarian government that was holding together several very different groups of people by an iron fist. As soon as the Russians pulled out the old groups renewed their fighting and hatred of each other and battled to control the country.

The exact same thing is going to happen in Iraq with the combination of the Shiites, Sunni and Kurd. These are groups that historically have not gotten along due to fundamental differences in culture, philosophy and thinking. To assume that creating a democracy where they can all work together is possible let alone easy is pure folly and ignores hundreds of years of history and other examples in recent history.

The Bush administration got us into this with no clear goals and no exit strategy. Now we are going to be involved in this for the long haul, Iraq will probably have a constant military presence much like Korea.

Democracy only works if people are willing to accept that sometimes the opposing political group is going to win out sometimes. Somehow I don't see that happening with the vastly different groups in Iraq.

Leaving right now isn't an option. What we need to do is barge into Sadr's strongholds (Kufa and Najaf) and wipe him and his milita out and then clean out Fallujah.

Then we need to help rebuild the country then leave for the Iraqis to evolve on their own

Well- I guess this question is a real "what if" kind of thing- because this administration has no clue at what it is doing, and has no clue at how to get out-

In a dream world, I would see the entire administration thrown in irons, tried for treason and hung - a good way to say sorry to the world- then we might regain some credibility to fix this situation- short of that- lord hoping any but bush wins the election- it is going to be very hard to pick up the pieces.

With GW gone- it would be possible for someone like Kerry to rebuild some bridges with our allies and getting them to pony up men and money to truly have an international stamp on the occupation, and then with our resources being bled somewhat less, we could rotate out our men more often, and stop being desperate and be more deliberate in this situation. If we had a truly global force in Iraq, with a massive amount of men and money- it would be easier to keep the combatants apart and start "educating" the population on how to rebuild a nation.

As long as the US is essentially going it alone (with some help by Britain)- we just are draining our men and resources in an un-winnable vietnam type situation.

Quite the mature attitude there, CR...

At the outside, Bush is guilty of putting America first. If that is a crime in your book...

Iraq was a legal war, a resumption of Gulf War I hostilities.

As for pulling out now, I think most reasonable people see the folly in it. A power vacuum would ensue, causing sheer chaos. Iraq would be up for grabs until someone instituted a Saddam-like dictatorship.

Perhaps that is what we should have done: installed a dictator to replace Saddam. We've tried that approach, too, and it doesn't work. Promoting democracy suddenly becomes bad?


The US leaving Iraq at this point would cause chaos by definition. The US is currently the only security force keeping any sort of stability in the country. Until the Iraqi armed services and police services are up to speed, leaving is simply not an option.

What other options are there? We could announce a deadline by which we will leave, and aim our training of the Iraqi security forces along that deadline. Should we do that, we would be forced to comply regardless of the actual security situation as the deadline approaches. This would, of course, not work in all likelihood, as all manner of thugs try to assert their power just as the US would be pulling out.

As for reparations, I think rebuilding Iraq and freeing them should be enough. Iraq is already pumping more oil than we expected at this point (since the oil fields were never destroyed). Beyond that, Iraq is in much better shape than most countries in the region already.

Unfortunately neither of these statements are true or valid. Bush did not put America first or we would never have invaded. The war is costing us a fortune, masking the real WOT, there is no clear anwser that it is making us or anyone else safer, in fact the opposite is very likely, and if you think otherwise, then somebody please answer Vermillions repeated question on how?

A resumption of Gulf War I hostilities on what grounds? We went into Iraq to help out allies because of an invasion. We won. We called a cease fire, we sanctioned the country. How many times does one country have to pay for its (despotic leaders) mistakes and ours for supporting him in the first place? Its amazing how some people are still in denial that this war was based on bogus reasoning, and if they have a reason- refuse to explain it in anything but rhetoric, from the nonexistant WMD to freedom, WOT, blah blah blah. Having no answers to these points, just making empty points.



Yes, Iraq seems to be a great American social project, trying every which way to get our foot in there somehow. If installing Saddam and arming him didnt work , we just keep trying, someday we might get it right and finally get Iraq under our wing, that is if total ignorance can ever accomplish anything by sheer luck or force. 30 years of suffering has been the result for Iraqis.



Which? Who else is occupied and in ashambles, fighting everyday, not able to walk the streets in safety and after we leave most likely be constantly on the verge of civil war? Oh yeah, Palestine, with Israel being the only other democracy in the region. Iraq is so bad that all reconstruction efforts have been halted, people are cowering in their homes, Iraqis are not working, convoys are being blown up, even the troops cannot get needed supplies. They and every other Muslim in the region is beginning to brew a deep hatred for our liberation tactics. We killed 600 civilians in Fallujah. I dont know who you could see as worse off, name one.

I like the part that freeing them should be enough. Its actually hysterical. Oh so benevolent american who believes we can free people by bombing and occupying them. Tisk tisk, Iraqs history has taught us otherwise.

If the US suddenly had a change of heart and decided to pull out of Iraq, what would need to be done to ensure that we were leaving Iraq in the most stable way that we could?

What other options do we have other than "staying the course" and pulling out now?

What type of reparations could we make to "right the wrongs" that we have made in Iraq?

The US will not pull out of Iraq anytime soon so the first question is N/A.
We cant pull out of Iraq now or civil war will definately ensue.

We need to work towards a cease fire by making some concessions. Bringing in the key players and discussing with them plans for withdrawl and reconstruction, and trying to convince them that we actually want to do some good there if hostilities would come to an end. That means talks and letting Iraqis decide on their future, together with us as mediators. Not simply our way or no way. Even the most vehement know that a direct pull out will leave the feuding factions to fight it out amongst themselves and I dont think they want to see that scenario either.

This,



is just about as irrational an idea as could ever be thought of, and shows two things 1.) How little one knows about Iraq. 2.) How little a person cares about the lives of americans in the fight and and how easily they can demean Iraqi lives. It does not speak of liberation, freedom or democracy but genocide against the very people we supposedly went there to HELP.
I especially like the term, CLEAN OUT As if we were talking about some nasty dust and not peoples lives.
Opinions like this one make me more assured than ever that those who support the war do not care about Iraqis in the least, hence the freedom and democracy argument is simply cloak and dagger.

Im not sure about the reparations question. We will be in Iraq for a long time. If the hostilities can ever stay themselves for any length of time we might be able to do some rebuilding. If we get mired in constant fighting or circular peace and uprisings, we will ultimately fail and have to pull out at a loss.

The sooner we get real Iraqi leaders and not our puppets to the table the sooner we can get something accomplished.

Boy- talk about "believing your own press" LOL-

How in the world is Iraq better than other nations in the region? Man- talk about a stretch

Bush is guilty of putting someone first, but it isn't America- some campaign donors that happen to be American, but not all Americans, that is pretty obvious to most

Still, my idea stands, as long as GW is somehow not in charge, we should try to regain our credibility with the world, repair our image as a teenage bully by reaching out to our allies, who turned out right after all, and make an agreement where we can get thier troops and money into that country so we are not shouldering 95% of the burden.

The US leaving Iraq is not an option.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that troops (to some extent) will probably be needed in Iraq for at least another ten years. After the war, it seems Bush did not have planning to match the masterful battle plan he drafted in the actual invasion. As a supporter of the war, I am having serious doubts of its aftermath. I do not know if Bush is the best man for the job. I remember listening to Joe Biden before the invasion, and he was asking the proper questions. He mentioned that the troop numbers, length of stay, and overall plan for occupation did not add up. Had this reached more of America, hopefully Bush would have modified and improved his plans.

That being said, I find it difficult to believe Kerry could do anything to change what is happened. Nader says he would remove troops within six months, casting him even further outside any realm of reality. Bush has continually beat Kerry on national security, even with all of the current problems. Since it is going to be a Bush-Kerry matchup, Bush still has the edge. To have a Massachusettes liberal, inexperienced with commanding the entire American military, would be extremely unstable. After all, Bush has been the commander-in-chief for nearly four years. Whether you like it or not, that is an important factor.

Although sound examples of how we are safer have been listed here at AD on different threads, if you do not want to believe them, you will not. The War in Iraq is, just as Bush stated, one theater in the larger War on Terror. Nevertheless, IMO, here are just a few very significant ways the US is safer.

1) The ousting of Saddam and his sons was the first step toward making the US safer = eradicating a state sponsor of terror.
2) We are fighting terrorists in Iraq rather than on home soil.
3) Libya has disclosed its WMD due to the Iraq war.
4) Which in turn exposed a WMD proliferation program in Pakistan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If the US suddenly had a change of heart and decided to pull out of Iraq, what would need to be done to ensure that we were leaving Iraq in the most stable way that we could?

I will not even entertain this thought. This administration will not reconsider its position on Iraq and many Americans will not either, including me.

The only way that MIGHT happen is if John Kerry wins the election. At that point, a “change of heart” would give credibility to the Ted Kennedy’s of this world who call Iraq - Vietnam. As John McCain so elequently stated in his speech to the Senate regarding comments made by Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry:



What other options do we have other than "staying the course" and pulling out now?

We have no other options. Pulling out now, like Spain is doing, shows weakness, an ability to be manipulated and solidifies our reputation of cutting and running. We must stay the course.

What type of reparations could we make to "right the wrongs" that we have made in Iraq?

With all due respect, this question seems to conclude that we were wrong to liberate Iraq. In my opinion, that couldn't be farther from the truth.

If anyone owes reparations, it’s Saddam and the UN.

That being said, the Coalition is doing some wonderful things in that country, like reversing malnutrition, providing vaccinations, rehabilitating schools, rebuilding infrastructure, providing basic services, and promoting democracy to name a few. It seems to me we are righting many years of - wrongs.

Of course that might not be the best example to back up your assertion eh?

Well this has indeed been addressed in a couple of polls. In February 54% of Iraqis say that they are "interested" in politics, up significantly from early in the occupation. I doubt you'd get that many in the US. What's more women in Iraq are more likely than men to be interested.

On a list of priorities holding elections came out above reviving the economy, so there you go...


I see precious little evidence of that in post-war Iraq, the Kurds and the Shiites are frequent political allies already and though the Sunni's are worried about being steamrolled, I see no reason to think these differences are non-negotiable.

They are already getting along much better than many expected, again no reason to think this is Yugoslavia.

Not true, as you have read before most Iraqis agree that there lives have improved since before the war. Reconstruction continues and progress is being made all the time. Iraqi say local security is even better than before the war, so I don't think Amlord's suggestion is so unreasonable...

A pullout would be foolish, the occupation has brought progress to the country and it is looking well on its way to bringing democracy. Iraqis want democracy, the US wants democracy the only people who don't are out-numbered and out-gunned. Connect the dots...
Iraq Poll with ABC notes
Iraq Poll (including priorities list

I’m really shocked at the naiveté of those who think it’s going to be easy to establish a democratic government. All we have to do is educate them?

CubeJockey hits the nail on the head: this part of the world has been ruled for centuries by sects and groups who quite simply don’t get along. To the point where they are willing to die for their differences. And we’re going to undo all that by education and waving the magic Democratic wand? Citizens are successfully governed by their own will, not one imposed by a perceived devil.

It was obvious from the onset of this boondoggle that it was being played out by the collective seats of the Bush administrations pants. One of the more glaring instances was watching looters walk away from the museums with centuries of Iraqi artifacts. Pitiful and shameful that we would allow this to happen. So one of the first ‘reparations’ should be restoring their museums.

As mentioned we unfortunately have no other option but to stay the course. But that begs another question asked often on this board, for how long? I was going to mention this in the Slouching Towards 600 thread but it’s appropriate here as well. The success of this war, occupation, and attempt to create a democratic state will not be determined on June 30th 2004, or June 30th 2005. It will be measure on June 30th 2024, 2054, 3004.

And by the way Turnea, I hope to never see you dismiss a source from any of the ‘liberal media’. Strange, as long as it supports a stance from the right, the ‘left biased media’ suddenly becomes a credible source.

Did someone here say democracy was going to be easy? I didn't interpret that to be what turnea said, if that is to whom you were referring.

As to the looters, we had more important things to do upon arrival in Baghdad than worry about looters and as it turned out only 33 artifacts were lost. I also understand that the museums are open again.

It would be wonderful if war plans called for troops to go in first to secure artifacts before invading. Even better if those we were at war with would allow that to happen.

Firstly, when I comment that all the right does is assert the world is a safer place without backing it up, it does not help your case when your first point is essentially restating the assertion that the world is a safer place. So lets go through your points:

1) As I said above, repeating an assertion does not make it any more factual. Firstly, the only link to terrorism in Iraq was the after the fact promise to fund the families of suicide bombers against Israel. So, as has been said before: a) Iraq was one of many states in the Middle East that did this, and Iraq sent far less money to palestinian families then saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, etc. B ) Since the suicide bombers in question have only EVER target israel, I assume the US has a transcript of a phone call, or document, or official fax in which israel asks for help, or indicated they want the US to intervene in any way? Oops, no, of course not. c) If indirectly, after the fact funding terroism is such a problem, I am waiting for the US to invade Boston, source of close to 60% of the IRA's funding for the last 30 years.

2) Thats truly weak. So the whole invasion of Iraq was some clever, Baldrick-esque ploy to lure terrorists in to a war-torn state to kill US troops? And all you had to do to create this little trap was kill 10-15,000 Iraqis? Actually, even if that WAS the plan, it seems to have failed, as since the US invasion of Iraq there have been al Qaeda attacks in Indonesia, Afghanistan, Spain, and thwarted attacks in the UK, France, Italy, Japan, Jordan... to name a few. besides, so far almost 700 Americans have died, more than the total of all Americans killed by al Quaida terrorist attacks apart from 9/11. So it seems the trappers have become the trapped... There were no Al Quaeda in Iraq before the war, so here is a brilliant ploy, if you want to lure them into battle, why not finish the job in Afghanistan as opposed to leaving the country effectively ungovourned, in a mess with rights and civil liberties for women returning to near-Taliban levels? If Afghanistan is an example of the US's post-war 'success', then the Iraqi people are right to be worried.

3) Lybia has started to co-operate with the West, this is true. It could be because of the Iraq war, it could be because Al Qaeda has tried to assassinate Khadaffi three times in the past 18 months. If it lasts, continues and bears any fruit, this might even be a good thing, far too early to tell...

4) And I suppose the US led invasion of Iraq also resulted in good weather in the midwest this planting season? The discovery of a man sellijg Pakistani secrets abroad came from an internal investigation. he had been selling secrets for three years, supposedly with the full knowledge of Musharraf (another US WOT ally) and his discovery had nothing to do with Iraq, or the US actions at all.


So, in contrast, now we have a state with between 10,000 and 15,000 war dead, 700 dead Americans, a state where both Shi'ite and Sunni unrest is growing and spreading into violence, where no real post war plan exists due to specific instructions not to develop one by Bush, with an Al Quaeda presence now when there was none before. The world is considerably less safe thanks to the Invasion of Iraq.



As to the other issue of the thread, the rebuilding of democracy, here is the wonder of a status quo argument: There has NEVER been a democracy in Iraq for close to 4000 years. Until the Bath party it was a religious state. So it is not up to me to prove that emocracy will not work in Iraq, that is the status quo. It is up to the right to prove that somehow a US sponsored and run election in Iraq will have any merit, support or validity. Even if it does happen, evidence is that it will be another post-USSR Afghanistan, with the people under the religious leadership of the massess dioing their best to bring down this foreign imposed puppet government.

Ok, you have hard data there. Assuming for a minute that the poll is in fact valid, there is a big difference between being "interested" in politics and knowing how it works. Granted it is a good sign to see this in Iraqis.



There is currently no evidence? Take Kallujah for example. Almost every morning I read the news and there is some new incident that has happened there, what is the toll of America lives now this month -- approaching 100? That alone should show you that not everyone has swallowed the Democracy pill over there.

Iraq isn't the same as Yugoslavia right now, because we are effectively enforcing order there. Establishing a Democracy there is going to be extremely difficult because as I said previously, that involves making concessions to the other side occasionally (or frequently if you are the minority). That is something that historically these groups have never been able to do since they are so fundamentally different.

So lets assume for a second that we can somehow work a miracle and establish some for of Democracy where there is equal representation. After we leave the country, how long do you think it is going to be before some warlord rises up and tries to return things to the status quo?

Why does everyone think that we can change thousands of years of tradition and bad blood in just a year or two?



1) There has been absolutely zero proof that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism despite much work spent trying to prove that by the Bush administration. This has been debated at length here on AD. No one is arguing that Saddam and his sons weren't bad people, but they were not terrorists.

2) See #1, we are not fighting terrorists. We were removing a regime for reasons only know to the Bush administration (although the rest of us can speculate) because they surely were not the reasons they published to the world.

3) This has also been debated here on AD and I believe (correct me if I'm worng) that evidence was presented that this was not necessarily due to Iraq, but rather just worked well timing-wise for the Bush administration.

4) I haven't personally read about this yet, but given that at the very least the first two were false and likely the third I would highly doubt that this is directly a result of what happened in Iraq. The more likely answer here is that due to increased intelligence gathering we were able to uncover this.

Bush is trying very hard now to sell this Iraq as a terrorist regime thing to the world and no one is buying.

Just because you say it's false, doesn't make what you say true. There's been plenty of facts to support the other side's conclusions as well.

1. I happen to believe that the world is safer with Saddam gone. Considering the contents of the Feith memo, the fact he harbored known terrorists, and the Palestinian suicide bomber fund... these in my view point to the view that he did have some connections to terrorism.

2. Considering that Al-Qaeda has been behind a number of the attacks in Iraq, remember the letter stating the intention to drive Iraq to civil war and so on? I would consider them terrorists, but hey, you can call them 'freedom fighters'. Turnea is right, a majority of Iraq is peaceful and wishes for a better future. This is but a small minority causing problems. The insurgents in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle for example are for the most part Baathist holdovers, Sunnis angered at the loss of priveledge they enjoyed under Saddam, not to mention the numerous foreign fighters from Syria, Jordan, and so on. As for Sadr and his militia, there have been numerous reports that Iran is behind him (training, funding, etc), which is no surprise, but that's another topic I guess.

3. Libya. Considering the comments made from Libyan officials and Gadhafi & family, it appears the war in Iraq did influence his cooperation. Interesting tid-bit of trivia, in a Guardian article I read awhile back, Gadhafi's son has come out publicly in support of the invasion in Iraq and the spreading of democracy in the Iraq and surrounding region.

4. Well, from what I understand, the Pakistan connection was always suspected to exist, but definitive proof wasn't found till Libya turned over documents detailing the links.

But hey, this is what I believe. Considering the polarization of the nation this year, I don't expect very many Democrats to even agree on this and vice versa.

-Editting-

I found the Gadhafi's son article.

Gadhafi's Son: Bush Plan Should Be Backed

He seems to believe the Middle East is open to democracy....

I still see little point in this "thousands of years" of tradition argument. Didn't Europeans have thousands of years of barbarianism and authoritarian governments and ethnic conflicts, and on and on? Don't some democracies have them now? What about the democracies of Asia? If the people want democracy, if those who do not lack the military power to stop it, then I see no reason why Iraqis won't grasp democracy.

It doesn't matter how long worse governments lasted, what matters is the state on the nation today. Today Iraq is a state that intends to have a democracy, and a democracy they will have...

Sure history has its effects, but instead of reffering to them in broad intangible terms, could we maybe get to the details? What exactly is stopping the Iraqis, most of which want peace and democracy, from claiming it? The tiny minority of insurgents? They don't stand a chance... Sectarian conflict is at very manageable levels...

I think there is a gap in your logic. Has democracy been tried in Iraq only to fail? Only then would you actually have the status quo on your side...

That democracy hasn't happened really isn't the same as history suggesting it can't happen.

Gladly (again). I have replied consistently as to the reasoning behind the war, and the actual links between Iraq and the WOT. Artemise, to her credit, is the only one who had even tried to refute these points; however, they still stand. The situation in Iraq created the need for our continued troop presence in the Muslim Holy Land, directly 'creating' UBL (this was his 'call to arms', and the point he used to rally his troops against us). In addition, the sanctions we imposed as part of the cease fire were viewed by many (most?) Muslims as terrorist acts against Muslims, not against Saddam, as they primarily affected the Iraqi people. Further, the ability of Saddam to continue to thwart the aims of both the US and the UN gave the terrorists evidence that they could in fact sway US opinion, and that we had no stomach to fight them. Also, the continued situation in Iraq placed a considerable drain on both our military and our intelligence communities, placing us at greater risk elsewhere (Note what happened on 9-11). None of these situations was resolvable unless Saddam was removed from power, and I haven't seen anyone say how else that would have happened. Finally, it should be clear to everyone that many of the basic social elements which allow terrorism to be so rampant in that region weren't going to change without a fundamental change in the social structure. Granted, this was a bold step towards that, but, again, while criticism has been rampant, better ideas seem quite scarce. One thing was quite clear--continuation of the status quo was completely unacceptable.



I don't disagree with this--but isn't this what's happening currently? We have been trying to get the the Iraqi's as involved in the process as possible, and this is the entire reasoning behind the proposed transfer of power. I think the majority of Iraqi's understand this--that is why the current sentiment favors our involvement, and the uprising's haven't been more widespread.



Two points. First, there is certainly no evidence that our allies turned out to be right about anything other than the fact they were acting to protect their own self-interests in Iraq. Second, exactly what makes you think they have any interest in putting troops and money into Iraq? They won't, unless they have something to gain. Are you stating that it is OK for them to shape their policies in the exact manner in which you constantly criticize GWB for doing? Or am I missing something here?




Ditto for those who continue to argue against the war, preferring maintenance of the status quo, where the reality of the situation was that Saddam was committing genocide on a massive scale, ruling through sheer terror and brutality. Exactly how anyone can support that situation and claim to care about Iraqi's is beyond me. However, I know for a fact that many of you do, to a very high degree....so, can't we assume such caring is a bit more universal, and avoid such pointless rhetoric?

But we are not talking about a nation developing democracy. If the Question at issue was: given time and encouragement, could Iraq eventually develop into a democratic state on its own? Then the answer would be, maybe yes. There is precident there, many other states have developed into democracies given time. Some have failed, some have succeded and then backslid, so though it may well fail, it is certainly possible that it might work in Iraq.


That is not the question. The question is, can a 4000 year old country with no history of democracy, recently invaded and occupied have a succcessful democracy imposed upon it by this occupying power in the very short term?

Then it becomes your responsibility to demonstrate it is possible. Suddently you are devoid of precident, I can think of no country where this situation has happened before except perhaps post-Soviet Afghanistan, and we saw what a glowing success that was.


So, care to explain to me your faith that suddenly Iraq will turn into a stable democracy just because Bush says so?



Iraq does not intend to have democracy; the US intends Iraq to have democracy, thats a very different matter.

The thousands of years argument is extremely relevant. Even in your example you cite European countries which were barbaric, etc etc. How many of those countries converted to full Democracy over night? None of them. The process was years in the making and in some countries it works much better than others. Even in our closest ally, England, there are still hold overs from their old monarchy system.

The thing that you aren't considering here is the fact that we are trying this in the Middle East, with an arab country. You can list any number of other countries you would like to, but the simple fact is Middle Eastern Arab countries are unique and the rules for other countries cannot be applied.

The only democracy in the region is Israel, and all of the arab countries have either been lead by religious leaders or monarchs for the entirety of their history. To suggest we (the United States) can come in and change that -- and have it work successfully -- in a matter of months is very naive.

Many of the existing laws of society there have to do with specific religious beliefs held by the various groups. Those religious beliefs are law. In order for Democracy to work that means those groups have to agree on a common set of rules they can all live by. This is the equivalent of telling a given group their belief is invalid and thus their interpretation of their religion is invalid. Wars have been started for less.

There is far more than a tiny group of insurgents standing in the way of Democracy here, that is but the tip of the ice berg. If history tells us anything it is that there is no such thing as a tiny group of insurgents.

I would like nothing more than to have Democracy work in the region. But I think that far too many people are ignoring these other factors and the history of the region. The effort is being seriously underestimated. Which leads me back to my original problem which I believe the administration has not addressed. How long are we going to have to be there? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? indefinitely? To not have considered those things is a completely irresponsible use of power.

One thing we Americans rarely consider is that Democracy is not necessarily the answer. Britain has held on to it's monarch system not becuase they're ignorant, it's because it works for them.

I believe the 'thousand year argument' has credit when you consider the sentiments of the average citizen, who is used to and appreciates non-democratic rule. Sure, there are a great deal of problems that come from authoritarian states, dictatorships and the like, but democracy is still capable of producing those results. I think that democracy is a great system of government, but it takes adaption, long-term adaption.

Also keep in mind that democracy is considered widely a western form of government, we already know that southwest Asian citizens don't take to well to massive western cultural infiltrations. Their 'evil' non-democracies may be closely tied to traditional values, just like democracy is such a part of what America is.

As for the question that began the post, I fully believe that we should be pulling out ASAP. ASAP doesnt mean immediately, becuase if you go blow up all the infrastructure you owe it to the common citizen to help them get water and food back. So I think we should pull out, and for our mistake, pay reparations in the form of "Aid" so that they can rebuild. As for government, the UN should step in and replace us, and remove the invasion standpoint, which will hopefully do a great deal to reduce the resistance fighters call for combat against the US. Through the UN, the local groups fighting for dominance should be forced to peacfully find a governmental system that works for everyone. As long as they know that Saddam is gone, they have to start from scratch, then hopefully we can create a self-constructing atmosphere for Iraq.

When a new governmental regime rises from the ash, the message will be clear: DO NOT ABUSE HUMAN RIGHTS, NO WMD! NO TERRORISTS, etc. etc. etc.

If, and only if there is a natural push for democracy, which we should all hope for, then the US through the UN should support and encourage that growth. Assistance is alright, but forcing our values in government on others will ensure that the values won't be appreciated the same way as if they were fostered in the minds of the people.

Pulling out of Iraq is just one way that we can tryt and begin to move towards a new America, one which doesn't focus on sucking the life out of the worlds poor, and punishing an entire people for one leaders mistake.

(Unfortunately Bush won't do this, neither will Kerry... I hate Kerry but I will still vote for him because Bush is inhuman, and only Kerry can beat him).

hobbes


And this has changed? Now we have occupied an Arab country and not done anything about the original offending situation. So we have given more reason not less. = not safer.



There is no basis for this conclusion, we covertly trained and armed these very same people against the Soviets. Everyone knew that Bush was going into Iraq no matter what the UN said or did. There has never been a question that we would retaliate on anyone who attacked us, with crushing force. We had already invaded Afghanistan rapidly in response to 911. (and we are the only country to have ever used an atomic bomb, I dont think there are any doubts about our strength of stomachs)



And this has changed how?



None of the issues you have mentioned have been resolved, in fact all of them are intensified and will remain so for at least 5 years. Iraqis will most likely always be suspicious of a US friendly government, so who knows if there will be any lasting peace. More people all over the world hate the US, mostly muslims that are more easily terrorist converts. Now instead of bases in Saudi we will have lasting bases in Iraq too, another gripe for terrorists. All this equals less safe.

The only thing that has changed is the sanctions are dropped. We could have done that, removed our forces and let Iraq recouperate on its own. Iraq was broken down and impoverished, Saddam had hardly an army. Nothing drastic was going to happen there and we could have bought time to find a better solution about what was basically one guy, Saddam. We have overthrown regimes without war many many times, quietly. Then again, the Iraqi people have overthrown regimes many many times, so theres no excuse for our benevolence? there.

Hero, I really like your ideas, however you know that with this administration they are Utopic. We are no more there to allow Iraqis to govern themselves than we went there for WMD. We want a government that does what we tell it to do, and we dont want any religious fanatics who might go anti-american on us either.
We shall never let the UN replace us there. We are there for profit, not freedom.



I hear ya!

Vermillion,

To your first point; state sponsored terror:

I consider Saddam’s sympathy checks to the families of suicide bombers a terrorist act. The State Department cites the following as examples of state sponsored terrorism:

The Iraq regime provided bases, training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO).

Then there’s the link between al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan which had ties to bin Laden and Iraqi chemical weapons experts.

The Feith memo which lists 50 numbered points outlining the Iraq-al Qaeda contacts from 1990 through mid-March 2003.

And I don’t think we would disagree about the terror he imposed on the Iraqis.

Point 2:

I think we would agree that we are fighting terrorist in Iraq. It does not matter to me that it was foresight, hindsight, or happenstance. The fact remains, many of the terrorists are coming to Iraq from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., to fight this WOT and as long as we are fighting terrorist over there, we may not have to fight them here. Notice I said “may”. Just because we are fighting them there doesn’t mean they still won’t try to attack us here. I don’t believe for one minute we are in the clear, I do believe fighting them there makes us safer here.

Point 4:

The Bush administration had been pressuring Pakistan since 9/11 to investigate Khan. Only after the IAEA discovered that “Iran had established a large uranium enrichment facility using centrifuges based on the stolen URENCO designs” and after “Libya made a surprise announcement that it had weapons of mass destruction programs which it would now abandon. Libyan government officials were quoted as saying that Libya had bought nuclear components from various black market dealers, including Pakistani scientists. In particular, American officials who visited the Libyan uranium plants shortly afterwards reported that the centrifuges used there were very similar to the Iranian ones” did Pakistan open an internal investigation.

I truly believe that the War in Iraq had a direct affect on Libya's decision to disarm and their disclosures allowed us to tie up the loose ends on A Q Khan.



You know, I'd like to know what you and others wish to see in Bush's post war plan or exit strategy? Maybe a new thread?

I usually don't reply on the war on terror or the Iraq threads because they are usually circular and end up not convincing anybody, at least anybody who can do anything about the situation. But here goes:

If the US suddenly had a change of heart and decided to pull out of Iraq, what would need to be done to ensure that we were leaving Iraq in the most stable way that we could?

Foster a renaissance of knowledge, art, science and enlightened government (this could take centuries) to counterbalance religious and nationalistic fundamentalism. Follow it by holding elections for Iraqi natives to lead the country of the caliber of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. All of it a near impossibility in the immediate future...

What other options do we have other than "staying the course" and pulling out now?

It may be too late but we really need to turn this thing over to the U.N. It was a mistake to go it alone (or as the administration puts it "with the coalition of the willing" - whatever that means) and 'right now'.

What type of reparations could we make to "right the wrongs" that we have made in Iraq?

None - isn't it enough to rid them of a tyrant, offer them national health care, rebuild their infrastructure, help reunify its different factions and send our troops over there to get shot at with smiles on their faces? The 'wrongs' being committed over their are done only by greedy companies such as Halliburton; as far as I am concerned, they can pay their own reparations.

Nader has a 3-point plan for withdrawing troops:



Nader calls from withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington.../printstory.jsp

Nader's plan sounds like a good place to start to me.

Here's one good reason not to stay in Iraq:

Senator Says US May Need Compulsory Service To Boost Iraq Force
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0420-10.htm

How many Americans are going to be forced to clean up this mess with their lives?

It also might be wise to learn from history. Daniel Ellsberg, who was a former Pentagon analyst and released the Pentagon Papers which showed us the deceptions that led us into Viet Nam is also for withdrawing the troops, saying that things are going to get much worse:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisla...inute-headlines
Ellsberg: Iraq a new Vietnam
The veteran of the Pentagon Papers-era Defense Department says the U.S. should withdraw its troops

We can also learn from the history of a hundred years ago. This article outlines the similarities between the Iraq War and the Spanish-American War:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0420-12.htm

So do I. I have no problem with condemning Saddam for that, what I object to is quietly ignoring that FAR MORE money to these families comes from longtime friend, ally and purchaser of Arms Saudi Arabia. They have been supporting the families of suicide bombers for a LONG time, yet not only have they not been invaded, the US keeps selling them high-tech weaponry and giving them preferential trade status. So please, explain to me how 'doing action X' in Iraq is an invasion-worthy offense, while 'doing far more of the same action in Saudi makes you the bestest of friends.

Saudi funds, both directly and through the International Islamic Relief Organization, Hamas and several other actively aggressive groups in palestine. Saudi royals are the primary funders of the Charitable Foundations of al-Haramain, a major source of al-Quaida funding. This organisation has been directly linked to Al-Qaeda operations in Albania, Bosnia, Indonesia and Chechnia.

Oh, and let us not forget that Saudi also gave the world Bin laden, most of his elite supporters, and 16 of the 19 WTC bombers.

Iraq on the other hand has been an opponent of Bin laden (who once called for the overthrow of Hussein). Iraq's 'aid' to terrorist organisations is less then that of Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and FAR less than Yemen and Syria. Even the organisations you listed are pretty tenuous:
-The Mujahedin-e-Khalq is an anti-Iranian organisation which has never taken any action in its life outside of Iran.
-The Kurdistan Workers' Party is a marxist group trying to create an independent Kurdistan, they have struck against Turkey in response for the Brutal Turkist opression of the Kurds. They have no solid links to the Iraqi government at all, but DO have links to Syria, which they use as a base of operations.
-The Abu Nidal organization is a bona fida terrorist organisation, even though they have not struck at any western targets in over 20 years. Recent links to Iraq are unproven, but past links exist between the ANO and Iraq, Syria, Lybia and Saudi Arabia.

-As for the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant, you will have to enlighten me, as I have never heard of any links at all between them and Iraq.


It appears we agree on the fact that now, as a direct result of the US invasion, there is an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq where there was not before. So I suppose there is an argument to be made that now the US IS fighting Al Qaeda, they just had to kill 10,000-15,000 Iraqis in order to make it happen. However Al Qaeda has found a fertile ground for both armament and recruitment in Iraq, and are stronger for the newfound field of battle. VERY few foreign fighters have been killed in the fighting so far, they are mostly providing training and support to local insugents who are now targeting US forces.



I'll tell you what I wish. I wish Bush had not essentially forbidden discussion or planning for a post-war Iraq. I wish when those planners who were working on it came to him with suggestions (protect cultural and civil infrastructure, do not disband the army) he had not dismissed them, even though they ultimitely proved to be completey correct. It is not my responsability to come up with a war plan, but at least I recognised the need for one...

I don't think this was really an option. Dropping the sanctions would have both given Saddam victory (disastrous politically, and further providing evidence we couldn't stomach the long fight) and also removing any leverage we had in getting Saddam to comply with UN regulations. All of which points to the folly of using sanctions in the first place, as all they really do to a dictatorship is harm the civilians in the country and box us in politically, but that is another thread. There may have been diplomatic solutions here, but I haven't seen one that was workable proposed yet. The main reason being the end to be achieved was the removal of Saddam and his minions from power--this wasn't going to happen, except by force.



This is a long-term solution, not a short-term one. The point is that under the status quo--it was NEVER going to change--the hole was just going to get deeper and deeper. Remember, one of the other ramifications of the status quo is that it tied up our military and intelligence efforts, something we couldn't allow to continue. Plus, the current situation, as you state, also has the advantage of having removed the sanctions and allowed us to initiate public works in Iraq. Iraqi citizens recognize this--which is why polls consistently show they favor our actions. Basic question--how many times has Al Queda attacked us since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? None. Seems safer to me. I realize there's not a direct link here, but then again it is difficult to argue there's no link at all.



Yes, this would work quite well. We could then easily identify the insurgents, because they would be the ones brutally taking over the country, killing all those who oppose them, and instigating endless civil war. To quote the Guiness commercial "Brilliant!"



A good idea, but isn't that completely counter to the concept of 'pulling out'?



Different situation, to which a different response has been taken. Unlike Iraq, the Saudi's are a stabilizing force in the region. Also, unlike Iraq, the Saudi's aren't continually committing genocide. Diplomatic responses to this issue have been undertaken, mostly behind the scenes, and they are beginning to show results. The problem is that the Saudi government uses the situation in Palestine to redirect attention from internal issues. So, if they break that chain too quickly, it will result in internal turmoil. This is a valid point, but I think we let them use it as an excuse for too long. I believe that is now changing.

I think that Sunnis, Shiites and the Kurds will all need a degree of self governance - similar to the US model of States (or Swiss Cantons), as they have to recently been against each other.

If the US suddenly had a change of heart and decided to pull out of Iraq, what would need to be done to ensure that we were leaving Iraq in the most stable way that we could?

That would be very dangerous, Iraq would need armed forces from somewhere to maintain stability. Possibly NATO or (ideally) the UN could be persuaded to put non-US troops in (although no obvious mandate for NATO doing this exists). I suspect that would cost the US a lot (in both money and image) though.

What type of reparations could we make to "right the wrongs" that we have made in Iraq?
Umm, you'll be paying for Iraq for a good many years yet, I think that US aid will be a large recompense. Staying the course and helping democracy flourish is the best way to make reparation for the civilian victims of the war. Having gone so far, to turn tail and run would be a terrible thing to do to your average Iraqi (i.e. the guy on the street who isn't a rebel or terrorist or insurgent and just wants peace).



Hero

Britain is a democracy, the Monarch, although nominally the Head of State has no real powers. All the powers to run the country are held by elected representatives of the people.

Democracy simply means that the people can choose who governs their lives. There are many different forms of democracy - from the British / Dutch / Japanese etc forms of constitutional monarchies, where figurehead monarchs help tie the country back to its cherished traditions, to the direct democracy of the Swiss, where almost every single issue is decided by referendum.

Iraq will only flourish as a free and developed society as a democracy. Being democratic does not preclude Islam at all, any more than it precludes being Catholic or Buddhist or secular.

They are?

Apart from everything I listed above they have done, they also set up Wahabbist schools across the Middle East, resulting in organisations like the Taliban. Their anti-Israeli rhetoric, printed in all national newspapers, is the strongest in the region, worse even than Syria.They are one of only two counries in the world to have more executions than the United States, they are the only country in the world that still formally practices judicial amputation as a criminal punishment.

The royal family is uncontrolled and not bound by official foreign policy, which is why more than a dozen are suspected of still actively contributing to Bin laden and his causes. They charge, imprison (and in several cases execute) foreign national without consular representation, they are one of the most active countries in the world in the growing sex slavery trade, importing women from Asia and former Soviet states. They are the single largest contributor of funds to families of palestinian suicide bombers. Far from having tenuous unproven links to Al Quaida, they have many members of the Bin laden family in the government, some of whom have publicy expressed sympathies with the cause of Al Quaida after 9/11. They originated and funded al Quaida for years, and to this day most of its senior staff is saudi.

Saudi is the only country in the Middle east other than Iran to have functional ballistic missiles, and has the longest missile ranges of any Middle eastern state. It purchased its arsenal of missiles, long and intermediate, from Pakistan and China. Saudi has been accused in the past of quiet programs for the development of nuclear weapons: Abdul Qadeer Khan, the pakistani scientist who recently confessed to selling nuclear technology secrets admitted to many meetings with Saudi Officicals, and made over a dozen trips to saudi to meet with the king and members of the Royal family. Though there is no solid proof of a Saudi WMD program, there is proof of past saudi desire to obtain atomic weapons, it was co-operating with Iraq prior to 1985 on its nuclear research. Muhammad Khilewi, the second-in-command of the Saudi mission to the United Nations, defected to the US in 1994 and provided detailed transcripts and evidence that Saudi had been working with Iraq in the 1980s to develop weapons and had provided equipment and funds to assist the development program. The transcrips depicts the Saudis funding the nuclear program and handing over specialised equipment that Iraq could not have obtained elsewhere.

According to a former high-ranking American diplomat, the CIA was fully apprised. The funding stopped only at the outbreak of the Gulf War in 1991.

Diplomatic pressure on Saudi has had absolutely no effect at all, and despite close relations anti-US rhetoric in the media is second only to anti-jewish rhetoric, and this anti-US sentiment is on the rise. Yes Saddam was a tyrant who tortured criminals and political opponents. But wait, according to Amnesty International, so does Saudi Arabia. Allegations of torture, brutality and extra-judicial executions are common: though how Saudi executions can be 'extra-judicial' is puzzling, considering the country does not have a codified code of laws, using the Koran as its legal text...



While we invade Iraq for comparatively minor international infractions, this is the bozom buddy of the US in the middle east. Internally, in terms of body count, clearly Hussein was FAR worse than the leaders of saudi. But we did not invade Iraq based on internal politics, but rather on external.

We need to understand we will never fully eliminate the insurgents in Iraq. There is widespread anger against the US occupation. So it will be foolish to cling to the same policies feeling the Iraqis still want (sorry, they never did throw flowers at our feet) want us to be there. Also, stop believing everything the US media feeds us, its a different story when the news come from other independent sources which in my opinion is more believable than our own media (just too bias and not fully truthful)

With that being said let me answer the question, I think we are doing the right thing in places like Fajullah negiotiating with the insurgents. But I think we need to go a little bit further. We need to offer conditions where if the insurgents stop all of the violent attacks on US troops and allies, we will back away our forces, withdraw
our troops and give FULL AUTHORITY OVER WHOEVER THE IRAQI PEOPLE CHOOSE TO ELECT TO THEIR GOVERNMENT.

Like it or not folks, the US has to give a lot up in order to achieve the goal of stopping the violence and letting the Iraqis determine what kind of government they want. Bremer and the CPA need to just stop dictacting like they was born in the country and try to understand its our time to leave.

I can't "explain" that to you. I've been asking that same question myself. If you are under the impression that I believe Saudi Arabia should be off the hook with regard to 9/11 and their participation in state sponsored terrorism, you are mistaken. Who knows, Saudi Arabia may be one of the next theaters in our WOT. If so, you won't hear me complain about it.

(emphasis mine)

Well no, I don't agree with your statement, specifically the part I highlighted in blue.

With all due respect, I am not going to try to convince you to see things as I do. I've provided you with information that establishes why "I" believe the way I do. The information I've based my opinions on are very credible. I've provided you with links to my sources, or if not, enough information that you could investigate any issue further if you wish to be "enlightened".

As our guidelines state in part, there are no winners here. Issues are debated because there is not universal agreement on the issue.

From an MSNBC article today:






Any country with attitudes like this doesn't deserve democracy. They won't preserve it. They won't appreciate it. We should know that the fragile piece of representative democracy that we have in America is only preserved from the sacredness of the endeavor. We fought hard for the right to do things our way. We can appreciate and value the sacrifices it took to get here. Iraqis don't want to fight for their livelihood. Why should we fight for them? It's like giving a 12 year-old a farrari. No kid can appreciate the hard work it takes to earn something like a farrari. Don't be surprised when that kid drives it recklessly and totals it. If Iraqis aren't willing to fight for their freedom, they'll never preserve it.




The situation seems endlessly hopeless, they just don't have the fire in them to achieve democracy. They don't understand that democracy and freedom is not a government but a idea. It's fragile. It isn't a gift, but a job. Isn't that just like America to say, "hey, we'll do the job for you, and you can receive the benefits". Good old American welfare. The thing about American arrogance is that we don't realize that we wish to spread all the good in our way of life, but we equally spread the bad throughout the world. The same problems we find on our own streets are so obvious in the places we try to help - it's amazing that we think we're qualified to restructure the governments of others. Amazing.

Vermillion,

If you're trying to convince me the Saudi's are doing things we should oppose--we're in complete agreement. We should, and have, taken a much tougher diplomatic stance with them. However, if you're trying to paint them as similar pictures, which require the same response, I have to wonder. I don't see where the situation in Iraq could have been resolved through any other means, but I don't think invading Saudi would solve anything, and would make many things much worse. I would be all for stepping up pressure on them, though. But there are mitigating factors. The Saudi government takes many of these actions in order to placate their citizens, thereby redirecting their anger from the Royal Family. Obviously, they will be reluctant to remove that crutch. If we force too much change on them, internal revolt could result--is that really what we want? One thing I'd like to see more of is calling them out in public--show the intelligence for their donations to Al Queda, and ask them to publicly explain themselves.

Dropping sanctions could have been done earlier on with no loss of face, in fact quite the opposite. I have to ask you, giving Saddam victory over what exactly and the long fight about what?. We fought that war, Saddam was trounced, there was defeat. I cant figure out what sanctions were imposed for in the first place, but I suppose it was containment for his buliding up new forces. Containment could have been handled in numerous ways, like STOP SELLING HIM ARMS! We need to remember that Saddam was broken at one point during the Iran war and we supplied him, you spoke of self interests? A 'coalition' of the willing could have stopped arming Saddam altogether. As I overlap from the pacifism post, its all circular, deeds and misdeeds.

I also must ask what 'situation in Iraq' you speak of, since there appears to have been no 'situation' to fix. The bases in Saudi , sparking UBL's wrath would not, have not and will not change Saddam or no Saddam. As far as intelligence and military drain, the military drain could have mostly been withdrawn and intelligence drain would have been the same as we use to monitor all rouge dictators world-wide. The premise here is that the war was fought and won, no need for further punishment of Iraqis after the period where Saddam and Iraq were impoverished to levels that broke the country. Then we had leverage.
The only continuing 'problem' was the sanctions and human rights abuses. Lifting them and providing aid to Iraq could have sent a shock around the world as to our intentions being good for Iraq and Muslims, negotiating with Saddam over the lifting of sanctions instead of the threat of war. We could have used mediators and made reasonable demands instead of asking him to provide evidence of WMD which it seems, there were none or not enough to have went to war for.
This type of policy would have effectively ostrasized Saddam because Iraq would be clamouring for the Aid, Arab countries would have pressured him to accept for the betterment of the country (he had no friends) and Americas reputation for helping in a real sense would have left terrorists without much of a leg to stand on, or at least a balance between the Saudi bases and our support for Israel. Actually all US Presidents have tried their absolute best to find some peace in Israel/Palestine with little success, until Bush 43 which has most likely assured that it will not happen, again, anytime soon.

Hobbes, I realize that I am repeating some things from the pacifism post, but there WERE other ways to go about this. You mentioned the Allies not being right but self interested; they were right in asking for more time. What wasnt right was invading a country on scant evidence, seen as pre-emptive, the lack of cooperation with our allies for a war which is seen as primarily (ok) bilateral and of aggression for reasons which barring few can figure out why(with current available information.) However, that having been done, there is little that has been resolved in your reasons for war and much of what you site has escalated.

I have asked in another thread how a democratic Iraq enforced by america (and if eventually possible) will strategically help us in the WOT. How about , how could it help us reduce terrorism since we have created more enemies than ever before, but thus far I dont believe its been answered, maybe another thread?

As far as righting wrongs, I wonder why this admin does not have Iraqi cultural experts ( not the criminals which are Chalabi and his lot, but experts in the field) in strategy meetings which would help us not to trample the sensitive issues in Iraq while trying to enforce an american style democracy on a people that have Islamic views at the heart of their law and life philosophy. We could have, again, saved many lives with a bit more education, sensitivity and understanding of who Iraqis are at their core.

Sorry for mispellings, Im typing fast and short on time.

Saddam agreed to certain terms at the end of the Gulf War, key among them elimination of his WMD programs. One of the stipulations was that sale of oil could not be resumed until satisfactory progress was shown towards completing those terms. This never happened, hence the sanctions remaining in place (with the exception of the oil-for-food program). It should be noted that the sanctions were agreed to by the UN, not mandated by the US. Essentially, all Saddam had to do was show good faith in rejoining the world community, something he steadfastly refused to do, throwing up obstacle after obstacle for the UN inspection teams. This then created the battle of wills between Saddam and the UN, and most directly with the United States. Giving up on the sanctions therefore would have inferred victory to Saddam from the initial war, since he would have not only survived, but basically forced the US to retreat. I think this would have been a very, very bad precedent to set--showing that any nation could get away with things if only they refused to comply for long enough. This is what also would have shown that the US in particular could be defeated if the conflict could simply be maintained long enough. Saddam gained his support amongst the Muslim community be showing he was willing to stand up to the US--he would have gained even more widespread support had we retreated, thus recreating the very problem that we went to war over in the first place.



I would agree with the first part...the second is basically what we tried to do. Saddam was late in providing such documentation, and much of it was missing. The terms of the cease fire called specifically for documentation of the destruction of known weapons--such documentation was completely missing. Saddam claimed to no longer have the WMD, but was completely unable to show any proof. Obviously, such lack of documentation could only be intentional--there was no misunderstanding of what was required. The last round of requests from the UN were very specific and reasonable. Again, Saddam refused to comply (note that even when the UN inspectors were allowed back in, they were restricted to only visiting the sites contained in the documents supplied by Iraq--what do you think the liklihood of actually finding any incriminating evidence is when the criminal dictates where you can look?).

I do agree that towards during the latter stages of this period we probably demonstrated very little tolerance or patience. I would think that any examining the situation would have to agree that Saddam, on his part, had done nothing to warrant any. Could we have done so anyway? Sure--but the outcome of such actions is completely unsure. This is where I raise the question in the other thread--will pacifistic responses work in a scenario in which only one side follows the philosophy? History indicates otherwise (consider the rise of Hitler), although I am certainly open to any new paradigms.

As to the timing, the administration was in a position where timing would only get worse from us the longer things were drawn out. The troops were already in the area--mobilizing the others was easiest then. Saddam's antiaircraft power was getting much stronger. Weather conditions were a factor--given the threat of chemical warfare, summer fighting was not desirable, as it would place our troops in danger of heat exhaustion. These factors were then weighed against the possibility of anything actually being resolved if time were extended. Given Saddam's history, this was viewed as pointless. I do think delaying might have brought more allies on board with us. The question then became--how to balance that against the increased costs and improved defenses of Iraq, essentially whether the lives of American troops should be sacrificed for diplomatic expediency. You could still argue for delaying, but I think you will agree this was not an easy decision to make--particularly when, post 9-11, the administration would rightly be VERY concerned about any increase in the liklihood of WMD attacks against us. Remember, prior to our invasion--no one doubted that Iraq had such weapons--not even Blix. The question was always just the best way to get rid of them.