From the Brookings Institute here is, I think, a pretty fair if brief offering of the dilemma we find ourselves in in Iraq. As to leaving or staying it seems sort of damned if we do and damned if we don't. Should we cut and run as we ultimately did in Vietnam, rightly but unfortunately belatedly in my opinion, or stay the course. I admit to not being clear on how I would come down. No way would I feel right about sending a son of mine into that quagmire. On the other hand are the consequences of up and leaving worse than sticking it out and trying to work with the various internal factions and interested countries and the UN to achieve a minimally stable outcome? It's a hard call, particularly when you see the steady increase in power by local militias and the quasi-independence of the Kurdish north. Perhaps our role would ultimately be limited to preventing outsiders like Iran from filling the vacuum. But then they act through surrogates within. What a piece of work we have created for ourselves.

Is it time to leave?



The question is: Should the United States make a unilateral decision to leave as of a particular time or should we make the matter of our departure conditional on the security situation and the wishes of the Iraqi government that is soon to assume authority.

It seems to me that if we pull out all at once then Iraq will be in a very precarious position. I would think that Iraq would still be getting its footing on defending itself from insurgent attackers while trying to keep everything else in check. It would be nice to not have to worry about our soldiers getting killed, but I think that any of our "accomplishments" that Bush has strived for could easily come crashing down with a few well planned attacks.

On the other hand, if we leave troops in Iraq I think we'll get more and more pressure from other nations and Iraq itself to leave. Since I suppose the whole idea of "Iraqi Freedom" was to liberate them...or something like that. Which meant we were to oust Saddam and set up a democratic style government. We could be accused of occupying Iraq for America's gain, while it may in truth be legitimate to have troops there.

So basically I'm not sure what to do, if we leave all together then things could go wrong; and if we stay, how long are we supposed to stay? To me the exit strategy was never really there, and this is now becoming evident.

Of course we should.

We allowed 50,000 of our finest get killed during Vietnam because of the same rhetoric. We said back then we couldn't get out because we'd be allowing Communism to spread all over the world.

We pulled out, Communism decreased, and Vietnam is attempting to attract tourists.

Even though we haven't learned form these past mistakes when choosing our wars, maybe we can learn how to get out of them.

Having returned from Iraq in January and been following the situation semi-closely through a variety of news sources (including a number of foreign sources), I can say that it is fairly safe to say that we cannot just withdraw completely. The consequences are too dire. We have turned Iraq into a terrorist haven which will only thrive as such if we are to abandon it to a weak central government. Also at stake is our eroding image among the international community. We must "clean-up our own mess" if we are to salvage any degree of credibility with the civilized nations of the world. We ignored international opinion and went at it on our own, now we should be expected to resolve it on our own if we are not willing to apologize to the UN and offer equal access in any efforts to pacify, secure, and democratize Iraq.

The simplistic "explanation" of the Hydra (Cheney/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft/Bush) for the Iraqi resistance fighters' motives (ie. "They hate freedom.") is pure adult-male-bovine fecal-matter. They want real democracy, not a puppet regime in the pocket of multi-national oil interests. Having seen no better from the US, they believe we are simply another oppressive regime replacing Saddam & Sons.

When looting broke out in Baghdad at the end of the "hot" phase, they saw US troops stand idly by. The police and Iraqi army were not around to enforce order because we had disbanded them, despite warnings by the Army War College. The average Iraqi saw this and may have begun to suspect that we had only brought them the freedom to be victimize by crime.

The average Iraqi saw us break open Saddam's weapon storage bunkers, looking for WMDs. He then saw us pull tons of explosives, RPGs, rifles, and ammo from these bunkers, inventory all of it and leave it sitting in front of the open bunker doors, unguarded, for anyone to claim in the dark of night. (I flew over many such sites in my time there. All had fresh tire tracks leading in and out between the scattered piles of weaponry.)

The average Iraqi saw Saddams' border patrol forces disbanded, allowing terrorists finally to enter Iraq with complete impunity.

The average Iraqi saw the country's army disbanded but not disarmed, sending thousands of former soldiers home with their weapons. They are unemployed, disgusted by seeing foreign invaders occupying their homeland, their pride stinging from their swift defeat. They are angry, desperate, military-trained, and armed.

Seeing all these things, the average Iraqi may suppose that nobody is going to help him, so he has to do it himself. He sees rampant crime in his neighborhood. Outnumbered and out-gunned police can't stop it. Indifferent and apathetic US troops won't even try to stop it. So, he and some of his friends may go to the bunkers and get a few rifles and RPGs. They begin to patrol the streets themselves, doing what they can to restore the order that existed before the invaders came. But they are declared an "illegal militia" and ordered to disband. They have made no attacks against US forces, but are deemed a threat. They, and the people they have been protecting, are outraged. They try to protect their homes and neighborhood and are told to stop.

Until there is an effective police force in place, until there is an effective border-control force in place, until there is a strong central government in place, until the weapons stockpiles are consolidated or destroyed, until the average Iraqi feels reasonably safe with the protection of his own government, we cannot completely withdraw from Iraq.

The best course of action would probably be to humbly seek assistance from the international community. No more macho posturing, no more stubbornly insisting that we maintain ultimate authority over all operations and intelligence in the reconstruction efforts. If we are to expect assistance from others, we must treat them with some degree of gratitude for helping us fix the mess they warned us we were about to make.

Should the United States make a unilateral decision to leave as of a particular time or should we make the matter of our departure conditional on the security situation and the wishes of the Iraqi government that is soon to assume authority.

Our withdrawal is absolutely contingent upon both the wishes of the Iraqis AND the security situation on the ground in Iraq. It is simply not an option to leave a power vacuum in Iraq.

From the article, the key quote for me is:

That is exactly the scenario that we cannot allow.

For those who would compare Iraq to Vietnam (and there are plenty who continue to do so), consider this:

What role, if any, does the US military have in protecting the US? Since I think we can all agree that martial law in the US is not desirable, where should those US troops be deployed in order to combat the greatest threats to the US?

Although many will be appalled by my (and apparently President Bush's) reasoning here, Iraq (and Afghanistan) has been the proxy battlefield between the US and terrorists over the past two plus years. It seems to be working, with terrorists unable to attack US troops in Iraq and plan mass destruction here. Certainly we have greater resources than the terrorists do, allowing us to simultaneously beef up our domestic defenses while taking the battle to the enemy.

Without a doubt, Bush views Iraq as a battle in the War on Terror. I concur with him. The premise has been borne out, with Iraq giving us the opportunity to draw terrorists out in order for our volunteer forces to defend us while killing our enemies.

The men and women who are in Iraq know that they are defending our country on multiple fronts by:

-establishing a thriving Iraq which will be far less likely to want to attack the US.
-baiting the terrorists into attacking relatively "hardened" targets in Iraq rather than the "soft" targets in the US.
-demonstrating that the US has the willpower to finish what it starts.

Pulling out of Iraq would allow the terrorists to do 3 things (at least):

-Use Iraq as a relative "safe zone" to plan attacks on the US and other Western targets.
-Shift resources from attacking targets in Iraq to attack targets elsewhere.
-Use the withdrawal from Iraq as proof of our "paper tiger" status in the eyes of militant Islam.

Whether or not going into Iraq was a good idea, leaving Iraq now, at this time, is a bad idea. Two things should be used as the litmus test for leaving Iraq:

-Terrorists attacks stop in Iraq, indicating that Al Qaeda has lost interest in attacking both Iraqis and the US military. This scenario indicates a lack of will to continue to fight the US and Iraqis which indicates that peace can be achieved with less forces.
-Terrorists shift their attention from Iraq to the US and the West. This indicates that the terrorists have lost their focus on Iraq as the battleground and have shifted to the US as the battleground.

The second scenario is obviously the worse one. At either point, however, the purpose for the US having troops in Iraq from a US National Security perspective is gone and we should begin withdrawing.

Unlike those who feel that US troops should not be a target of our enemies, I feel that it is better for the enemy to be focused on trained US troops, rather than unwitting US civilians. That is the job which they signed up for.

If the war in Iraq reaches the point where there are not enough volunteers (i.e. a draft is needed) then the purpose in Iraq has been lost and the National security situation needs to be re-evaluated.

Amlord- in a conventional war with large conventional armies, what you said may have made sense, but with the current realities of this battle, it makes no sense. In order to "draw out and use up his resources" kind of argument- you assume there is a central supply or supply line and central recruiting of troops etc- which, of course, with terrorism today- is not true. The terrorists have limitless supply of troops and supplies, one because we are thier best recruiter marketing device, and another because they have very low tech types of attack- they don't need to to to a congress to ask for money, they use thier local resources.

So, "taking the battle to the enemy" makes no sense at all- because, essentially, we had no real enemy in Iraq! (as far as an actual threat to either our "hard targets" or "soft targets" in the US.

I hope we don't HAVE to cut and run, but it is looking more and more like that.

This is just one of many factual errors expressed by those advocating a pull-out, but indicative of a general sense of defeatism. The terrorists do not have a limitless supply of troops. In fact, they don't even have a greater potential supply than we do. Remember, Islamic terrorism has, in the last 10 years, been directed at the following non-Islamic countries:

Israel
United States
Japan
Australia
India
Thailand
Italy
Spain
Britain
Russia
Greece

That's just to name a few that come to mind quickly. The combined populations of just these countries exceeds the entire population of the Islamic world, which, we have been constantly reminded, is not against us. Now, the only thing that prevents the United States from effectively wiping out the Islamofascist threat is our own will. We could, if we chose, very quickly dry up the supply of terrorists, potential terrorists, and "maybe, just maybe" terrorists.

With that in mind, the talk of "getting out of Iraq" is pure irresponsibility. Getting out won't result in any Islamofascists being any less murderous towards us. Getting out will not, at the present, improve our security in the least. It will, on the other hand, signal to the world that the US lacks the will to carry the war to its enemies.

The United States hasn't even partially mobilized for war. We currently have fewer troops stationed in Iraq than were cut from the Army alone during Clinton's 8 years.

I get the argument that a sudden pull out could leave Iraq in a condition of anarchy, civil war and potential invasion. The other arguments do not seem so obvious.


You can plan attacks in a hotel in Switzerland.

If the terrorists felt their resources were better applied elsewhere they could do it right now. Our being in Iraq in no way imposes any inhibition on their decision to attack America since they have no natural bases in Iraq, at least they didn't under Hussein. We simply offer them an additional elective choice of attack.

As far as being a paper tiger it would, I think, depend on how we deployed our resources once we withdrew them from Iraq. We could do a better job in Afghanistan for instance.

A general point. We are not primarily fighting Al Qaeda type terrorists in Iraq. Our principal opponents, as I understand it, are former Baathists, many now presently unemployed, who want a return to the old days with their material benefits, status and power, with some payback thrown in. If most of our efforts and sacrifices are employed against them that is a use of resources that is not at least directly fighting international terrorism. Perhaps we will see, as in Falujah, a partial rehabilitation of this old Baathist military just to have the stability that will give us an avenue out. Strange though to bring back those who you went over to overthrow.
-------------------
GUS, some interesting observations and analysis. We need more folks posting here who can offer a first hand perspective on that region. I do think more could have been said about the organized resistance of the Baathists. I understand Saddam and his officers made extensive preparations for post invasion guerrilla warfare. That would surely distract coalition forces from affectively carrying out their normal policing functions.

Firstly let me heap praise upon the post of GodlessUSSoldier great way to make an entrance to these boards.

In Canada I am considered a political centrist, but in the States I would be considered 'left', and as all know I have opposed this idiotic war ever since it became clear that the imminent WMD threat was entirely fictional.

Yet even I must admit that to cut and run now would be likely disasterous.

Several people have pointed out that to leave now would damage US presite and encourage terrorists and so on, which may or may not be true... (Do you really think Al Qaeda needs 'encouragement' to attack the US?)

But the most serious implication of leaving before a stable regime is in place is what will then happen in Iraq. Likely a struggle for power will insue, it may escalate as far as a civil war but that is not too likely. What IS likely, in fact almost inevitable, is that left to their own devices in Iraq, a religious leader will take opver the country, possibly even as a theocracy. That is what the neighbours of Iraq want and are pushing for... So, will the theocracy be Shi'ite (and thus a natural ally with Iran) or Sunni (and a natural ally with the rest of the Middle East, such as saudi?)

Either way, we create a monster: Iran allied with Iraq would be the predominant power in the Middle East. Saudi allied with Iraq would control almost half of the world's oil. NEITHER one will be pro-US.


What baffles me about the situation is that it seems that nobody in Bush's administration seems to have considered all of this. Or maybe thaty did, and just pretended it did not exist: After all they were told explicitly that following the disposal of Hussein's regime they would have to: Not fire the local army, deploy troops to protect infrastructure and local treasures, and make serious attempts to curry favour with the Shi'ites. All three Bush refused to consider, and has been proven dramatically wrong in all three cases...


The US HAS to be in Iraq for the long haul, at this point they have no choice. As to the increasing number of US dead now approaching 1000, it is of course tragic, but those deaths, and the deaths to come, are a result of invading a country with no post-war plan.


Oh, and as an aside, to pull out now would be instant political suicide for Bush, having invaded Iraq on false pretenses, accomplished little, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and almost 1000 Americans, and then withdrawn leaving the place an ungoverened ruin. Ity would be an admission that he was essentially completely wrong all along...


EDIT to Add

Amlord, the latest attempt to justify the war in Iraq has been that it is 'drawing terrorists to fight there rather than elsewhere'. I grant you it is an interesting theory, but there is not a shred of evidence to back up this supposition.

The reality is attacks around the world from Al Qaeda have not lessened, in fact if anything they have been larger and nastier of late. Further still, we have the recent report saying that Al Qaeda is actually growing in strenth again as a result of the Iraq was, recovering from the blows done to it in Afghanistan.

Further, attacks on US forces are being done mostly by Local Iraqis, who are trained and motivated by Al Qaeda, meaning most of the 'terrorists' being killed are locals, not previously part of Al Qaeda, meaning their deaths do not compromise or weaken the organisation at all.

Welcome to the forum, GodlessUSSoldier. I'm glad you made it home.

As much as I would like for our troops to drop everything and come home now, in much the same way I say to our daughter over the telephone when she needs to come home for supper, I realize that it would be detrimental to the Iraqis as well as to the troops who have worked hard to get Iraq back into shape after bombing the hell out of it and eliminating the previous regime.

The sooner the U.S. troops are supplemented by and in some cases (hopefully, many cases) replaced by troops from other nations, the better. It is imperative that the perception of the interim government being dictated to by the United States be minimized even if it cannot be totally refuted. We have already seen what has happened to some of the Iraqis who have committed themselves to the new government.

I beg to differ.

Any enemy has a limited amount of resources, that includes terrorists. Those resources can only be used to accomplish a finite number of goals. This is true of any organization.

In the case of Al Qaeda, the resource pool is actually quite limited. Perhaps a few thousand men, scattered in various countries. A few hundred million in resources. This is really quite limited.

Now, picking the battlefield is one of the basic concepts of war. I'm not sure that this was intentional, but by being in an Arab country, the US has challenged the terrorist jihadists to repel us. That is going to be their primary goal. This focuses their limited resources away from the US and into Iraq. This, I believe, is the primary reason for the lack of follow-up attacks after 9/11.

Now, the advantage the terrorists do have is the lack of central command. This advantage is what accounts for our inability to wipe these guys out in a single bombing raid. However, this advantage turns to a disadvantage when communication is disrupted between cells. Our intelligence efforts have made communications much more difficult over the past few years, which has led to the lack of coordination between cells.

The entire War on Terror is multi-facetted. Without Iraq distracting the terrorists, they would be much freer to plan coordinated attacks on the US. Without our intelligence efforts, communication would be that much easier, leading to more central planning and resource allocation.

I think that many people give the terrorists much more credit than they are due. They are not some all encompassing, all powerful force which has connections everywhere and can strike at will. Even terrorists need money and intelligence. Even terrorists need someone to tell them when and where to strike. The selection of the targets and the means that occurred on 9/11 were not random. The success the terrorists had was not happenstance. It took careful and thoughtful planning to decide which flights to hijack. Local level "grunts" would not have been able to choose the airplanes that were chosen (with the right combination of a lack of passengers and a huge store of fuel).

Similarly, local grunt terrorist cannot poison a city's water supply, or detonate a dirty bomb or blow up a nuclear facility. They certainly could set off a small bomb or murder some people with random machine gun attacks, but that is not what will "shock and awe" the US. Central planning is needed. Planning which is being interdicted by our efforts in Iraq and our continuing intelligence efforts.

How much of Al Qaeda's resources are consumed when an Iraqi fires an RPG pilfered rom an Iraqi stockpile at a US APC? How much of Al Qaeda's resources are consumed when an Iraqi detonates a 155mm shell pilfered from an Iraqi stockpile beside a convoy? Even if the above two attacks are thwarted and the attackers killed, how has this affected Al qaeda at all? This is a win-win situation for them: They can hurt the US using nothing but local resources, and some of their own people to train and 'motivate' them.

The fact is attacks against US forces are being made with local weapons, not imported ones. They are being done by Iraqis, not foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is expending little to no effort and resources and incurring little to no risk, and is killing US and coalition forces by proxy.

As the recent IISS report demonstrated, Al Qaeda has an estimated 18,000 effectives (not a couple thousand as you stated) and their numbers and resources are growing, not dropping.

Rather than the US 'tricking' Al qaeda into a fight where it can be defeated, it seems to be Al Qaeda has 'tricked' the US into fighting a war unconnected to the war on terror, where Al Qaeda can use minute resources to assist the local population in killing Americans. They seem to have the US right where they want them, militarily bogged down fighting an irrelevant war while they can proceed with their plans, safe in the knowledge that the US military and financial resources are directed elsewhere.

When I refer to terrorists in Iraq, I am not referring to every guerilla soldier. I'm talking about the ones that are kidnapping and beheading people. I am talking about the ones setting off bombs.

Although it may not be obvious, these types of things do require planning. They require resources. They distract the enemy.


, I don't think I ever stated that we were eliminating the threat. I stated that we are distracting them from focusing their attention on the real target: US citizens here at home. We are buying time, in effect, for our Intelligence community to track these guys down.

The other effect the Iraq war has, of course, is the clear message that it sends to governments would might otherwise be prone to assist terrorists. Even Iran, the historical hotbed of terrorist activities, has softened its positions. Libya, a traditional sponsor of terrorism, has willingly disarmed.

We are moving in the right direction. When things calm down in Iraq, we will be poised to really put pressure on certain governments who now know that we have the will to topple state sponsors of terror (whether Iraq fell into that category or not, the perception is now there).

We can't leave right now. We might be damned if we do/ damned if we don't, but if we stay, we'll be in the first one or two circles of hell. If we abandon these people and don't try to finish what we started, we're morally bankrupt and belong in the inferno proper.

I don’t think that the Shiites will unite. That would require a variety of petty warlords and religious figureheads coming to some sort of longstanding agreement. Right now, sects are relatively united against us. Not so if we leave…there are too many blood feuds, scores to settle, high-value economic sites, and religious disparities for them to coexist peacefully without a strong central government. It's more likely that Iraq would become a failed state.

The chaos resulting from such a failed state could not be successfully contained. Refugees would flow into neighboring countries, destabilizing the entire region....Saudi Arabia is pretty fragile already. The potential chaos and revolutions would likely cripple the international oil market and hold dire consequences for the global economy.

Firstly, most of the bombs that are set off are roadside bombs, which are simple devices detonated by local insurgents, usually involving pilfered Iraqi Artillery shells.

Car bombs are little more sophisticated, involving explosives or shells packed into a car or truck and detonated rather than by the side of the road. neither of these occupy or consume ANY Al Qaeda resources. However they DO occupy US resources in terms of killed and injured, increased patrols, medical and military expense, and so on. All of these are win-win for Al Qaeda.

The beheading is a diferent and, so far, unique case of a televised murder of a hostage. I'm not sure what 'resources' were wasted by Al qaeda except the purchase of a digital camera and a machete, and since none of the murderers have been caught even those were not 'wasted'...



Really?

Firstly, as I have said, there is no evidence at all that any serious resources or manpower is being expended by Al Qaeda in Iraq, the attacks are by local Iraqis with local munitions.

Secondly, EVEN IF that were not the case, given the number of Al Qaeda attacks around the world in the last year and a half, there is no evidence that this is having ANY effect on Al Qaeda's effectiveness.

Thirdly, who is being more distracted? By fighting Hussein and now Iraqi insurgents, (many of whom by the way have NO CONNECTION at all to Al qaeda but are simply locals prompted by local religious leaders to straike against US occupation forces) The US has committed the bulk of its military to Iraq, a massive amount of its intel power to Iraq, and hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars to Iraq. It seems that if anyone is being 'distracted' it is the US which is paying far more attention to the war in Iraq than the war on terror.

Fourthly, what is the overall effect? The US will run a massive deficit, Bush's popularity is at the lowest point ever and still falling, now down to 41%, US forces are dying at a regular rate, US allies are deserting the cause, the world is more and more anti-US because of its heavy handed approach and now asorted torture and murder of POW scandals, and according to the IISS, Al Qaeda is currently rebuilding its forces and growing in strength, and lastly, Homeland security is warning about the strong potential for another attack inside the US in the near future.

So who is being 'distracted' again?

Exactly what time have we bought when we had announcements as recently as last week that AQ plans an attack here this summer? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120956,00.html
If we bought any time, it was purchased in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And that time is running out.

If you think that Iraq has diverted AQ's focus at all from the US and Western targets Amlord, I fear you will be proven quite mistaken. I believe quite the opposite has happened. Iraq has distracted the world from the WOT. Spain was a painful reminder of that.

Should the United States make a unilateral decision to leave as of a particular time or should we make the matter of our departure conditional on the security situation and the wishes of the Iraqi government that is soon to assume authority?

I think we should set a target date based on specific criterion: effective and free elections, police force capability (a very tricky issue at the moment), and measured stability based on terrorist activity. Set a date of say, 2006, give the criteria and say that the date is subject to change dependent on meeting the respective goals. We could also include a US troop rollback plan with those goals so that progress can be measured, as opposed to the symbolic 6/30 date we have now.

Cutting out now would send us back several years in the WoT, as we will give all terrorists groups in the worlds a supple training ground and camp from which to operate. While the amount of real terrorist activity in Iraq currently is moderate and less coordinated, leaving now would open up a park 100x the size of Disneyworld and put a big "For Rent" sign up for AQ and all their friends. We opened up a huge (new) front in the WoT by invading Iraq, now we have to clean it up and close the wounds before we can leave. Opportunity cost here is painful, but we have no choice at this point. We broke it, we bought it.

Doc

"We broke it, now we bought it" should probably be the name of the entire mission now-

The sad part is- much like Vietnam- there is no good way out at this point- if GW loses in November, it will be up to his successor to try to get us out, and like Vietnam, his predeccesor doesn't leave him many alternatives!

Cutting and running at this point will probably harm us badly-but staying as we are will hurt us badly as well.

I think hat in hand to the UN is the best thing at this time- let's get the worlds resources in on this one- kind of a hybird "cut and run"- relinquish control to the international community, whatever form that takes.

Should the United States make a unilateral decision to leave as of a particular time or should we make the matter of our departure conditional on the security situation and the wishes of the Iraqi government that is soon to assume authority?

It should be a combination of both. We should strive to get out of Iraq as soon as possible because we are tying up too many resources there. At the same time, we cannot hand over the country until we are reasonably confident that the government can maintain control.

Pulling out without first ensuring the government has a handle on things would not only be irresponsible, it would also be counterproductive as the new government would likely be an anti-US theocracy (i.e. worse than Hussein).



There are three problems with this point of view.
1) It does not account for the fact that the terrorists likely do not care what happens in Iraq. Coming out against it merely furthers their ideals and garners them more recruits. AQ most definitely is not focused on winning Iraq, although they might have encouraged some local groups to give us a hard time.

2) It does not taken into account that AQ cannot be fought with conventional warfare techniques. They are a relatively small organization, but they hold no territory, are passionate about their objectives, are well financed and supplied and can work independantly of leadership. In a very general sense, we had the same problem in Vietnam, our traditional techniques of warfare were inadequate to face the enemy.

3) There have been plenty of follow-up attacks since 9/11. None of them have been on US soil, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have crushed the terrorists and they can't attack the US again. In the last year the attacks have stepped up in frequency and severity. There are currently serious warnings of attacks this summer.

The US has been to the UN.

It went before the invasion.

It went during the invasion.

It went just a few weeks ago.

The UN has no resources to send that are not already being sent (from individual member States rather than the UN per se). The European economy is floundering at the moment. They have no money and certainly no will to do more than they are already doing.

The UN solution is a pipedream.

We should set a time to withdraw. I partially base this conclusion upon our experiences in Vietnam. We could not militarily create the society we wanted in Vietnam. Our presence there was not being constructive. Similarly, we can not change the society in Iraq by our military presence.

It must be realized that change from the current political situation in Iraq to a western world type of democracy will take generations. The only way this will happen if the people of Iraq decide this is the best thing to do for themselves. We can not will it upon them to make it happen.

I see no need to babysit the Iraqis. I do not agree with the philosophy that we have to be there because they do not know how to govern themselves. Our military presence will only get in the way of societal evolution which will take place in Iraq. Americans are rather vain in thinking they are necessary in order for this to happen.

If we went into Iraq to protect ourselves against Hussein (a premise which has proven to be false) , it is time to leave as Hussein has been removed as a threat.

What the different factions do in Iraq is none of our business. We can neither control it nor change it. It is a foolish to think you will do anything more significant than to create a common foe for them to fight. A policy of nation building is wrong and ineffective. The cost to our country has been huge and the drain upon us should be stopped asap. Our time and resources need to be spent on more profitable endeavors.

Well of course- look who is doing the asking - he stokes up anti-foriegn sentiment and then wants some help, but wants to call all the shots on how the help is formed- oh yeah, plus denies any contracts to anyone he sees as a political enemy- basically, we have the wrong regime asking the questions!

When you have a leader of the US that is seen in most countries to be far more dangerous than OBL or Saddam or Kim Il Jong- you have a credibility problem when it comes to asking for help eh?

I don't think this regime is able to get us out one way or the other- and ran in there without a clue in the first place- which makes it rather difficult when it comes time for us to extract ourselves from the problem.

I see this as very similar to the war on drugs- we go after the wrong targets, and don't really have a clue on how to go about winning it- going after terrorist leaders, while appropriate IMO- is like cutting off the head of the hydra- 8 more heads appear- similar to what happened in Columbia with Pablo Escabar.

We go after the supply rather than the demad- if no one in the US wanted drugs, we would have no drug problem and Columbia would have no market for thier drugs and therefore, no drug lord. Same for Terrorism- if we ddin't go around supporting and putting bad guys in to power to benefit basically corporate power sturctures (Iraq with Saddam, Iran with the Shah, Guatamala with Chiquita bananas, assasinating Allende' etc etc etc) we wouldn't be having this discussion. Let's not forget our hypocrisy with our blind support of Isreal. It never seems to end-

Yes, we need to cut and run, but first change our entire foriegn policy outlook!

To echo a little of what CruisingRam posted...

It isn't that the member states do not have more forces to send, they simply don't want to do the Bush administration any favors. I refuse to believe that 25K troops amongst random countries (excluding most of our major allies) is all we can muster. We had far better participation during the first Gulf War.

It occurs to me that many of those countries unwilling to send troops might be persuaded if we shared a little of the wealth and cut them in on some of the infrastructure contracts. Otherwise, why would they be willing to stick their necks out for a war they believe is wrong in the first place?

The UN Solution is not a pipe dream, however the UN won't work when you walk in the room with a big stick and say "do things my way or else". I don't think anyone has ever accused the Bush administration of being proficient dipolmats.

If we cut and run now, we will lose all credibility with the Arab world. Sure, our credibility with them is teetering on a thread NOW but the arab world would see that the US is not really committed to seeing the Iraq situation through to the end and to the point where she becomes a democracy

That is completely true: IF, and only If, the US is truly committed to an independent democracy in Iraq.

Now by all accounts they are, but one has to wonder if the US will stay as focused on the will of the Iraqi people when the people start flexing their own democratic muscles.

Already the first signs of what I think will be the next problem are showing: The US does not want a democracy, they want a democracy that elects pro-US leaders.

Dispite the pressure from the US to choose Adnan Pachachi as President of Iraq because of his strongly pro-US stance and desire to keep foreign troops in the country until the situation fully stabilises, the Iraqi governing council ignored the US pressure and chose Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, who has been highly critical of the US occupation and the prison scandal. He opposes the use of violence against American forces in Iraq, but is certainly no friend to the US.

"a member of the council, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that the American administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer, and Brahimi were exerting "massive pressure" to choose Pachachi.

The Americans warned that if the council went ahead and voted, the United States might not recognize the choice." (AP via CBCNewsworld, May 39th, 2004)


Lets not forget that the choice was made by the Governing council, all appointed themselves by the US, and so naturally MORE pro-US then the general population can be expected to be.


So my question is, what happens when the Iraqi people start flexing their newfound democratic muscles, and the US does not like the outcome?

Then i guess we have a problem. We keep saying we will leave the Iraqis to decide their political fate on June 30th and we need to honor that. If they want us to leave when they think they are ready, we will move out and keep a large number of troops in Kuwait just in case something arises that they can't handle (like Sadr trying to take over or his milita starts causing trouble like it is now). In other words, we'll stay on the sidelines and watch how the game plays out and come in to referee when needed

The bottom line is that President Bush has brought the fight outside our borders and removed a serious threat from the world.

Sure things were rough and we still have obstacles. Its easy for liberals to back seat drive this issue, but lets remember that they had their chance to show us how much better their foreign policies weren't, and what we got out of it was appeasements for N. Korea, an eight year non-response to constant Al Queda attacks, and not a stitch of progress against Saddam-who used WMD to commit genocide, attacked nearly all his neighbors without provocation and openly sponsored Palestinian suicide bombers.

We have made and are making significant progress against terror infrastructures, we liberated Iraq from a terror-sponsoring regime, and now the terrorists attack soldiers who volunteered to be there, not NYC civilians.

We have been widely successful, regardless of what agenda-bearing liberals have been trying to sell here.

Below is a column from the conservative right newspaper, "Washington Times".

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040526-094509-4570r.htm



I agree 100%. There have been terrorist acts in Bali,Madrid,Saudi Arabia, and other places. Instead of Bush slowing down the terrorist acts , he has did the exact opposite and polarized the movement and they have increased their attacks, and probably have more recruits than they can handle.

Yes we are most definitely better off.

Please explain in detail exatly how Iraq was a threat to the US, when Iraqw ever posed a threat to the US and in what way Iraq had the capacity to threaten the US.



As has been pointed out repeatedly:

-And how has the last four years of 'appeasement' for North Korea differed enormously from the previous 8 years of 'appeasement?'

-There were responses to Al Qaeda attacks: establishment of anti-terrorist organisations in the US, covert attacks on structures and personell, missile attacks on training camps and (though it missed) Bin laden himself. Bush to no further action against Al Qaeda either until 9/11.

-Actually, Saddam Hussein used WMD (mustard gas) once against the Kurdish people, during the 1987-1988 campaign against these people. The President at the time, Republican Ronald Regan, took no action whatsoever against Iraq for it. Perhaps blaming the 'left' for its lack of response at the time is a bit misguided.

-By 'attacked nearly all its neighbours', actually you mean attacked one of its neighbours, Kuwait. It was also involved in a war a decade earlier against Iran, but that was with US support, so it would be the epitome of hypocracy to now use that as justification for anything. Kuwait was invaded, then Hussein was beaten back in the first Gulf War. At that point the US made a concious decision to leave Hussein in power, since then he has invaded nobody.

-He did not openly sponsor Palestinian suicide bombers, he promised funds to the families of suicide bombers. While reprehensable, it is worth mentioning AGAIN that Iraq funded the suicide attacks in this indirect manner LESS than almost EVERY other arab nation in the region, the TOP funder of these suicide bombers being fast US friend, ally and arms purchaser, Saudi Arabia.


Your blanket attack against 'the left' seems quite unsupported by the facts...

Saddam's regime used CW against at least 40 Kurdish villages between April '87 and August '88. (40 is the number that has been documented thus far by eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence) The attack against Halabja in March '88 is the most well known due to the large number of casualties - and there a mix of Mustard and Nerve agents was used, not simply Mustard.

The chemical attacks had a number of different tactical and strategic goals:
- to attack base camps and main-force concentrations of Kurdish Peshmerga
- to harass and kill retreating Peshmerga
- to inflict collective punishment on civilians for their support for the Peshmerga (Halabja).
- to spread terror amongst the civilian population as a whole, flushing villagers out of their homes to facilitate their capture, relocation and killing. This was exemplified by the simultaneous bombing of more than 30 villages along an east-west strip in the Badinan region on the morning of 25 August '88.

...just felt like clarifying that point.