NationStates Jolt Archive

The comments that led to this poll:

The people here in Iraq are glad that America is here.

Its not the non iraqis who hate us and shoot at us.

My reply:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10678363&postcount=53

Here is the most recent poll that I could find:

New WPO Poll: Iraqi Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, But Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2)

Does anyone else have any other polls that they know of in regards to this topic?

Multiple choice poll coming up!!

They should really sort the country out and bugger off within a year. Then they can see the consequences of their actions properly.

The way I read the tea-leaves, it makes good sense for the Americans to withdraw with little delay.

Sure, it will get nasty, but if the Iraqi's want them gone, the ensuing nastiness is their own problem.

The final outcome - a rabidly aggressive Shi'ite state with a HUGE chip on it's shoulder when it comes to Sunnis - will be exactly the kind of thing that OBL's followers see as the worst case scenario.

I read a journalist's account in the Guardian of going on patrol with one of the new Iraqi army's best-trained and equipped units, somewhere near Baghdad. They were all Shias and the talk was of rumours that some legendary historical figure had appeared at a shrine, ushering in a war of purification and a new Islamic era. :rolleyes:

I think the US has wasted everyone's time and reputation, not least its own.

I read a journalist's account in the Guardian of going on patrol with one of the new Iraqi army's best-trained and equipped units, somewhere near Baghdad. They were all Shias and the talk was of rumours that some legendary historical figure had appeared at a shrine, ushering in a war of purification and a new Islamic era. :rolleyes:

I think the US has wasted everyone's time and reputation, not least its own.

Yeah, well, the thing is that Shia's are certainly not more than 20% of the total population of the Middle East. Which makes it kind of hard to envision a future in which Shia's actually control the Middle East.

But they can - and will - control Iraq ( since they are very much the absolute majority in Iraq ). Meanwhile, any and all Islamic fanatics who want to fight a holy war ( little Jihad as it is called by orthodox muslims ) will be quite busy fighting amongst themselves. Hopefully, for the next millenium or so.

Not the most elegant of solutions, but it will do.

They should really sort the country out and bugger off within a year. Then they can see the consequences of their actions properly.
I agree with you, but I do not believe that the US troops will leave, even if asked to do so.

I am in favor of immediate withdrawal, as seem to be the portions of the Iraqi population most affected by the occupation's brutality. Support for attacks on US soldiers among the Iraqi Sunni population is astonishingly high.

If the US is asked to leave, it may leave, it may not. It probably depends on how well they can manage to claim that the Iraqi government is corrupt and unrepresentative, though for obvious reasons that's a politically thorny position for the Bush Administration to take. We will have to wait and see.

The one Iraqi I talk to on a regular basis said it like this, and I agree with it.

"It was a dumb idea in the first place for the Americans to come into Iraq. They never should have, we were happy without them. If they wanted to help they could have lifted the sanctions and helped rebuild the country using kindness to pressure Saddam out of that was what they wanted. But instead they chose to bomb us every week for over a decade and then invade us for no reason at all. All they have accomplished so far is to make more enemies and more "terrorists" waiting to strike at them. But now that they are in Iraq, and now that they are wasting their lives for an unjust cause, they should at least stay around long enough to clean up the mess they caused. The Americans have put themsemves in a very bad postsion, and no matter what they will not leave Iraq without alot of enemies. If they leave now they risk a fundamentalist state like Iran or the Taliban. If they stay they risk more and more viloence from the people to push them out as oppressors. The Americans should leave, but only as the Iraqi army takes over security. They started this mess and they are stuck with it, I hope they make the best of it and do what's best for all involved."

Probably not the same word for word, but it's close enough. You get the idea. It's a sentiment I agree with.

Actually, it looks like the Iraqis are pretty divided on what the Americans should do. 35% favour a short time frame of “within six months”, 35% favour a gradual reduction over two years and 29% would only want a reduction in the number of US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.

I had an idea the other day. The whole problem occurred when the British set up these aribitrary boundary lines in the first place. So why not split off the Sunni part and give it to Saudi Arabi (which is Sunni) or make it its own country?

Crazy, I know, but I don't see anything else working. As for the poll, I'm split, but I think immediate withdrawal probably would be the better choice. Having U.S. troops there is inflaming the situation, and not much progress is being made.

It was not legally right for the coalition to go in but now they're in they should stay in until they sort out the mess they caused.

It was not legally right for the coalition to go in but now they're in they should stay in until they sort out the mess they caused.

We don't apply such standards to other criminals. Do we ask rapists and murderers to comfort the victims of their crimes?

We don't apply such standards to other criminals. Do we ask rapists and murderers to comfort the victims of their crimes?

That did not quite make sense in my mind.

I think the idea of a timetable is downright stupid.

Suppose this sort of media was around in the past:
Hey! Kaiser! The British MUST bring their troops out of France by 1917!
Hey! Hitler! The Russians MUST sue for peace in 1944!

Suppose the US left Iraq tomorrow, and it DID devolve into a REAL Civil War. I mean like the Russian, American, English Civil Wars, or Revolutionary France.
That'd be MUCH worse than what we have now. QED.

Do I like the US in Iraq? No.
Do I want the US to fail in Iraq? No.
Do I want Iraq to fail as a country? No.

That did not quite make sense in my mind.

The so-called "coalition" that aggressed against Iraq is a murderous and criminal institution responsible for countless tens of thousands of deaths. Why do you propose putting "cleaning up the mess" those savage gangsters have created in the hands of those same savage gangsters?

Again, do we ask rapists and murderers to comfort their victims?

Of course they want the US troops out! They never wanted them there in the first place, invading their country just to get their oil and such...
I don't think though that they'll simply leave...looks like they want to cause more mischief there :rolleyes:

the Iraqi government has not asked us to withdraw immediately. A timeline is in the process of being discussed. But as noted, the government does not want America out until its own troops can take over the responsibilities currently handled by us Americans.

It is up to the Iraqi government, not the insurgents, not some anti america protestors following Cindy Sheehan around the globe. Only when the I. government feels it is ready, will we leave.

The one Iraqi I talk to on a regular basis said it like this, and I agree with it.

"It was a dumb idea in the first place for the Americans to come into Iraq. They never should have, we were happy without them. If they wanted to help they could have lifted the sanctions and helped rebuild the country using kindness to pressure Saddam out of that was what they wanted. But instead they chose to bomb us every week for over a decade and then invade us for no reason at all. All they have accomplished so far is to make more enemies and more "terrorists" waiting to strike at them. But now that they are in Iraq, and now that they are wasting their lives for an unjust cause, they should at least stay around long enough to clean up the mess they caused. The Americans have put themsemves in a very bad postsion, and no matter what they will not leave Iraq without alot of enemies. If they leave now they risk a fundamentalist state like Iran or the Taliban. If they stay they risk more and more viloence from the people to push them out as oppressors. The Americans should leave, but only as the Iraqi army takes over security. They started this mess and they are stuck with it, I hope they make the best of it and do what's best for all involved."

Probably not the same word for word, but it's close enough. You get the idea. It's a sentiment I agree with.
I quite agree with you are your friends sentiments.

Again, do we ask rapists and murderers to comfort their victims?

Ah, yes, removing a dictator with a history of crimes against humanity is the same exact thing as a rapist. If we leave now, the whole country will collapse into civil war, which will be 10X worse than what was happening with the US in Iraq. You can't just say "screw you" to Iraq after what you did to it. You have to stay there and help it out, even if the Iraqis don't want you there.

the Iraqi government has not asked us to withdraw immediately. A timeline is in the process of being discussed. But as noted, the government does not want America out until its own troops can take over the responsibilities currently handled by us Americans.

It is up to the Iraqi government, not the insurgents, not some anti america protestors following Cindy Sheehan around the globe. Only when the I. government feels it is ready, will we leave.
This has nothing to do with Cindy Sheehan, or anti-America protesters. This has everything to do with what is right for Iraq and the Iraqi people.

Another poll that I just located:

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml)

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

Ah, yes, removing a dictator with a history of crimes against humanity is the same exact thing as a rapist.

Slaughtering over a hundred thousand people to enforce US domination is a pretty serious crime.

If we leave now, the whole country will collapse into civil war, which will be 10X worse than what was happening with the US in Iraq.

Yeah, those natives are too savage and stupid to work out their own problems without us, we have to help out. Of course our influence is benign; how can anyone doubt it? :rolleyes:

You can't just say "screw you" to Iraq after what you did to it.

Agreed.

You have to stay there and help it out,

Unlike the "coalition," which is staying there and not helping out. Again, what do you expect from a bunch of gangsters and criminals? Benevolence?

even if the Iraqis don't want you there.

Perhaps they are a tad bit better at measuring how helpful we have been then you are? I mean, I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to believe that actually living in the country in question might just possibly provide a better analysis than the contortions apologizing for imperialism forces you into.

Slaughtering over a hundred thousand people to enforce US domination is a pretty serious crime.

Most of the people we "slaughtered" were people who were trying to kill US soldiers. What were we supposed to do -- give them a cookie and hope they'll quit their extremist suicidal actions? There will be some civilian casualties in all wars, and the Iraq War is no different. The justification of the war isn't at issue, however.

Yeah, those natives are too savage and stupid to work out their own problems without us, we have to help out.

No, not all of them. Just a sizeable chunk. They are so heavily indoctrinated by their religion that they will kill other Iraqis over power. If we leave now, the nation will collapse into civil war. If there already are intra-Iraqi killings, what do you think will happen when the US leaves? Are they going to say, "well, since there's nobody left to stop civil war, let's kiss and make up." No, there's going to be a bloody civil war. The only thing holding it back is US forces in the region.

Unlike the "coalition," which is staying there and not helping out.

No, we are helping out. We are fighting against insurgents who wish to disrupt the stability of the country and want power. Those are the very same people who, if the US leaves, are going to plunge the country into a civil war. We are training Iraqi security forces and building a viable government so that the Iraqis will be able to manage themselves after we leave.

imperialism

You know what would be really imperialistic? Going into Iraq, screwing the country, causing a civil war, and leaving. You know what wouldn't be imperialistic? Going into Iraq, screwing Iraq, then building a better form of government, repairing the infrastructure, giving power to Iraqis, stabilizing the country, then leaving.

Fuck Iraq. We should leave right now and let them handle this problem themselves. They want us out then we'll leave them exactly as they are now and let them pick up everything by themselves.

How is UNA not here yet?

The one Iraqi I talk to on a regular basis said it like this, and I agree with it.

"It was a dumb idea in the first place for the Americans to come into Iraq. They never should have, we were happy without them. If they wanted to help they could have lifted the sanctions and helped rebuild the country using kindness to pressure Saddam out of that was what they wanted. But instead they chose to bomb us every week for over a decade and then invade us for no reason at all. All they have accomplished so far is to make more enemies and more "terrorists" waiting to strike at them. But now that they are in Iraq, and now that they are wasting their lives for an unjust cause, they should at least stay around long enough to clean up the mess they caused. The Americans have put themsemves in a very bad postsion, and no matter what they will not leave Iraq without alot of enemies. If they leave now they risk a fundamentalist state like Iran or the Taliban. If they stay they risk more and more viloence from the people to push them out as oppressors. The Americans should leave, but only as the Iraqi army takes over security. They started this mess and they are stuck with it, I hope they make the best of it and do what's best for all involved."

Probably not the same word for word, but it's close enough. You get the idea. It's a sentiment I agree with.
i agree with this post but i wonder just HOW we are going to guarantee an amry that is loyal to the government rather than to the factions that trained them.

i see that we are currently hard at work training the troops for the civil war that will start (if it hasnt already) as soon as we leave. why would an army comprised mostly of shiites NOT fight to make iraq a shiite state?

I voted to keep the Americans in for another year.
1- They started this mess. They should at least spend enough time to train officers in the Iraqi army so they can handle themselves.
2- Since it appears civil war is about to break out (if you fall for the hype that it hasn't already... I like the quote "With hundreds being killed each day on both sides of the religious divide... well, if this isn't civil war, I don't know what is."), America should be there to experience first hand what they've created. Causing a civil war and then running away because you don't want to deal with the consequences of your actions is cowardly.

This has nothing to do with Cindy Sheehan, or anti-America protesters. This has everything to do with what is right for Iraq and the Iraqi people.

Another poll that I just located:

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml)

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

I'm inclined to think that that poll was conducted in Sunni areas and is a bunch of hogwash. Every vet I have ever met tells me that the people love the work that they do. The other reason I disbelieve this poll is that most of the attacks are on Iraqis, not US troops. Tell me, if a super-majority of Iraqis think it is fine and dandy to attack troops, why aren't they doing it? Not to say that it doesn't happen, but this whole thing smacks of propaganda to get the troops out ASAP. From what I have heard, the Iraqi police officers all say that they still need help. But this is just my experience and the information that I have been given. Perhaps if I lived in Taxachusetts, I would have a different view.
I am in favor of immediate withdrawal, as seem to be the portions of the Iraqi population most affected by the occupation's brutality. Support for attacks on US soldiers among the Iraqi Sunni population is astonishingly high.

If the US is asked to leave, it may leave, it may not. It probably depends on how well they can manage to claim that the Iraqi government is corrupt and unrepresentative, though for obvious reasons that's a politically thorny position for the Bush Administration to take. We will have to wait and see.

I disagreed with the war in March of 2003. But if you can honestly find one soldier who is out to do anything but protect and aid Iraq, I would be very very surprised, Mr. "Coalition = Rapists..." If the US overthrew a German dictator most people would be supportive. And they WERE. But the only reason that I can find that this is different (appart from some of the botched decisions along the way) is racism. It appears that you are racist towards Arabs and you are racist towards Americans.

I agree with you, but I do not believe that the US troops will leave, even if asked to do so.

Why?

This has nothing to do with Cindy Sheehan, or anti-America protesters. This has everything to do with what is right for Iraq and the Iraqi people.

Another poll that I just located:

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml)

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

I have a problem with this. 1) If it was secret then why was it released? 2) Who did they poll and 3) What precisely was the question?

It appears that you are racist towards Arabs and you are racist towards Americans.

I maybe new here but I do not think that CH is a racist.

I had an idea the other day. The whole problem occurred when the British set up these aribitrary boundary lines in the first place. So why not split off the Sunni part and give it to Saudi Arabi (which is Sunni) or make it its own country?


I have often encouraged the dissolution of Iraq. Unfortunately there are larger reasons why this cannot be done.

Were the country to be split into 3 parts (Kurdistan, the Sunni areas, and the Shiite areas) the greater Middle East would be really pissed off (now we could discuss whether or not this would be a good thing – but that is for another thread).

Turkey and Iran are both very opposed to an independent Kurdistan due to their own internal struggle for Kurdish separatism. With an independent Kurdistan on the border, those living in the Iranian northwest and those in southern Turkey would be fighting for that area to break away and join their ethnic group rather than be oppressed.

Needless to say, Turkey and Iran would see a very bloody crackdown on Kurdish populations (something akin to Chechnya).

The wider Middle East would be pissed off because the Sunni area of Iraq has little oil. The Kurds and Shiites will take almost all of it when they split, leaving the Sunnis rather penniless. This would foment greater strife between the factions – given that most states in the region are Sunni, The new Shiite state would not be on good terms with their neighbors (who would argue that the great oil wealth should be given to their Sunni brethren). While they would of course complain about this poor treatment of their fellow Sunnis, I highly doubt anyone would actually want to take them in.

Despite this, I would like to see the dissolution of Iraq, though I know it is a political nightmare. An independent Kurdistan (especially if it takes the ethnically Kurdish parts of Turkey and Iran) would be very friendly with the US as well as very rich in oil.

Most of the people we "slaughtered" were people who were trying to kill US soldiers. What were we supposed to do -- give them a cookie and hope they'll quit their extremist suicidal actions? There will be some civilian casualties in all wars, and the Iraq War is no different. The justification of the war isn't at issue, however.
.

Well as most died in the opening phase of the war thats not true. And justification, or in this case the lack thereof, is an issue. The US has no clear idea what its doing, is loathed by all sides and distrusted.

[

Most of the people we "slaughtered" were people who were trying to kill US soldiers. What were we supposed to do -- give them a cookie and hope they'll quit their extremist suicidal actions?

"Not invade in the first place" might have been a good idea.

There will be some civilian casualties in all wars, and the Iraq War is no different. The justification of the war isn't at issue, however.

Yes, it is. Because you aren't saying that "Iraq should be stable," or "someone should be trying to prevent civil war," but that "the US should be stabilizing Iraq," and "the US should be preventing civil war." You're advising that people who don't care about the Iraqi people and don't care about human life be put in power over rebuilding the country they destroyed. The past record of the US is extremely relevant.

No, not all of them. Just a sizeable chunk. They are so heavily indoctrinated by their religion that they will kill other Iraqis over power.

Questionable, at best. Like in most civil wars, the situation is such that two large portions of the population view the other as a direct threat not to their "power" but to their security, and the existing electoral forms, failing as they do to offer meaningful choices not based on existing demographics, have no potential to address the issue. This view is not based on "indoctrination," these people have been living together for hundreds of years and have hardly been in constant strife. Modern Iraqi politics has not always been a contest between competing religious and ethnic groups in the population.

If the US political system worked the same way, with politics on the basis of race and religion, we would be in a civil war too. However, the US is considerably more democratic than Iraq is, and has political parties that represent actual positions.

If we leave now, the nation will collapse into civil war.

The nation is already in a civil war. A great deal of the blame for this - I wouldn't go as far as to say "all," but a great deal - rests directly on the face of the imperialist power and its divide-and-conquer meddling, which has played out somewhat successfully despite the fact that those in power hardly seemed to know what they were doing. Unfortunately, current reports seem to indicate that they supported the wrong side, and that there probably isn't a "right" side, at least not one capable of taking and holding power.

If there already are intra-Iraqi killings, what do you think will happen when the US leaves? Are they going to say, "well, since there's nobody left to stop civil war, let's kiss and make up." No, there's going to be a bloody civil war. The only thing holding it back is US forces in the region.

The US is not holding it back. The US cannot even decide which militias it supports and which it opposes from one day to the next. Fund the "Iraqi Security Forces" one day, castigate the government for its death squads (I wonder where those came from?) the next. Not to mention its switch regarding the Sunni parties.

No, we are helping out. We are fighting against insurgents who wish to disrupt the stability of the country and want power.

Everyone in Iraq wants power. Everyone always wants power. Everyone also wants stability, for them, and instability, for everyone who disagrees with them. That is the way these things work. The US is trying to pursue stability in its interests with enough instability to turn the government, whoever happens to lead it, into their faithful puppet. The Shi'ite parties are trying to pursue stability in their interests by eliminating the Sunnis from the picture and (probably) allying with Iran, prompting the US to reverse its position regarding them. The Sunni parties, including the Sunni militants called "insurgents" (because they kill in opposition to the murderous government and occupation, instead of killing for it), are trying to "disrupt" the current stability because it means they're going to be in serious trouble.

Those are the very same people who, if the US leaves, are going to plunge the country into a civil war. We are training Iraqi security forces

Who are participating in the civil war, in case you missed it.

and building a viable government

Which is also participating in the civil war, in fact being a major player in it, and which may turn out to be anything but viable.

so that the Iraqis will be able to manage themselves after we leave.

And we've been so very successful at that so far.

You know what would be really imperialistic? Going into Iraq, screwing the country, causing a civil war, and leaving. You know what wouldn't be imperialistic? Going into Iraq, screwing Iraq, then building a better form of government, repairing the infrastructure, giving power to Iraqis, stabilizing the country, then leaving.

Which the US isn't doing and never has had any interest in doing.

I maybe new here but I do not think that CH is a racist.

Sorry, I have edited my quote. I wasn't accusing CH of racism. I wasn't clear on that.

See post #27

I am not American and I think that the US troops should stay. There are several reasons.


They need to train a more effective Iraqi army and police force
They need to prevent a civil war and a theocracy
They need to pave the way for western cultural influence
The US must be held responsible for the current situation. They created the mess, they should clean it up.


However, if the majority of Iraqis and the Iraqi government want the US gone, I'm afraid the US would have no justification in staying. Right to self-determination and all that.

I agree with you, but I do not believe that the US troops will leave, even if asked to do so.
Is this anything more than a faith-based belief or do you have reasons?

We don't apply such standards to other criminals. Do we ask rapists and murderers to comfort the victims of their crimes?
The US didn't kill Iraq. I think a better comparison would be asking rapists and robbers to pay compensation to their victims.

The US is responsible for the situation there, and it's not like they are incapable of cleaning it up. They should clean it up.

"Not invade in the first place" might have been a good idea.
Time cannot be reversed, so this is not an option right now.

Which the US isn't doing and never has had any interest in doing.
Germany and Japan after WWII?

"Not invade in the first place" might have been a good idea.

When you build a time machine, be sure to let me know.

Yes, it is. Because you aren't saying that "Iraq should be stable," or "someone should be trying to prevent civil war," but that "the US should be stabilizing Iraq," and "the US should be preventing civil war." You're advising that people who don't care about the Iraqi people and don't care about human life be put in power over rebuilding the country they destroyed. The past record of the US is extremely relevant.

I think more countries should take an active part in attempting to stabilize Iraq. Unfortunately, not many are, and the US has ~97% of the troops in Iraq. They were also the major player in the beginning of the war, so it is only right for them to be the ones involved in the reconstruction. And the people do care about Iraqis -- the Iraq War has made many Republicans become increasingly unpopular. They would be very happy to turn Iraq into a success story to gain votes, and that cannot be accomplished by letting Iraq fall into civil war. We have a record of reconstructing countries we not only don't care about, but hate. We did a very good job in Germany and Japan. There's no reason to think we won't do the same here.

Questionable, at best. Like in most civil wars, the situation is such that two large portions of the population view the other as a direct threat not to their "power" but to their security, and the existing electoral forms, failing as they do to offer meaningful choices not based on existing demographics, have no potential to address the issue. This view is not based on "indoctrination," these people have been living together for hundreds of years and have hardly been in constant strife. Modern Iraqi politics has not always been a contest between competing religious and ethnic groups in the population.

For whatever reason, the Iraqis are at war with each other. It's mostly about power for the people in charge, who indocrinate foot soldiers with religious ideals and send them to fight those who oppose them. They have bombed mosques because of the difference in their religious ideologies. They have been living in tension for a while, but Saddam was able to stop them from fighting amongst themselves because he ruled with an iron fist. Without Saddam, there was a vacuum of power, and it was filled by strife between the Sunnis and Shias.

The US is not holding it back. The US cannot even decide which militias it supports and which it opposes from one day to the next. Fund the "Iraqi Security Forces" one day, castigate the government for its death squads (I wonder where those came from?) the next. Not to mention its switch regarding the Sunni parties.

The US is most definitely holding it back. They are the only ones who have any sort of control over the situation. When they imposed a curfew, the killings declined. They are able to use force to calm the situation, and they are the only ones who can. They are also working on improving the Iraqi infrastructure, bringing power and clean water back, etc., so that most Iraqis can be happier about their daily lives and not resort to grabbing an AK-47 and joining the melee. The US may not be doing the best job in the world, but the situation is steadily improving. Hopefully, when Iraq's infrastructure is rebuilt and there are free democratic elections, that will ease the tension and allow the government to function normally.


Which is also participating in the civil war, in fact being a major player in it, and which may turn out to be anything but viable.

Which the US isn't doing and never has had any interest in doing.

Yes it is. Democratic elections have been held in Iraq, less and less provinces are hostile to the Americans and are accepting that the Americans are there to help, we are making progress against the insurgents, we are bringing food and water and power back to the Iraqis, etc. After all that, we cannot just leave and let Iraq descend into lawlessness and civil war. The US cannot be that imperialistic.

I think more countries should take an active part in attempting to stabilize Iraq. Unfortunately, not many are, and the US has ~97% of the troops in Iraq. They were also the major player in the beginning of the war, so it is only right for them to be the ones involved in the reconstruction. And the people do care about Iraqis -- the Iraq War has made many Republicans become increasingly unpopular.

"The people" and "the people in power" are two different entities.

They were indeed "the major player in the beginning of the war," which is precisely why they should not be the ones involved in the reconstruction.

They would be very happy to turn Iraq into a success story to gain votes, and that cannot be accomplished by letting Iraq fall into civil war. We have a record of reconstructing countries we not only don't care about, but hate. We did a very good job in Germany and Japan. There's no reason to think we won't do the same here.

We did a "very good job" in West Germany and Japan because it served US interests in both cases. West Germany was a valuable bulwark against the Soviets, and also a useful market for US goods. Japan shared both of those advantages, and furthermore also served as an important base for the US interventions in Korea and Vietnam.

The US has no interest in developing Iraq, and has proven it by its complete incompetence in restoring basic services after the invasion. Its economic objectives lie in the energy reserves there.

For whatever reason, the Iraqis are at war with each other. It's mostly about power for the people in charge, who indocrinate foot soldiers with religious ideals and send them to fight those who oppose them. They have bombed mosques because of the difference in their religious ideologies. They have been living in tension for a while, but Saddam was able to stop them from fighting amongst themselves because he ruled with an iron fist. Without Saddam, there was a vacuum of power, and it was filled by strife between the Sunnis and Shias.

I reviewed this already in my last post, which you saw fit to ignore. It is not true that they were "living in tension for a while," not anything close to the degree you see today. Saddam Hussein ruled with an "iron fist" for his own reasons, the leaders before him did not so to anything close to the same degree, yet did not rule over a country torn by civil war, either. Iraq pre-Saddam had real political parties and real political movements, though its commitment to irrelevant electoral forms was admittedly less strong than it is today.

The US is most definitely holding it back. They are the only ones who have any sort of control over the situation. When they imposed a curfew, the killings declined. They are able to use force to calm the situation, and they are the only ones who can. They are also working on improving the Iraqi infrastructure, bringing power and clean water back, etc., so that most Iraqis can be happier about their daily lives and not resort to grabbing an AK-47 and joining the melee. The US may not be doing the best job in the world, but the situation is steadily improving. Hopefully, when Iraq's infrastructure is rebuilt and there are free democratic elections, that will ease the tension and allow the government to function normally.

They are using force in the pursuit of their own interests. Just like pretty much every other occupying power has tried to do in the history of the world. Their own interests do include a measure of stability, but because they cannot trust indigenous forces they are also trying to ensure that the Iraqi government does not get enough power to survive on its own. Note the way they have been playing the Shi'ites against the Sunnis from the start, and have now reversed their position to play the Sunnis against the Shi'ites.

Yes it is. Democratic elections have been held in Iraq,

Here's a democratic election for you. Choose one of the below:

1. Pat Robertson
2. Louis Farrakhan
3. Bob Avakian

Don't like the choices? Terrorist! Why do you hate freedom and democracy?

less and less provinces are hostile to the Americans and are accepting that the Americans are there to help,

Doubtful, considering the consistent poll results from the beginning of the invasion until now.

we are making progress against the insurgents,

Or so the government has been saying from the start.

we are bringing food and water and power back to the Iraqis, etc.

Very ineffectively.

After all that, we cannot just leave and let Iraq descend into lawlessness and civil war. The US cannot be that imperialistic.

No, we need to acknowledge our White Man's Burden and help those poor Iraqi savages understand what enlightenment means. Sometimes it's difficult for primitive peoples to comprehend that people who destroy your country and kill tens of thousands of your people are really gracious liberators with your utmost interests at heart.

Where is UN abassadorship? He'd certainly make things real interesting.

The problem right now is that the situation has become too unstable for US troops to leave without watching a bad situation deteriorate into an even worse situation (yes it’s actually possible). Of course had the White House not been living in a bubble world and maybe listened to all the reports and requests from the troops and commanders on the ground, then you probably wouldn’t have the unstable basket case of a new state that you have today.

Right now though, it looks the US is there for the long haul, now more than ever. Recent Pentagon moves are definitely sending that message, even if they refuse to discuss it.

The US Military added 1.3 billion to the bill for military base construction in the Middle East. This is mostly being earmarked for Afghanistan and Iraq, with plans to build permanent looking bases. Most of the emergency funding for 2006 is going towards building up bases in Iraq. They aren’t officially permanent bases but they would look remarkably like a permanent base. The Pentagon refuses to state the goal of this additional base construction and the US House Appropriations Committee is refusing to fork over the cash until the Pentagon comes clean about their intent.

General John Abizaid has said that he won’t rule out the possibility of building permanent US bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even the planning of permanent US military bases in either of these countries will be an act of provocation, and only serve to strengthen the resolve of insurgents and grow their numbers.

The Bruce

Why?
Firstly, the US is building 14 "enduring bases" in Iraq. Why would the US spend this kind of money if they expected to leave?

14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm)

If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases (http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm)

Secondly:

Iraq is a strategic Middle East location (http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/index.cfm):

The Middle East has become perhaps the most crucial regional arena for American foreign policy in the coming years, involving the future of Iraq, the war against terrorism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and international energy security.

Thirdly, Iraq has lots of oil:

Iraq oil - the target for years (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E07D937C-456F-48C9-90FF-A2C87F2DB724.htm)

I have a problem with this. 1) If it was secret then why was it released?
More than likely, it was a secret poll performed by an Iraqi university. I would presume that it was "secret" to enable the researchers to be able to garner candid information that the Iraqis would probably be reluctant to tell to outside pollsters?

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces.

2) Who did they poll
Good question, for which I do not have an answer.

3) What precisely was the question?
Another good question. However, the results are listed:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

If anyone has more info, it would be greatly appreciated.

Is this anything more than a faith-based belief or do you have reasons?
It is my gut feeling and has been even before the invasion took place.

Also, I detailed the talking points as to why the US appears to be staying put, come hell or high water:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10688249&postcount=42

I think the idea of a timetable is downright stupid.

Suppose this sort of media was around in the past:
Hey! Kaiser! The British MUST bring their troops out of France by 1917!
Hey! Hitler! The Russians MUST sue for peace in 1944!

Suppose the US left Iraq tomorrow, and it DID devolve into a REAL Civil War. I mean like the Russian, American, English Civil Wars, or Revolutionary France.
That'd be MUCH worse than what we have now. QED.

Do I like the US in Iraq? No.
Do I want the US to fail in Iraq? No.
Do I want Iraq to fail as a country? No.

Exactly, strategically it would be absolutely retarded to pull out right now. All that would happen is plunge the country into chaos with the terrorist factions in place, not to mention any sacrifices made to secure the country in the first place absolutely meaningless. Stablize and ween the country off our immediate support then start thinking of pulling out.

I could not find my choice in the poll...so here it is..

I wish that the security is tightened in Iraq...hopefully under a UN banner of sorts under which conditions many countries can contribute significant troops for peacekeeping and gradually let the situation stabilise and get a capable and large enough Iraqi law enforcement on the ground while the coalition troops gradually withdrawing and gone completely in one day...

Alas that day seems so far considering the present situation.

I could not find my choice in the poll...so here it is..

I wish that the security is tightened in Iraq...hopefully under a UN banner of sorts under which conditions many countries can contribute significant troops for peacekeeping and gradually let the situation stabilise and get a capable and large enough Iraqi law enforcement on the ground while the coalition troops gradually withdrawing and gone completely in one day...

Alas that day seems so far considering the present situation.
Alas, you are sooooo right!!