NationStates Jolt Archive

Usually I have a clear opinion about most things. And the withdrawal from Iraq seems to be something that everyone has an opinion about.

But I haven't been able to decide.

A while ago I would have said pretty clearly that things aren't going to get better with the Americans gone. It would simply be an even greater escalation of violence, even less security and stability and ultimately more innocent deaths. An example would be this article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,479607,00.html).

But now with this "surge" strategy so spectacularly not doing very much at all either way, I'm starting to become more aware of the futility of it all. The situation isn't getting better, and there's basically nothing the US Military can do to change that. The British in Basra have drastically reduced their presence on the streets, and as far as I understand it the world hasn't ended there (though the last months was pretty bad for them, and Basra is mostly Shia anyways, so sectarian violence isn't as prevalent).

So to me it looks like it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing. And I have no idea what opinion to have, what action to recommend.

So I need people from both sides to tell me their arguments and try to convince me. And if you do it well, you'll have one more supporter for your cause. :p

Here's part of the problem. Most US replies will be US-centric, as you should expect. But what that means is that, for instance, when I say we should pull out, a large part of that is because I don't want any more US soldiers to die, and the extension of that is that I care less about any Iraqis who might die as a result of the pullout, and to be honest, I have to cop to just that charge. I'm a US citizen, and I have friends and former students in Iraq right now. I worry about them more than I do strangers, and I think that's normal to a certain extent. We care more about those closer to us, but at least I acknowledge that there's something monstrous about that position.

That said, I find the claims made by those people who say we have to say less than convincing. They say there will be chaos in Iraq if we leave, as though it's not chaotic now. They say there will be terrorist training camps set up if we leave, as though that's not happening already. They say Iraqis will die in large numbers, as though they're not dying in large numbers now.

And what's most important to me in this equation is that the people saying this have been wrong every step of the way. They haven't gotten one thing right in this entire, fucked up situation. So why should we believe things will get worse if we leave? If we leave and they stay bad, then little has changed, but at least the Iraqis will be in charge of their own future. And there's also the slim chance that we could leave and the situation will cool down somewhat--it's not likely, but it's as possible as, say, Saddam having WMD.

Let me take a second to explain the concept of the surge to you as I feel the media is doing a horrible job. The purpose of the surge is not more force nor is it to kill insurgents. The purpose is to buy breathing room for two maneuvers. The first of which is to move troops from a standalone battle of order to one where most U.S. units are attached to an Iraqi one. The second is to secure outposts in cities to allow MNF forces to move to a more dispersed posture within urban environments. The purpose of the first maneuver is to mentor Iraqi units to allow them to be able to handle security when we draw down forces. The purpose of the second maneuver is to reduce reaction times, better our intel gathering methods and to have platoons become well versed in their mini-AO so that they can do their job better. The surge is not a strategy on it's own but merely a way to implement another. It will take a bit more time and we have already seen progress but once the surge has done what it is supposed to do we can begin drawing down forces to the point where we merely support Iraqi forces and are not an entity onto ourselves.

Also, to address you're example about Basra. Reducing patrols in one area is not comparable to leaving a nation sized power vacuum. Basra still has a overlying power in it. I'm not well versed in the Iraqi contribution in that area but I'd imagine that it is also getting larger.

Here's part of the problem. Most US replies will be US-centric, as you should expect. But what that means is that, for instance, when I say we should pull out, a large part of that is because I don't want any more US soldiers to die, and the extension of that is that I care less about any Iraqis who might die as a result of the pullout, and to be honest, I have to cop to just that charge. I'm a US citizen, and I have friends and former students in Iraq right now. I worry about them more than I do strangers, and I think that's normal to a certain extent. We care more about those closer to us, but at least I acknowledge that there's something monstrous about that position.
This is more of an argument against war in general. Not specifically the Iraq war. There will always be death in war so if nothing is worth the lives of Americans, including 1000x those lives in foreigners then you are against all war.
That said, I find the claims made by those people who say we have to say less than convincing. They say there will be chaos in Iraq if we leave, as though it's not chaotic now. They say there will be terrorist training camps set up if we leave, as though that's not happening already. They say Iraqis will die in large numbers, as though they're not dying in large numbers now. And what's most important to me in this equation is that the people saying this have been wrong every step of the way. They haven't gotten one thing right in this entire, fucked up situation. So why should we believe things will get worse if we leave? If we leave and they stay bad, then little has changed, but at least the Iraqis will be in charge of their own future. And there's also the slim chance that we could leave and the situation will cool down somewhat--it's not likely, but it's as possible as, say, Saddam having WMD.
To address the chaos and deaths I think it is a matter of degrees. Right now the country is contained in the sense that the gov't can maintain it's dominance in the country. If we leave there is the good chance that they will lose that power. With that there will be a massive power vacuum with a much more violence and all out civil war. Also we will not know who will emerge in control of the country after that war. In it quite possible, maybe probable that it will be the people that we would least want there. There is no chance that the situation will "cool down." That isn't how power vacuums work. In response to the Iraqi being in control of their country I think that that was not well thought out. Will it be the average Iraqi in control or the person most willing to commit atrocities to gain power? In response to the credibility gap, it would be great to have U.N. forces but that is unlikely to happen. We will have to make do with what civilian leadership we have.

This is more of an argument against war in general. Not specifically the Iraq war. There will always be death in war so if nothing is worth the lives of Americans, including 1000x those lives in foreigners then you are against all war.
No, it's not. It's an argument against this war. I've never spoken out against the war in Afghanistan, for instance, other than to say it has been ineptly prosecuted, which is no great surprise. There are wars worth fighting, and there are wars which are necessary to fight, and in certain circumstances, I could see myself picking up arms and fighting. But Iraq was not one of those wars, and it never was. It was a war of choice and a war based on lies--not faulty intelligence, lies--and there is, to my mind, no justification for it.

The situation isn't going to get better with the US there. There will still be fighting and political unstability. The US needs to leave, they have no right to be there. At this point this is an internal Muslim issue that needs to be worked out between Sunni and Shi'ia. The US can continue to waste its money and lives there, but their presence doesn't do anything but inflame the situation.

to me, it's simple.

Leaving before the Government is ready to stand on it's own is not right for one simple reason (in my mind.)

WE caused this mess. We should do everything in our power to clean it up. Leaving before the Iraqi Government is ready is like having people come over to your house and break your things then leave without helping to clean up, without even offereing to pay for the damages.

No. We need to stay in until the Iraqi Government can stand on it's own. our Allies can leave, but we (the USA) have to see it done. No matter the cost.

Sure you can Impeach President Bush and Co. Have him arrested, tried and punished. But that does little to the Iraqis who have to live and clean up the mess we leave behind.

So to me it looks like it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing.

Right.

But the default course for any occupier should be withdrawal - a very good reason is needed for interference in somebody else's country, not for non-interference.

And one less group killing people may improve things a little, though I wouldn't keep my hopes up.

I see both extremes on this issue as being ridiculous. It has been pointed out that violence and mayhem are already flourishing in Iraq at the current time; imagine how chaotic it would be over there without the presence of the United States military. Additionally, after having spent four years in Iraq already, with our only gain being the removal of a potentially dangerous and quite tyrannical ruler, shouldn't we do all we can from allowing a new dictatorship to rise up? Surely this would be the case if we leave the country open to total warfare between extreme factions of radical Islam.

On the other hand, if we stay in Iraq for a period of years to come, aren't we just repeating the mistakes we learned in Vietnam, and most likely setting ourselves up for the same fate of withdrawl anyway, albeit at the cost of more American lives?

For these reasons, I can't support ASAP withdrawl nor a long-term commitment to the war. Rather, I support the establishment of goals and timetables in conjunction with the current change in strategy (detailed by USMC above). If little to no progress is being visibly made by this time next year, then I say we start to make our way out. To me, this is the only viable balance between the two aforementioned unworkable extremes.

to me, it's simple.

Leaving before the Government is ready to stand on it's own is not right for one simple reason (in my mind.)

WE caused this mess. We should do everything in our power to clean it up. Leaving before the Iraqi Government is ready is like having people come over to your house and break your things then leave without helping to clean up, without even offereing to pay for the damages.

No. We need to stay in until the Iraqi Government can stand on it's own. our Allies can leave, but we (the USA) have to see it done. No matter the cost.

Sure you can Impeach President Bush and Co. Have him arrested, tried and punished. But that does little to the Iraqis who have to live and clean up the mess we leave behind.
Yes. We fucked up the situation. Absolutely. No question. But the question is: How do we fix it? How? We don't have the troops to provide security even if that were important to this administration. And we certainly don't have the political will anymore. We'd need a Vietnam-esque type of escalation, complete with a draft and the escalated use of resources. Is that going to happen? Not a chance in hell.

So given that that's not going to happen, what's the next best strategy for citizens of the US? To me, that's to get US soldiers out of harm's way so at least they're not being killed anymore. Is that US-centric of me? Certainly. I'm guilty. My lack of cosmopolitanism is out there for all to see. But what else is there to do? Half-assing it the way we have been isn't going to make anything better, and we're not going to expand the force to the size necessary to make a difference.

~snip~
The US Gov could use the money it is wasting on the war to give every American a free subscription to every porn site on the web.

Yes. We fucked up the situation. Absolutely. No question. But the question is: How do we fix it? How? We don't have the troops to provide security even if that were important to this administration. And we certainly don't have the political will anymore. We'd need a Vietnam-esque type of escalation, complete with a draft and the escalated use of resources. Is that going to happen? Not a chance in hell.

So given that that's not going to happen, what's the next best strategy for citizens of the US? To me, that's to get US soldiers out of harm's way so at least they're not being killed anymore. Is that US-centric of me? Certainly. I'm guilty. My lack of cosmopolitanism is out there for all to see. But what else is there to do? Half-assing it the way we have been isn't going to make anything better, and we're not going to expand the force to the size necessary to make a difference.
how? can't answer that since all my military experience is using minatures and involves dice. :p

but I do feel that pulling out before the Iraqi Government is ready to stand and deal with it on it's own is still wrong.

Maybe if we left it to the Generals instead of Congress... *shrugs*

***
As you said, we're Fucking Iraq, long and hard. But does that mean that a timed Pull Out is the best solution? or will that be the Accident that causes a whole new Breed of trouble?
(sorry, but the use of Timed Pull Out, Fucking and other teenage sexual metaphors... this was too much to resist.) :D

how? can't answer that since all my military experience is using minatures and involves dice. :p

but I do feel that pulling out before the Iraqi Government is ready to stand and deal with it on it's own is still wrong.

Maybe if we left it to the Generals instead of Congress... *shrugs*

***
As you said, we're Fucking Iraq, long and hard. But does that mean that a timed Pull Out is the best solution? or will that be the Accident that causes a whole new Breed of trouble?
(sorry, but the use of Timed Pull Out, Fucking and other teenage sexual metaphors... this was too much to resist.) :D

I'm certainly no military genius either, but I know a smattering of history, and I've paid especial attention to this war. Shinseki said at the beginning that we'd need hundreds of thousands of troops, and I think he's been vindicated based on the last four years. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that if we went up to that level of troop deployment now, we culd save the day. I think we'd have to go with more than that now, considering how bad the situation is, but let's stick with Shineski's numbers. Where do we get them from? Where do we get the equipment to outfit them? How do we pay for it all?

The thing about not leaving now is that the presumption is that the longer we stay, the more stability the Iraqi government will have. But that's a hell of a presumption, and I don't think it's based on anything tangible. The current government doesn't seem to have much power outside the Green Zone, and given the suicide bombing in the Parliament bombing not long ago, I'd say their control inside the Green Zone is between slim and none, and Slim just left town. I said more than two years ago that when we left, Iraq would drop into civil war, and I've seen nothing to change that perception.

I'm certainly no military genius either, but I know a smattering of history, and I've paid especial attention to this war. Shinseki said at the beginning that we'd need hundreds of thousands of troops, and I think he's been vindicated based on the last four years. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that if we went up to that level of troop deployment now, we culd save the day. I think we'd have to go with more than that now, considering how bad the situation is, but let's stick with Shineski's numbers. Where do we get them from? Where do we get the equipment to outfit them? How do we pay for it all?

The thing about not leaving now is that the presumption is that the longer we stay, the more stability the Iraqi government will have. But that's a hell of a presumption, and I don't think it's based on anything tangible. The current government doesn't seem to have much power outside the Green Zone, and given the suicide bombing in the Parliament bombing not long ago, I'd say their control inside the Green Zone is between slim and none, and Slim just left town. I said more than two years ago that when we left, Iraq would drop into civil war, and I've seen nothing to change that perception.
and that lack of control is exactly why we cannot leave.

and that lack of control is exactly why we cannot leave.
So we can never leave? Because it looks like we're never going to establish control, not without substantially increasing the forces in-country, and there's no political will for that and no bodies and equipment for that. So what's left? More half-assing it? No thanks. Better for the US to leave and take our lumps on the world stage and hope the rest of the world doesn't hate us forever for it.

So we can never leave? Because it looks like we're never going to establish control, not without substantially increasing the forces in-country, and there's no political will for that and no bodies and equipment for that. So what's left? More half-assing it? No thanks. Better for the US to leave and take our lumps on the world stage and hope the rest of the world doesn't hate us forever for it.

Never? Don't think so. you see, there is a time limit approaching. one year.

The Next President can order a pull out. or he can order more troops in. but President Bush needs to show something, either good or bad, and that may determine the actions of the next President.

who knows, after President Bush leaves, many may get their War Crimes Trial for President Bush and Co.

My own opinion?

Pull out now...send half the troops home, the other half go immedeatley to Afghanistan. We just jumped from about 25,000 to about 100,000 on the ground there, plus what NATO has. Might work...

Get our troop rotations back on some semblance of a sustainable schedule.

Let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight proxy wars over Iraq. Meanwhile, throw our economic and scientific knowhow into sustainable energy so we can tell the eventual winner to fuck off.

Sure, there will be negative economic consequences to an Iranian/Saudi conflict...but maybe that's just the kick in the ass this country needs.

Never? Don't think so. you see, there is a time limit approaching. one year.

The Next President can order a pull out. or he can order more troops in. but President Bush needs to show something, either good or bad, and that may determine the actions of the next President.

who knows, after President Bush leaves, many may get their War Crimes Trial for President Bush and Co.

Okay, you didn't put any kind of stipulation on this when you began the discussion, so I'm feeling a bit fucked with here. I've been approaching this from the standpoint of what we should do as opposed to what will happen, and that's what I've been predicating my comments on.

If you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't, the solution is: don't.

You'll still be damned, but at least you didn't expend energy damning yourself.

(Or in this case, lives and money...)

Okay, you didn't put any kind of stipulation on this when you began the discussion, so I'm feeling a bit fucked with here. I've been approaching this from the standpoint of what we should do as opposed to what will happen, and that's what I've been predicating my comments on.

Don't feel that way, after all, I'm also kinda sitting on the fence. it's only my personal feelings of having to correct mistakes we make. To leave things a mess just rubs me, personally, wrong.

but also in some cases... like Wild fires, sometimes the best solution is to let it burn out.

Which is best for Iraq? dunno.

I would rather, that when we pull out, that the Iraqi Government has the best chance to stand on it's own because you know that when we leave, the Gates of Hell will be let loose and if the Government can't stand up to that... the citizens will utimately lose.

so, I don't see us arguing different points in this thread, but more like expressing our opinions over something bad that we all see coming... or at least that's how it is for me.

Usually I have a clear opinion about most things. And the withdrawal from Iraq seems to be something that everyone has an opinion about.

But I haven't been able to decide.

A while ago I would have said pretty clearly that things aren't going to get better with the Americans gone. It would simply be an even greater escalation of violence, even less security and stability and ultimately more innocent deaths. An example would be this article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,479607,00.html).

But now with this "surge" strategy so spectacularly not doing very much at all either way, I'm starting to become more aware of the futility of it all. The situation isn't getting better, and there's basically nothing the US Military can do to change that. The British in Basra have drastically reduced their presence on the streets, and as far as I understand it the world hasn't ended there (though the last months was pretty bad for them, and Basra is mostly Shia anyways, so sectarian violence isn't as prevalent).

So to me it looks like it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing. And I have no idea what opinion to have, what action to recommend.

So I need people from both sides to tell me their arguments and try to convince me. And if you do it well, you'll have one more supporter for your cause. :p

I'll try... The US can't win this war, it absolutely can't, it can only delay it. When they withdraw their troops, Iraq will fall into a massive civil war which will shed thousands of lives in the next couple of years. So do you want to wait a couple of years for this to happen killing many more people before the withdrawal, or do you want do the troops to withdraw now?

I'll try... The US can't win this war, it absolutely can't, it can only delay it. When they withdraw their troops, Iraq will fall into a massive civil war which will shed thousands of lives in the next couple of years. So do you want to wait a couple of years for this to happen killing many more people before the withdrawal, or do you want do the troops to withdraw now?

Iraq will not fall into civil war if the IA and IP can hold the country. It such a simple concept yet somehow you still fail.

Usually I have a clear opinion about most things. And the withdrawal from Iraq seems to be something that everyone has an opinion about.

But I haven't been able to decide.

A while ago I would have said pretty clearly that things aren't going to get better with the Americans gone. It would simply be an even greater escalation of violence, even less security and stability and ultimately more innocent deaths. An example would be this article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,479607,00.html).

But now with this "surge" strategy so spectacularly not doing very much at all either way, I'm starting to become more aware of the futility of it all. The situation isn't getting better, and there's basically nothing the US Military can do to change that. The British in Basra have drastically reduced their presence on the streets, and as far as I understand it the world hasn't ended there (though the last months was pretty bad for them, and Basra is mostly Shia anyways, so sectarian violence isn't as prevalent).

So to me it looks like it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing. And I have no idea what opinion to have, what action to recommend.

So I need people from both sides to tell me their arguments and try to convince me. And if you do it well, you'll have one more supporter for your cause. :p

Pull out. Less soldiers will die. Call me a filthy bastard if you like.

Iraq will not fall into civil war if the IA and IP can hold the country. It such a simple concept yet somehow you still fail.

The distance between your "simple concept" and execution of said concept is about the width of the universe. You fail, simply for acting like it's simple. If it were simple, it would have been done already.

A while ago I would have said pretty clearly that things aren't going to get better with the Americans gone. It would simply be an even greater escalation of violence, even less security and stability and ultimately more innocent deaths. An example would be this article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,479607,00.html).
No number of American deaths is going to stabilize Iraq. They will be at each other's throats long past a time even Bush would have us leave until they either kill each other off or are retaken by a tyrant.

No number of American deaths is going to stabilize Iraq. They will be at each other's throats long past a time even Bush would have us leave until they either kill each other off or are retaken by a tyrant.
This highlights a different problem.

The Americans have tried to create a strong central government, not unlike their own (or Saddam Hussein's). But Iraq doesn't have the sort of national ideitity or even common culture that's going to allow that. The region would be better served by a loose confederation of regional governments. The Shia, Sunni, Kurds, and Persians could all govern themselves.

Which raises another question. Why not partition Iraq? Why does Iraq need to be one country?

Which raises another question. Why not partition Iraq? Why does Iraq need to be one country?
Because it'd completely change the region.

The Shia part (which incidentally has a whole lot of oil) would sooner or later fall under Iran's spell. Plenty of Iraqi Shi'ites don't really want that, but I think they won't have numbers and influence that the pro-Iranian forces could muster.

The Kurds would get in trouble with the Turks. It's a matter of principle that Turkey can't tolerate a Kurdish state, so it would take a massive international effort to convince them otherwise, and indeed convince the Kurds not to ask for any more territory.

And the Sunni part would be poor. There's pretty much no oil there, and a destroyed infrastructure. The only help they could count on would come from Syria and moreso from Saudi Arabia...which will end up with a whole lot of strings attached, including more Salafi influence.

Because it'd completely change the region.

The Shia part (which incidentally has a whole lot of oil) would sooner or later fall under Iran's spell. Plenty of Iraqi Shi'ites don't really want that, but I think they won't have numbers and influence that the pro-Iranian forces could muster.

The Kurds would get in trouble with the Turks. It's a matter of principle that Turkey can't tolerate a Kurdish state, so it would take a massive international effort to convince them otherwise, and indeed convince the Kurds not to ask for any more territory.

And the Sunni part would be poor. There's pretty much no oil there, and a destroyed infrastructure. The only help they could count on would come from Syria and moreso from Saudi Arabia...which will end up with a whole lot of strings attached, including more Salafi influence.

Thats all correct except you are missing one big point. The three groups aren't neatly living in different areas of the country. Every city is mixed. There are millions of mixed marriages. The majority of the nation doesn't want to kill the other sect. They can live in peace. If we were to partition them there would be genocide on a massive scale. Now a weaker central gov't with more power to the local governments might be a good idea.

The distance between your "simple concept" and execution of said concept is about the width of the universe. You fail, simply for acting like it's simple. If it were simple, it would have been done already.

The concept in itself is simple. The means to get to it are complicated and difficult. However they aren't impossible.

Usually I have a clear opinion about most things. And the withdrawal from Iraq seems to be something that everyone has an opinion about.

But I haven't been able to decide.

A while ago I would have said pretty clearly that things aren't going to get better with the Americans gone. It would simply be an even greater escalation of violence, even less security and stability and ultimately more innocent deaths. An example would be this article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,479607,00.html).

But now with this "surge" strategy so spectacularly not doing very much at all either way, I'm starting to become more aware of the futility of it all. The situation isn't getting better, and there's basically nothing the US Military can do to change that. The British in Basra have drastically reduced their presence on the streets, and as far as I understand it the world hasn't ended there (though the last months was pretty bad for them, and Basra is mostly Shia anyways, so sectarian violence isn't as prevalent).

So to me it looks like it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing. And I have no idea what opinion to have, what action to recommend.

So I need people from both sides to tell me their arguments and try to convince me. And if you do it well, you'll have one more supporter for your cause. :p

Convince you?

*pulls out a gun and a cute fuzzy bunny*

Agree that it's time to pull out of Iraq or the bunny dies! *puts the gun up to the bunny's head*

Agree that it's time to pull out of Iraq or the bunny dies! *puts the gun up to the bunny's head*
Mmmh, bunny stew!

Sorry, I don't see a solution.

I was vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq (or even Afghanistan, still an unpopular position) and the deposing of Saddam. Dictatorships are overthrown by the people*, or not at all.

Opposition to the action in the first place led me to oppose occupation, and I'll admit I welcomed every sign of trouble with the occupation. I wanted it to fail, I wanted the oil companies who piggybacked it to lose their investment, I wanted US/coalition casualties, I wanted chaos in the region and I wanted oil-prices through the roof. I knew tens of thousands of Iraqis would die, and I counted it a win against the neocons.
That's a disgraceful position, I admit, being based in sour grapes that the US government didn't do what I thought it should.
With Iraqi casualties in the hundreds of thousands and no end in sight, I'm finally starting to focus on "never mind who started it, how to end this fight?"

Just now, I'm a lot like Neu Leo, very evenly balanced between staying and going. On the one hand "don't make a mess and walk away" and on the other "don't be part of the problem." I've got a feeling this problem will still be there in twenty years or more, still not really solved.

One thing I know, withdrawal or not, we owe the Iraqis a lot for fighting our war on their soil.

Usually I have a clear opinion about most things. And the withdrawal from Iraq seems to be something that everyone has an opinion about.

But I haven't been able to decide.

A while ago I would have said pretty clearly that things aren't going to get better with the Americans gone. It would simply be an even greater escalation of violence, even less security and stability and ultimately more innocent deaths. An example would be this article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,479607,00.html).

But now with this "surge" strategy so spectacularly not doing very much at all either way, I'm starting to become more aware of the futility of it all. The situation isn't getting better, and there's basically nothing the US Military can do to change that. The British in Basra have drastically reduced their presence on the streets, and as far as I understand it the world hasn't ended there (though the last months was pretty bad for them, and Basra is mostly Shia anyways, so sectarian violence isn't as prevalent).

So to me it looks like it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing. And I have no idea what opinion to have, what action to recommend.

So I need people from both sides to tell me their arguments and try to convince me. And if you do it well, you'll have one more supporter for your cause. :p

I would go even more pragmatic than The Nazz has (and I must also give credit where credit was, and is due: The Nazz and I debated the war as it went in; he was right, and I was wrong. I thought we could be liberators and create democracy, and that clearly didn't happen. For what it's worth TN, kudos to you, however much it tastes like ash), and say that we need to pull out for the simple reason that we can't stay and maintain a military that can fight. Insofar as the first priority of a military is being able to win war and defend the country, refusing to pull out constitutes a security risk to the country.

For better or for worse, our nation has decided that absent massive and cataclysmic attack, we will not engage in a draft. Without that, we rely on volunteers, and therefor a much smaller standing army than we could otherwise have. That army was, and still is, very good at its primary duty, which is winning stand-up fights with whomever decides to pick one with the United States. But what it is not good at is long-term missions that require large amounts of brute manpower, which is exactly what the occupation of Iraq requires in order to succeed. By forcing our troops to fight in a manner that they are unprepared and ill-equipped for so long, we have compromised their ability to do their main job: our reserves are non-existent, our units have ground down their equipment, none of our units can field 100% manpower, and our men are exhausted. At this point, we couldn't support our existing troops if, say, North Korea stormed the border, because we have nothing left that hasn't been committed to Iraq.

Now, you might argue that while we have committed all our eggs to the Iraqi basket, we still might win by doubling down. My response is that in order to win, we'd need more than what we have. While doubling down might be appropriate, you can't double down when all you have left is the shirt on your back, and that's roughly where the United States is today. And that, I think, is the saddest thing about this whole mess, because for the first time in my life I've had to say that the United States shouldn't try to do something good because it lacks the capability to do it. Is it hard to say. Damn straight it is. But it also happens to be the truth, and only a fool doesn't cut his losses when he knows he can't win.

Convince you?

*pulls out a gun and a cute fuzzy bunny*

Agree that it's time to pull out of Iraq or the bunny dies! *puts the gun up to the bunny's head*

*looks at bunny that LG is holding*

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/bb/300px-Killer_rabbit.JPG

:eek:

SHOOT IT! SHOOT IT NOW! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LG, SHOOOOOOOT!


*Flees*

I still can't believe we went into this war. Anyways thats passed but I think we need to pull out. We are absolutley exacerbating the situation because we killed the opportunity early on in the occupation. You can thank that to the CPA and their non-coperation with the millitary and their extremely ignorant and idealistic ambitions in the country. Yes we maybe now learning from our mistakes but I think we are too late to learn from our mistakes. We have alienated so many people in this country and even though they may like us, they might not even have a good reason to like us with the damage already done in the past. Ultimate message I'm trying to say: Get out before causing any more damage.

*looks at bunny that LG is holding*

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/bb/300px-Killer_rabbit.JPG

:eek:

SHOOT IT! SHOOT IT NOW! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LG, SHOOOOOOOT!


*Flees*

I can't. It seems to have eaten the gun. And my hand. In fact, at that point, I would have been doomed, but it went for my groin next and broke all it's teeth. *breathes a sigh of relief*

We make Iran and Iraq go to war with each other, that way the Iraqi people have to unite to survive.

Inplausible? Yes. Stupid? Yes. Solution? Yes.

So to me it looks like it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing. And I have no idea what opinion to have, what action to recommend.

So I need people from both sides to tell me their arguments and try to convince me. And if you do it well, you'll have one more supporter for your cause. :p

I'd recommend the following action:

Let the Iraqis vote on this issue

Simple. Fair. Their country, their decision.

Both the Iraqi and the American people are asking for a withdrawal.

The US Gov could use the money it is wasting on the war to give every American a free subscription to every porn site on the web.:confused: in da interwebs da porn is free.

Just give us free wifi in every city.

Both the Iraqi and the American people are asking for a withdrawal.

So let us determine that in an official vote. The opinion of the American people is not that important in this - it was their country that invaded, and therefor their job to clean up the mess if the Iraqis think so. So let them speak.
If the Iraqis say "go away", the US goes away.
If the Iraqis say "stay", the US stays. And can act all justified.

Here's part of the problem. Most US replies will be US-centric, as you should expect.

Not surprising is it?

Those of us old enough to understand, or remember Vietnam have no desire to repeat such a prolific waste of our lives.
Iraq is fast becoming a similar situation.





That said, I find the claims made by those people who say we have to say less than convincing. They say there will be chaos in Iraq if we leave, as though it's not chaotic now. They say there will be terrorist training camps set up if we leave, as though that's not happening already. They say Iraqis will die in large numbers, as though they're not dying in large numbers now.

Dead on.
Its a complete shitstorm over there, no matter what we do.


And what's most important to me in this equation is that the people saying this have been wrong every step of the way. They haven't gotten one thing right in this entire, fucked up situation. So why should we believe things will get worse if we leave? If we leave and they stay bad, then little has changed, but at least the Iraqis will be in charge of their own future.

Heres the thing.

If we leave, a full scale civil war breaks out between the Shia and the Sunni's.
Massive casualties between these two factions, with the Khurds caught in the middle. The winner, gets to control the oil. Its always been about the oil, hasnt it? The winner gets to sell it to the US, and U.K.

If we stay, we force our troops to stay past thier tours of duty.
One person I know just had thier tour increased to 15 months.
So, we wage a suppression war of wich we cannot really win, merely forcibly occupy, with a troop base that is rapidly losing morale.

This war is also becoming seriously unpopular on both sides, with its support mainly coming from the far right only.
The next presidential election will likely be handed to the Democrats who openly speak for withdrawal, while Republican candidates like McCain, continue to support it, despite its rapidly declining popularity.

What price victory in a war you cant win?

Why should anyone have to convince you Neo Leonstein? What do Iraqis want????

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph3.GIF

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=hmpg1)

It has already been over 4 years since the US sought to "pacify" Iraq, which is longer then the US spent helping to defeat Germany and Japan in WW2.

Start the drawing down of troops NOW!!

The surge is not a strategy on it's own but merely a way to implement another.
After witnessing what has happened to Iraq so far, you can't see a problem with what you have stated above??