IRAQ - What do we do now?

[Blue-Jay]

I'll admit it. I'm torn about our current situation in Iraq. Like most of you, I was vehemently opposed to the invasion, but that's not important now. Here's my problem: What do we do now?

On one hand, I understand the need to clean up our mess. Assisting the Iraqis in stabilizing their country is the least we can do after bombing the shit out of them. The true humanitarian mission has just begun, and has no end in sight.

On the other hand, I want our soldiers safe at home where they belong. The Iraqis don't want us there. Although many (most?) of them were thrilled to see the end of the Hussein regime, they still see us for what we are. Invaders and thieves.

What are your thoughts, DUers? Providing we reclaim the White House (and to misquote one of my favorite bands), should we stay or should we go?

[oasis]

1. President Kerry or Clark will have the diplomatic skills to go to the UN

and request assistance in return for the United Nations sharing a role in Iraq's future.

With a true multi national force sheperding the transition of authority, the Iraqis will become more cooperative in policing their homeland.

[ErasureAcer]

12. And the UN will say...

"President Kerry...you voted for the war...you're just as responsible for this mess as Bush was...

we're not helping your sorry ass...this is all your fault to begin with...we told you to keep the inspectors in there, we never gave you the right to attack under UN law, we never saw this threat to world safety you exclaimed was there...this is your mess...enjoy your quagmire punks"

[Section_43]

2. I believe the whole world will be willing to assist

once Bush is out of power. If only to prove a point.

[Sweetpea]

9. I concur.

[izzie]

20. I must be off this morn as I heard that answer in a song

It has got to be the notes you have,

[shockingelk]

3. "go" ... responsibly

Stop referring to an American as "the Governor of Iraq".

Fess up to the fact it was wrong to start a war.

Fess up to the fact the aftermath of "victory" was something entirely different than sensed by a few starry eyed idealists' fingers in the wind.

Ask for forgiveness and help - lots of both.

There's no need to wait until after the 04 elections to start doing this kind of stuff.

Oh yeah, forgot: revert to referring to "French Fries" and "French Toast" correctly.

[OldEuropean]

4. Too late

Even if the UN gets involved now, US troops will remain in Iraq. There is no way to replace the 145k US troops with UN blue helmets. The situation in Iraq already degenerated too much aswell, I think. It will remain chaos for years and totally instabilize the entire Middle East. Bush achieved exactly the opposite of what he (claimed) wanted to achieve. WMD and terrorism is now even more widespread than before. The question is, maybe that is what he really wanted. Create threats and then "resuce the world". Ensuring jobs for the Pentagon and the CIA...

[shockingelk]

8. Pakistani troops?

Thinking about things practically, Pakistan "owes" the Bush admin for not putting them in a "Quadrangle of Evil" - yeah, it would be a hard sell convincing the population our intentions are well meant this time - but I believe Pakistani (and Egyptian and Saudi and perhaps even Indian) troops would not be harassed if they were truly there to secure Iraq's borders and police the civilian population while Iraq built the government of their choice.

Sadly, pulling something like that off won't be much easier for the "next" US administration than "this" one - I don't think most people in the region have the differentiation between a Bush America and a Someone Else America ...

But the fact is, it's our mess, and we have to try to do something about it.

[Keithpotkin]

29. Pakistan could never go through with that.

the general population is vehimently anti-american...just imagine what would happen if their already hated leader told them they had to go fight the American's war....best case scenario...they end up sending some support troops, but generate unrest just for that...worse case scenario...revolution in pakistan...America must become involved or else nukes will fall into hands of people very simpathetic to osama's cause.

[StandWatie]

30. Pakistani troops were the worst in Somalia

They, make bad, bad, bad, peacekeepers...

[Kellanved]

16. yes

The UN won't let a single coalition soldier leave Iraq. Maybe some more troops (think 10000 - 20000) but no nation will commit troops to replace US-soldiers. Help yes, getting killed instead: no.

And I don't see how a plan to send troops to Iraq could possibly pass parliament. The situation is far too dangerous.

[knight_of_the_star]

5. Get outside help

That's the only way we'll be able to pull it off, but that is even looking chancy because Bush pissed so many of our allies off and if we CAN get outside help, I don't think the diehards in Iraq will care for the difference.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all troops from Iraq!

Having the US remain in Iraq until things get better is the moral equivalent of having Mike Tyson stay with the woman he raped in Indianapolis until "she gets over it"!

As our friends at the WSWS have said so eloquently:

Underlying many of the arguments for a continued and even intensified occupation of Iraq is the conception that something good can yet come out of an illegal war of aggression carried out under false pretenses and for what can only be described as criminal motives—the seizure of Iraq’s oil resources. This is a gross delusion of the kind that led to the deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese 30 years ago.

No amount of US troops or professions of Washington’s good intentions will halt the resistance to foreign occupation. The people of Iraq and the rest of the Arab world have a long history of opposing colonial rule that will not be erased by empty rhetoric about “democracy” and “liberation.”

How many people will have to die—Iraqi and American alike—before this criminal enterprise is finally brought to an end?

The American people must call a halt to this filthy colonial-style war. It must not accept that American youth be placed needlessly and recklessly in harm’s way for a single additional day, and it must repudiate the murderous repression that is being carried out by the Bush administration in its name. It must demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/iraq-a21.shtml

[Blue-Jay]

7. IndianaGreen! A question:

What do you think will happen in Iraq if we just bugger off? Will the Iraqis be better off? Will we?

I'm only asking because I find myself in a quandry. I abhor the idea of "nation-building", but I'm equally uneasy with the dine-and-dash method of foreign relations. Can we just leave and tell the Iraqi people to "figure it out for yourselves"?

[Ladyhawk]

10. Can't we hand over the job to the UN

and promise to finance most of it?

The only way we can "make it up" to the Iraqi people--is that's even possible--is to bow out entirely and still pick up the bill for nation building.

I vote that the Bushies be tried, their assets liquidated and used to fund the rebuilding of Iraq while they cool their asses in Federal prison. That will never happen, but it would certainly satisfy a lot of angry people.

[Paschall]

11. Someone has suggested a clear timeline

I don't remember the details, but it was something like a promised pull-out within 60 days, during which time a multilateral force could move in. And a clear date for elections in Iraq, preferably before year's end.

IMO, we can't pull out unless some security force is ready to take up the burden. But as everyone with a whit of sense has argued, an invasion force is NOT the force that should remain for the standard police work now needed. Besides which US troops lack all training for that type of mission.

I think if such a plan were carried out the Iraqis would definitely be better off. Would we? I doubt it. The "magnet" we've given fundamentalist terrorists for recruiting foot-soldiers for attacks against America is something we'll have to tackle differently. But then can anyone today believe that anything we've done in Iraq (or failed to do in Israel/Palestine) has made us any safer?

[NNN0LHI]

13. The problem is that the Iraqi's hate the UN as much as the US. If not more

Sanctions Harden Iraqis Attitude to U.N.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030823/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_blaming_the_un&cid=540&ncid=1473

BAGHDAD, Iraq - When a truck packed with explosives blew up outside the United Nations compound in Baghdad and killed at least 23 people, much of the world recoiled in shock, horrified anyone would attack an organization known everywhere for its good works.

Everywhere, that is, except in Iraq, where there is deep ambivalence toward the world body.

For many Iraqis, the United Nations was synonymous with economic hardship — responsible for much of the everyday misery here.

The crippling international sanctions imposed by the world body after Iraq invaded Kuwait 12 years ago have been blamed for everything from high infant mortality rates to a ban on ice cream.

Geoff Keele, a spokesman for UNICEF who has worked in Iraq since June 2002, said under the previous government, the state press — the only source of information for people — would condemn the United Nations regularly, blaming it for the lack of quality health care.

more

[Kellanved]

17. That's why a NATO mission is getting more likely.

Maybe they should start a poll in Iraq: What Uniform are you most likely to shoot at? ... :shrug:

[bpilgrim]

28. oh i doubt that they hate them more than us, perhaps more dissapointed

and frustrated based on dashed hopes for FAIRNESS.

peace

[theHandpuppet]

14. Yes, what a quandary...

Now that we've wrongfully invaded this country, killed tens of thousands of their people and utterly destroyed their nation's infrastructure, what do we do next?

This would be my proposal: that a lion's share of the resources needed to rebuild Iraq be left to Iraq's wealthy neighbors in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Jordan (well, not all the neighbors are wealthy), etc. Even Syria and Iran should be invited to join in this rebuilding effort.

Part of the problem we're having now is that we are stuck in "Western" thinking. Consider it -- which nations embarked on this war, and which are now the occupying forces in Iraq? Which nations are busy divvying up the oil and the contracts for rebuilding? America and its so-called "coalition of the willing" from Europe.

Little wonder, then, that many in the Arab world see this as yet another crusade, for at its core it is both imperialistic and patronizingly arrogant. Bush's meaningless platitudes about Iraqi self-determination are just that -- meaningless -- if our idea of "self-determination" is simply to impose by force a template of American-style democracy and culture over the Iraqi government and people (if not ambitious to do so over the entire Middle East).

Via the aggressive pursuit of an agreement that Iraq's M.E. neighbors supply the bulk of the resources (including a peacekeeping force) to rebuild that nation we can begin to bring our troops home, and the sooner the better. (I will say, however, that the US of A should supply monetary reparations, as it seems the least we can do to repay for the damages we have inflicted.)

Some might say such a plan would lead to internal chaos in Iraq as different factions within the country vie for control. Yes indeed, it just might. Yet we cannot expect any legitimate nation to rise from the ashes we've made of Iraq unless we truly willing to let Iraqis determine just what kind of country they wish to have. Lest we forget, we ourselves paid such a price via our own bloody Civil War. Look at the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died in this invasion of our own making!

Any Iraq which arises from this scenario just may be one that is, in both form and substance, diametrically opposed to what we Anglo-Europeans would want for ourselves. So be it. Until we garner a little humility and accept the fact that not every nation on earth wishes to be just another American satellite with a Pizza Hut on every corner we will NEVER have peace in the Middle East (or anywhere else, for that matter). We cannot be so blind nor so arrogant that we can suppose to refashion every country on earth in our own image.

Anyway, these are just some random thoughts for the morning....

[flyingfish]

15. No brainer

Get as much international help as possible, especially from the Middle East and other predominately Muslim nations.
Bushco needs to grovel as much as possible, which I believe they do not have the humility to do. So, we are screwed until January 20, 2005.

[stunted evolution]

18. Oil for Regrowth...BUT

Howard Dean has a good idea in modifying the UN's Oil for Food program into a Oil for Rebuilding fund, but the most important thing and I mean THE most important thing is that they should hire any and all interested Iraqi's to do the rebuilding. US/UN "appointed" contractors should play a minimal role in rebuilding the country, if at all. The Iraqi's aren't likely to appreciate a country rebuilt with non-Iraqi hands, and in any case, if they are rebuilding it themselves and earning decent wages in the process, it will lessen the feelings of resentment most feel towards Americans right now. Additionally, they will be more likely to strongly speak out against acts of sabotage since such acts would be destroying what they have built with their own hands.

It's a mess to be sure. One can only hope Bush will not have made the situation hopeless by the time we replace him in 04.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. We need to get the hell out of the way

And let the UN and the Arab counties in the region (with some US assistance) in with a force of peacekeepers.

This is what we are doing in Liberia, and surprisingly things are actually getting better there. In Liberia, we have refused to send in substantial numbers of American troops and instead insisted that the UN and other African nations take care of the situation and the Liberians are better off as a result at the moment. The US should learn from this and go to the UN and beg them to do the same for Iraq. Heck, all Bu$hCo is really interested in are the precious oil fields, I'm sure we can work out some kind of deal?

[Kbowe]

21. The fact that we should not have invaded Iraqi is STILL important

and we should never forget it lest we turn our eyes toward Syria and Iran as the Sharon government would like us to do.

What we do now is turn the rebuilding of Iraq over to the UN, bring our troops home, put all the oney and energy that we put into building weapons and waging war into alternative sources of energy, building automobile engines that get at least 75 miles to the gallon and tell the oil companies to kiss our collective asses. Most of the oil companies are owned by foreign investors anyway. Our CEOs and corporations are all linked through vast mega megers with foreign countries that reap huge financial benefits while the US serves as mostly a hired protection organization.

[NNN0LHI]

22. We handle it by declaring victory and running like sonofabitches

The very best thing we can hope for out of this is to have the wind to our back as we are running. I say this because there is no other way out of Iraq. We are going to do this before it is over with anyway. The only questions left are when we leave, how many bodies we send home in boxes, and after how many more new terrorists we create during the interim?

Don

[lindashaw]

23. Please tell me that this won't happen...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=123&ncid=761&e=1&u=/030823/79/51u0h.html

IRAQ: A BAIT-AND-SWITCH CON JOBs

---snip---

Americans, deceived and conned, have woken up to find their magnificently trained, equipped and motivated young soldiers pinned down in a hostile environment, stalked by mujihadeen from other Islamic countries sneaking into the chaos of Iraq. It was not bad enough that terrorists were able to find ways to get into the United States and harm us greatly; we have now set ourselves up on their territory -- as targets.


So what? The odds are that President Bush and his men will tough this out, at least politically. The irony of the moment is that the worse they do, the better off they are. On a strategic level, they will argue that any withdrawal now will only embolden terrorists and governments that secretly support them. That is almost certainly true, as argued in an editorial in Newsday, the Long Island newspaper, on Thursday:


"In the past, Washington has set bad examples of its fortitude by pulling out from Beirut after the bombing of the Marine barracks and from Somalia after the Special Forces casualties in Mogadishu. The world must know this won't happen in Iraq, whatever it takes."


Bush can get away with this because -- like his coalition junior partner, Tony Blair in England -- his opposition is too intimidated by patriotism to argue with him. Most of the Democrats chasing the chance to run against him next year are now criticizing the war, mildly to be sure, but they voted for it when they had a chance to slow him down and ask what exactly he had in mind. They know, as the president knows, that now that our troops are in harm's way, most politicians must "support" them, whatever that means. That's the "switch."

[pretzel4gore]

24. it's our job to keep focus on

the criminality of entire bush operation...and the complicity of bush's collaborators......
point out 'bush knew' and cnn did too!
take them all down....

[Mari333]

25. Bring them home now

www.bringthemhomenow.com


and let the chips fall where they may.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Let the Iraqis decide what to do with their own country.

Hold elections, under UN auspices, and let the Iraqis decide what kind of government they want. Place the governance of the country and all military forces under the complete control of the UN, until elections can be safely held.

It's called democracy - worth a try.

Don't hold your breath. The quagmire is getting more stickey as the US attempts to win hearts and minds with guns.

[bpilgrim]

27. If we turn over reconstruction to the U.N. and the SC sends in NATO

that would be the best way to LEGITAMIZE what we are doing over there - 'installing a democracy' - and give it the greatest chance to succeed AND allow us to bring home are totally SPENT and LIED TO soilders.

we must hold the neo-cons to their promises and apply preassure to have them conform to international laws agreed to and CREATED by our own nation.

if the neo-cons fail to comply then the international community should wait them out until they do.

they MUST be taught a SERIOUS LESSON if we even hope to contain this before it gets even worse and we start invading other countries to fight more ILLEGAL PREVENTIVE WARS.

:hi:

peace

[Keithpotkin]

31. i have an idea!

we could get Britain to draw us up some new maps (they have been so good at it in the past)...dividing up the country for the beneficiaries of the war....Halliburton, Carlyle etc.