I've decided that I think we should pull out of Iraq.

[MGKrebs]

Up until recently, I believed that we had to stay and clean up our mess. But I cannot see that happening no matter how long we stay. If we pull out, the UN, or Arab League, or NATO, will then feel obligated, and to some degree welcomed, to enter and provide some security until they get their shit straightened out.

I suppose if a Dem wins the White House, he or she would be able to make some progress as far as attracting some help for us over there, but I think too much damage has been done, and we would continue to be targets, with little hope of providing an environment for a more civil society to develop.

Let's face it, some places on this planet are not ready for democracy. It takes time, an educated and participating citizenry, an implicit social agreement to solve problems politically, an economic system that is at least percieved to be fair, and most of all, hope and faith. Hope that one will have the opportunity to improve their life, and faith that government will provide at least the environment for that opportunity.

It is very sad, because we have created a problem that will likely take decades to get to a point that could be called successful, with a lot of chaos, death, and destruction in the meantime.

All the same applies to Afghanistan, too.

The big downside is that if we pull out now, it will make our troops available for shrub to invade someplace else.

[Eloriel]

1. Well, that last line is a clincher for me

But otherwise, I'm about ready to agree with pulling out myself. There was a wonderful editorial I read a few weeks back that pushed me in that direction (rather than the moral obligation which we DO of course have and CAN'T of course fulfill, certainly under Bush) -- let me see if I can find it.

Here it is:
Facing the truth about Iraq
By James Carroll, 9/2/2003
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/02/facing_the_truth_about_iraq/

THE WAR IS LOST. By most measures of what the Bush administration forecast for its adventure in Iraq, it is already a failure. The war was going to make the Middle East a more peaceful place. It was going to undercut terrorism. It was going to show the evil dictators of the world that American power is not to be resisted. It was going to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis. It was going to stabilize oil markets. The American army was going to be greeted with flowers. None of that happened. The most radical elements of various fascist movements in the Arab world have been energized by the invasion of Iraq. The American occupation is a rallying point for terrorists. Instead of undermining extremism, Washington has sponsored its next phase, and now moderates in every Arab society are more on the defensive than ever.

Before the war, the threat of America's overwhelming military dominance could intimidate, but now such force has been shown to be extremely limited in what it can actually accomplish. For the sake of "regime change," the United States brought a sledge hammer down on Iraq, only to profess surprise that, even as Saddam Hussein remains at large, the structures of the nation's civil society are in ruins. The humanitarian agencies necessary to the rebuilding of those structures are fleeing Iraq.

The question for Americans is, Now what? Democrats and Republicans alike want to send in more US soldiers. Some voices are raised in the hope that the occupation can be more fully "internationalized," which remains unlikely while Washington retains absolute control. But those who would rush belligerent reinforcements to Iraq are making the age-old mistake.

When brutal force generates resistance, the first impulse is to increase force levels. But, as the history of conflicts like this shows, that will result only in increased resistance. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has rejected the option of more troops for now, but, in the name of force-protection, the pressures for escalation will build as US casualties mount. The present heartbreak of one or two GI deaths a day will seem benign when suicide bombers, mortar shells, or even heavier missile fire find their ways into barracks and mess halls.

Either reinforcements will be sent to the occupation, or present forces will loosen the restraints with which they reply to provocation. Both responses will generate more bloodshed and only postpone the day when the United States must face the truth of its situation.

more -- WELL worth reading

Eloriel

[MGKrebs]

3. Just reading that part, makes sense to me.

Thanks for the link.

If things go just right (which they never do for these bozos), we can have a political structure set up over there in 6 months, get our guys out, and before they can be redeployed, we will have a Dem in the White House.

Declare victory and go home!

[lcordero]

2. hmmmmmmm

Up until recently, I believed that we had to stay and clean up our mess. But I cannot see that happening no matter how long we stay. If we pull out, the UN, or Arab League, or NATO, will then feel obligated, and to some degree welcomed, to enter and provide some security until they get their shit straightened out.

It's a mess that nobody has the capability of cleaning up. Iraqis are going to view anybody that is not Iraqi as either an Israel sympathizer or as a looter. The whole world conducted a siege(an act of war) on the people of Iraq for 12 years.

I suppose if a Dem wins the White House, he or she would be able to make some progress as far as attracting some help for us over there, but I think too much damage has been done, and we would continue to be targets, with little hope of providing an environment for a more civil society to develop.

Cleaning up after anybody is too much of a pocketbook issue. 15 million people worldwide took to the streets to protest the war in one day. Any politician who pledges out manpower or anything out of their country's pocketbook is committing career suicide.

Let's face it, some places on this planet are not ready for democracy. It takes time, an educated and participating citizenry, an implicit social agreement to solve problems politically, an economic system that is at least percieved to be fair, and most of all, hope and faith. Hope that one will have the opportunity to improve their life, and faith that government will provide at least the environment for that opportunity.

Any type of power that our citizens had in the government was overthrown in December of 2000. We are not fit to spread Democracy. What is being spread is corporatism.

[MGKrebs]

4. Agreed that the Iraqis ultimately have to clean it up.

All we can really hope for is to provide a temporary security structure to allow them to get organized enough to handle it. A difficult job for anybody, but the alternative is to just let it go, and presumably let the warlords, fanatics, and criminals take over because they have the guns.

The "temporary security structure" is (I assume) what we are trying to provide now, except that we are forcing our will on them. Instead of having someone like Bremer over there calling the shots, we need to appoint some Iraqi's to call the shots. Granted, we (the UN or whoever) will only help as long as they call the shots we want to help with, but if they want the help, that's what they gotta do.

[InkAddict]

5. Faith that patriotic dissent will effect greater awareness/ultimate change

You posted: "Hope that one will have the opportunity to improve their life, and faith that government will provide at least the environment for that opportunity."

Some can now only hope for an "improvement" through a relative re-definition of what constitutes barely adequate, just okay, acceptable,(good, better, and best being reserved for the top 1%), but even at this late date in one's life, IMHO, unless drastic measures come around soon, we'll all be Diebold dumpster digging to find the very last crumb of our Constitution that might be saved.

I've waited for my soldier(s) to return home, and visited the Wall to mourn too many of my classmates that didn't. By reason of that special soldier's service, I sat on a thin edge of the fence between hawk and dove, and so now my shame for fencesitting has been reawakened. I just won't do it again!!!! Bring Them Home Now!

[diamondsoul]

6. I have to say I;ve agreed with this since the whole thing began.

I don't mean to hijack your thread, but it seems to me that anyone who feels this way ought to support Dennis Kucinich right now. He's the ONLY one who seems to comprehend that this war is a TOTAL failure. He's ready willing and able to negotiate a pullout operation with the UN and foreign nations outside the UN as well. They will listen to him BECAUSE of all the humanitarian work he's already done. They know him and they know what he's all about.

I have to say one last thing because this thread speaks something I've felt for quite some time now- Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY one who can get us out of Iraq without destroying what's left of our government, and yes, I genuinely believe that.

[rjx]

7. We aint gonna leave

All Bush has to do is say we won in Iraq. Go on TV and make an announcement and say that we liberated Iraq. Saddam is not in power and now its time for the Iraqi people to elect someone unlike Saddam. Bush could offer a reward of a few million dollars to any Iraqi that finds and kills Saddam. You would have millions of Iraqis searching all over Iraq to kill Saddam.

Its a pretty messed up way of leaving, but its better than spending billions more and wasting American and Iraqi lives.

But no matter how easy it is to leave, Bush won't. PNAC dictates we will be there forever. Rice said it will take a generation. :grr:

[leftofthedial]

8. I said this before

(to much derision)

Further, I think we should officially admit that we had no right to invade a sovereign country that posed no imminent threat to us, and officially offer to restore Iraq to Saddam. His was the last legitimate regime in power there.

He is probably dead, but even if alive, would not actually accept the offer. If, bu some fluke he did accept, the Shiites and the Kurds are both in position to destroy him quickly.

Then we could allow the Iraqis to find their own balance.

[rjx]

9. I agree, but...

"Further, I think we should officially admit that we had no right to invade a sovereign country that posed no imminent threat to us, and officially offer to restore Iraq to Saddam."
I agree, but he won't. He knew that before he invaded.

[LastDemInIdaho]

10. Who put our troops into Germany?

They are still there. How many years ago were they sent there?

Who sent them there?

[Bridget Burke]

11. There was a war....

Quite a few years ago. Started in 1939, we joined in 1941 & it ended in 1945. Google up "World War II".

Of course, the Cold War was the main reason we KEPT our German bases.

Don't know what the reason is now. But the military hospitals have come in handy--it's a relatively short flight from Iraq.

[QERTY]

13. Very Few Left Im Deutschland

Most were pulled out for the first Iraq war. Those that are left are primarily hospital and airbase personnel. And, BTW, it's only a matter of time before they are ejected as unwanted, unneeded representatives of an imperialist power. I predict it will happen at the precise moment it becomes unprofitable ie. when we default on the nat'l debt in 5 years or so. Cheers!

[peabody71]

12. UN in US out!

[QERTY]

14. UN Says. . .

FUCK YOU!

[NNN0LHI]

15. Actually I think that the UN said fuck you very much? n/t

[LWolf]

16. I've been ready to pull out since the day we shipped them out.

I didn't want this mess to happen to begin with.

At the time, I did feel a sense of responsibility for Saddam, since he was our mess to begin with. But now we've made an even bigger mess, which we are still responsible for.

Turning the decision making and the work over to the UN seems the best route for me. Get our guys out, and get US control over Iraq off the table. A multinational team can clean up our mess. It will be cleaner and carry less US baggage into the future.

If that makes any sense at all. I don't feel very coherent this morning.