Consequences of "Leaving Now" versus "Staying to Fix It"

[Jacobin]

Apparently there was a poll done on DU in the last couple of days and it indicated more support for "staying and fixing" Iraq than withdrawing.

I find this trend understandable among liberals, but very troubling. Understandable, in the sense that liberals don't believe this country should go around the world blowing things up and then not repairing the damage. Or perhaps that if we don't "fix it" it can become a breeding ground for terrorists, as in Afghanistan. Or, if we don't stay, the factions there who were repressed by Saddam (and are now repressed by our military) will erupt into a bloody civil war...one that could spread to involve Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

The history of the Middle East and as a consequence its cultural imperatives are shaped by a shared common goal of repelling serial waves of invading infidels, from both the east and the west. One thing that will unite and is uniting Sunnis, Shiites, etc is the horrific realization that a Christian militia numbering 150,000 is encamped in their country, running around blowing up anything that moves and is desperately engaged in removing their oil as quickly as possible.

We do not truly "occupy" Iraq. We are prisoners there. Our troops and workers are behind huge concrete blast walls. They are peppered with mortar fire day and night. When our troops leave the compounds, they only do so in convoys, to go to another compound, and they are routinely attacked with RPG's and roadside bombs.

In effect, we are surrounded and they are waiting for us to give up and leave.

The same argument for staying in Iraq was used in Vietnam for 20 years. Domino theory: If we leave all of SE Asia will become communist and then they will be on our doorstep. If we leave, Vietnam will descend into a bloodbath that will destabilize the region.

Well, after decades of getting shot and bombing these rice farmers, we finally were run out, and none of the dire consquences predicted have occurred. Heck, they are a trading partner.

My greatest fear is that the eventual Dem nominee who gets elected in 2004 will ESCALATE in Iraq and send MORE TROOPS to further antagonize and anger the Iraqis and result in even more bloodshed and death. This happened to Lyndon Johnson, and we all know the result of that.

Why do so many Dems believe that Iraqis are incapable of resolving their differences among themselves (yes it may take a civil war...guess what, WE had one too)? They are intelligent, they have a highly educated class, they have tons of natural resources and I think they would do MUCH better at running their country than we do. Hell, its THEIR country!!

I find myself with an extremely odd feeling that Bush* wants to get out and the Dems want to get in deeper, and I'm agreeing with Bush*
....which is very disturbing

[Keebs]

1. well...

The only reason bush wants to get out is because the election is drawing near.

I just don't feel like its a safe thing to do. There is no leadership over there right now. If we leave, what is to stop someone like Hussain (or him himself) getting into (or back in) power? Then when we get another Repubic-hair back in, we'll be back over their fighting.

We don't need Hitler over there, we don't need any of the numerous freako groups in power over there. Bush started this stupid damn war, for whatever greedy reasons. The least we can do is go ahead and rebuild, and try to secure a somewhat normal government over there.

[JohnyCanuck]

2. Good luck. You're gonna need it.

The least we can do is go ahead and rebuild, and try to secure a somewhat normal government over there.

[Keebs]

6. eh

Screw it then. This bleeding heart will just stop bleeding

[Karenina]

16. So einfach ist das?

Picture this: A heavily armed gang invades YOUR home, assaults your wife, kills your infant and maims your toddler, pisses in your face, destroys the antique china Grandma left you, then decides they kicked down the wrong door and heads across the street to do the same to your neighbor. Would YOU band together with your community to drive them out?
Would YOU want any of them near you or yours for ANY REASON other than to hand over the cash to pay for the damage?

The American government's ONLY interest in Iraq is the enrichment of the *cabal. The investment is the blood of countless thousands. The return has proved itself to be nothing more than escalating destruction and violence.

The U.S. WILL withdraw from Iraq. The ONLY pertinent question is how much damage will be done before that occurs.

[gulliver]

18. I think a strong repudiation of Bush and Bushism ...

... would help a lot. The stench of greed, arrogance, and an unapologetic willingness to commit reckless homicide is on America's hands. Bush did that to us. If we can get America back to its likeable self, we can undo the damage.

America's true character is nothing like Bush's. He misrepresents us.

[Karenina]

19. "He misrepresents us."

Unfortunately, I must respectfully disagree. America has suffered a coup and the worst aspects of her temperament are now being displayed on the world stage. Those conscious and of conscience are drowned out by a treasonous, corrupt Fourth Estate.

It is apparent in the posts to this thread. The U.S. needs to "fix" ITSELF before arrogantly assuming it knows what is "best" for others.

[Walt Starr]

3. It's like de Ja Vois all over again

Same shit was said about Vietnam.

[rucky]

4. I know what you mean...

but I think the Dems saying "stay" is a stragedy to head off * at the pass.

If Bush decides to leave - even in May or June - there will be a period of unrest in Iraq that will last for several months - maybe years. Anything bad that happens there, Bush can be held accountable by the Dems' heeded warning. If we don't leave, then we're right again. Of course there's a human cost to being right either way - that's the disturbing part for me.

I also think it's possible for us to pull our own "October Surprise" with Iraq: some backroom deal which will bring some stability to the region as soon as * is out. Trouble is, who the heck would we negotiate that with? But as you said, the Iraqi people are not dumb. They see * as a threat to the world - and it may just happen on its own.

Don't mind me, I'm just talking outta my ass, but I hope we get the opportunity to prove my theory correct - at least the * out/Iraq stability part of it.

[Minstrel Boy]

5. "fixing it" is not an altruistic endeavour

It means remaking Iraq according to the Chicago school's blueprint, and pacifying the savages so their land can be more readily exploited for US strategic interest.

BushCo is not an honest broker of Iraqi aspirations.

[mikehiggins]

7. Maybe yes, maybe no

I have no doubt Georgie wants to get Iraq off the front burners between now and November but actually back off? I can't see it. Even if the rumblings of a draft weren't a clue, the fact that he is quite willing to accept the levels of losses we're already experiencing suggests that more will not bother him all that much.

All he has to do is get reelected and then what? If the GOP gets back into office they will probably retain control of Congress, and the Supreme Court justices are not immortal. He'll almost certainly get a shot at two or more appointments after 2004 and with nothing to lose he can put great pressure on his Senate cronies to eliminate the 60% vote and make cloture subject to a straight 50% vote and then its off to the races.

With the government even deeper in his pocket, and a draft to provide unlimited fodder for the war machine, he can start taking a much more stern position in re Libya, Syria and Iran. He really doesn't have to worry too much over consequences since Christ is on his side and, anyway, nobody is going to impeach him or give him up as a war criminal after he finally does leave office.

So, I beleive any chance of dismantleing the US presence in Iraq lies in electing a Democrat next year (GO, CLARK!) and working intensely to shift the balance in Congress.

You may think I'm suggesting the Bush camp is crazy and that they risk being the root of an eventual world war in which the US plays the role Hitler's Reich did. Yeah, I guess I am.

[ulysses]

8. "WE had one too" re: civil wars

Yes, and it was a bloody, desperate, sad thing. It was also of a different era of warfare, in which civilians (Sherman's march to the sea notwithstanding) were not the primary targets. There were atrocities, but nothing like what we see in our time. To simply accept civil war in Iraq as something like a necessary stage on the road to a democratic state seems unconscionable to me.

Of course, given that the Bush administration will never do the one thing it could to *avoid* a civil war - hand the entire thing over to the UN and fully fund the reconstruction - we've pretty much screwed the pooch.

[Jacobin]

14. The suggestion that democracy is somehow inevitable there

or even desirable, may not be a view shared by Iraqis. Why is it that Americans insist on other nations governing in the way that we pretend to?

I mean, its not likely that an IMPOSED democracy is ever going to have a chance of working there. It is something that has to be struggled for and fought for and desired. Hell, ours is completely fucked up at the moment.

In fact, it appears inevitable (even Rumfilled admits it now) that if they had free elections, they would elect an ayatollah and want an islamic stay with sharia law!!

[bvar22]

9. Fool's Choice.....There are MANY alternatives.

The bush* controlled media and CorporoDems have portrayed this issue as having only two choices:

1) Cut and Run
or
2) Stay the Course

There are MANY, MANY alternatives that are NOT being discussed.

1) REALLY turn the occupation over to the UN. Not simply demand that the UN supply the US with foreign troops to be placed under US command so that they can be used for cannon fodder.

2) Remove ALL bush* appointed theater commanders to be replaced with NATO commanders.

3) Disband the Council of Quislings (IGC), replace them with a genuine interim council based on proportional representation with delegates from UN Supervised local elections. This council will have ONE PURPOSE: Produce a Transitional Constitution that will guarantee a governing body based on proportional representation and 3 branches of a National Government. Provide for Senate and House representation from at least three states.

4) Expell ALL US CORPORATIONS, and turn the rebuilding over to Iraq. Continue to provide adequate and generous rebuilding funds on a diminishing schedule.

The above measures would go a LONG way to making Iraq a more secure country. This is Not CUT AND RUN, neither is it Staying the Course.

There are MANY other alternatives that should be MAJOR TOPICS in our National Debates!!!

IMHO: Civil War in Iraq is inevitable. It will be a DISASTER if the US gets Caught in the Middle of the coming disaster without the support of a Strong International Base of Support. Simply Staying the Course will produce this disaster!

[Jacobin]

12. Those amount to outsiders "fixing" the Iraqi's country

Whether its the UN, Nato, Shmato or Plato, they are all infidels.

I don't thing many people "get" that we are occupying their country and telling them what to do.

How do you think the U.S. would react if some other country tried the same tactic here?



I thought so.

[Selwynn]

30. You fundamentally misunderstand how the UN works

The UN in this case would go in only if invited - they would work in cooperation with the Iraqis, but invitation, and would not be an oppcupying force the the US is. They would come to help rebuild, because Iraq doesn't have the resources of the abiltiy to rebuild all that we destroyed on its own.

It should be the UN and not the US because the US are seen as occupiers (they are occupiers) and are not really interested in rebuilding for Iraqi's quality of life anyway. So the US ground forces and all military occupying presence should be gone. But the UN with the open invitation of the Iraqis would come in and help Iraqis rebuild -- with construction equipment, medicine, food, and training. This is what the UN does, it works with these countries volitionally.

Now, doing that costs money.

The US as the ones who illegally CREATED THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE should be the ones to FOOT THE FUCKING BILL!

End of story.

[gulliver]

10. My take.

The argument "We broke it. We bought it," is a moral argument and, therefore, won't hold. It's just sentimentality.

We are in big trouble in Iraq. I don't think staying or going is going to make much difference in terms of United States national security. The loss there (thanks to Bush) is inestimable. We will be lucky if this only ends up being a run-of-the-mill quagmire. It is more likely to end up a cancer that threatens America. (The lesson of 9/11 is that not many Americans have to die to threaten the idea of America.)

We need to stay in Iraq for only one reason: leaving is certain failure. We would lose Iraq to a poisonous mix of radical Islam and Baathist insurgency. Iraq's oil exports would pale in comparison to its terrorism exports. IMO, that's the most likely outcome anyway, but we have to try.

But we don't have to stay Bush's catastrophic course. Bush wants to get out of Iraq but in a way that is politically safe for Republicans. His motives are therefore corrupt. Bush's actions are not in the best interest of the United States. "Bring em on" boy is covering his own ass at the expense of his country. Big surprise.

Under Bush even staying is all wrong. The Republicans are occupying Iraq. That conclusion is unavoidable. We could have sought to internationalize this thing from the beginning, but that would not have been to Bush's political advantage. (The war would would not even have happened, of course.) Now we are stuck with all bad news until Bush is ousted.

[Jacobin]

13. Question>>

I'm not trying to be smug...I don't know the answer, but I have a suspicion.

There is lots of talk of "internationalizing", but that is to attract others to invest blood and treasure to share the spoils. "internationalizing" the occupation, from the Iraqi's standpoint, it appears to me is meaningless.

I mean, an infidel who speaks french or german is an infidel who doesn't speak english. What's the difference to an Iraqi?

Are their "polls" or other ways of gauging the Iraqi feeling toward having multinational infidels occupy their country?

[gulliver]

15. Well, "globalization" is taken.

:-)

I think your suspicion about internationalization is entirely justified, particularly under Bush. It has to be done "right," and I am very pessimistic, even after impediment-in-chief Bush is ousted.

The greedheads and chickenhawks have really screwed the pooch on this Iraq war. All motives are suspect. Money is changing hands. People are dying. America is having a seizure. Bush has unleashed the Republican id. God help us all.

I think the right kind of internationalization is one where there is no Halliburton hanky-panky, no GOP political maneuvering, and no question about the motives of the world. The world has to be all benefactor. Iraq has to be all beneficiary. But under Bush, there isn't enough money, or threat, or will in the world to do the job.

[KharmaTrain]

11. The Clock Ticks...

The only people who can fix Iraq are the Iraqis, and they won't be able to start with our military stuck up their Sunni triangle. And we can't find a government that can be seen as credible that can also serve as a puppet. It's a real Catch 22...yes, Vietnam-ish.

Our "out" is working with the U.N. (No, not NATO), first to get the military out and then to set up a transfer to some type of Iraqi self-government. This seemed like such a simple concept had it been worked out in the U.N. last year, but now the possibility that this could occur is all but kaput, and sadly our only real hope to get out of this abyss with some honor.

The only other alternative is to work with the Arab league...the only other credible organization that could broker a transition that would be lasting and allow us to withdraw with a minimum of "cut and run".

I fear for the morale of our military as this adventure drags on...there's a heavy lid on what is coming back to us from inside Iraq or from the hospitals and from veterans in general. We still suffer from needless damage that was inflicted on the military during Vietnam, it appears we're doomed to the same fate again.

[MrPrax]

17. America should get out...

or simply state the outlines of PNAC honestly
They are running the risk of perpetuating another lie--regime change and the democracy and freedom stuff...
"I find this trend understandable among liberals, but very troubling."
A very old trend...and makes me respect the Right more on this issue...their honest.

The stool is running out of legs and HOPEFULLY 'liberals' will be unmasked for the war supporters they are...in time.

No middle ground in life or death issues, dears


Actually I'm wrong...there is some middle ground

[Jacobin]

20. I'm getting pretty freaked out by the Dem attitude which appears to

be unfolding about Iraq.

The Lyndon Johnson phenomenon. You are correct about the RW (at least in their think tank stuff) admitting what the true goal is, and simply using the WMD or Freedom or regime change pablum to make the medicine go down.

I have a fundamental personal abhorence to this invasion, having lived through Vietnam, and now having two sons who will soon be draft age.

The reason this is freaking me out is that the candidates---none of them except Kucinich, in my opinion---are dealing with Iraq realistically. While I think Dean, Kerry, Gephardt and Clark all have a shot at beating Bush*, I don't think Kucinich does, but don't want to start an argument about that.

They are all reciting the Bush* policy in one form or another. From the Iraqi perspective, I don't think it matters whether its Halliburton making obscene war profits, or whether the troops are "internationalized" or whether we start doing a "better job of repressing their insurgent activities". That they want us gone is so simple and easy for me to understand (trying the shoe on the other foot), I'm amazed at how Dems have been sucked into this "staying" vortex, which will be without doubt a continuing and worsening disaster.

Hell, who do I support now?

[Selwynn]

27. Kucinich says EXACTLY what I'm saying

Which is we don't ABANDON IRAQ, but we do get our troops out right now. Then we work with the United Nations and contribute finacially to Iraq's reconstruction.

In his florida speech yesterday he said "we must fix what we broke." He is certainly not talking about destroying a nation and then saying "peace out" and going home. He wants to get US ground soldiers off the ground and out for good, and turn over responsiblity for rebuilding the country to the United Nations, and the United nations can assist and aid the Iraqi's in rebuliding. But Kuncinich believes we should offer new resolutions in the UN on Iraq, and be responsible to help financially support the reparaition of what we illegally destroyed.

And he is right.

The only wrong answer is the Republican one of simply abandoning all responsibility for Iraq and pretending like it never existed. Get the troops out, allow the UN to assist the Iraqis in rebuilding, and FUND the UN's effort, ie. pay for that rebuilding process.

[jpgray]

21. The meddling of the West is responsible for many problems in the ME

If they had been left to their own devices, I doubt Sunnis, Shi-ites and Kurds would say "Hey! Let's all pretend to be one country!"

[Selwynn]

22. The only just "exit" plan is one that includes a rebuilding strategy

Now, that stategy may be to turn over all on-the-ground work to the United nations and pull our troops out, but financially speaking, we don't get to go in an illegally destroy a country and not pay war reparations - we owe Iraq money for the crimes that we've committed, we are responsible to help undo some of the destruction that we've done.

Pulling troops off the ground may be right, but as a matter of policy we cannot abandon our responsibility to help support the rebuilding process in Iraq.

[Jacobin]

24. What does that mean?

I mean really. It's just the goobly de gook that the politicians are saying.

What does that mean? "support them in rebuilding their country".....with troops knocking down their doors at night? Bombing "terrorists"?

Shouldn't we be awfully careful and awfully precise about a policy that keeps 150,000 of our people shooting at 24 million of theirs?

I mean, WTF is the UN gonna do any differently? Maybe they can calm it down somewhat by not being so inflammatory....maybe there will be less profiteering....

but what the hell do the Iraqis care about profiteering or the language of the infidels who occupy their country.

Dems are falling into the toilet-trap of continuing this occupation and NO ONE has a reasonable answer for it, other than 'ooooh, we CAN't just leave......" Why the hell not? It's NOT our country.

It belongs to them.

[Selwynn]

26. It means exactly what I said it means if you can read

It means that while I might agree with you or someone else who says that US ground soldiers should be pulled out in favor of a multi-national UN lead peachkeeping an rebuilding force, I do not agree with you that we bear no responsibilty for a country that we just illegally destroyed.

And like I said, if you read you'll notice that I said I don't have a problem with getting every US solider off the ground in Iraq. We could do that, but our responsiblity to Iraq wouldn't be over. We would continue to have the responsibilty to finance the people working for the rebuilding of everything that we illegally destroyed.

What you're saying is the equivalent of a rapist trying to justify why he shouldn't have to face prison time or account for his crimes in any way becuase the person he rapped wasn't a US citizen. The crime is still the crime, and it has consequences. The United States of America doesn't get to illegally invade another nation, destroy and ravage it, then leave with no consequences. The war was ILLEGAL, IMMORAL and WRONG and we have a responsibility, those of us who want to call ourselves just, to restore what we have unjustly destroyed.

That doesn't have to mean ground troops. It doesn't have to mean having a hand in their government establishment. What it does mean is that the United States should pay for the destruction in Iraq with dollars. It may be "their" country, but "they" weren't the ones who invaded and laid waste to it. It may be their country, be we are the ones who destroyed it. With our "might" comes responsibility. We cannot escape the consequences of our action in Iraq. Bring our boys home? Sure, but someone is going to be left trying to rebuild Iraq - its buidlings, infacstructure, etc. That cost should be ours even if its a multi-national non-us colilition that actually carries out the work.

And by the way, if a country came to the US, and started attacking our cities, and destroyed many things and did huge ammounts of damage before being defeated, we wouldn't say to them "no, that's ok you go on home, we'll clean up here." There would be conseqences for their actions.

[ecstatic]

23. I'd like to hear the opinions of Social Psychs and ME scholars about

what would most likely happen if the U.S. pulled out now.

I currently feel that the moral thing to do would be to stay and clean up the mess we've made. If terrorists take over Iraq, what will happen to the women and children? What about the non-Muslims? That is my concern. But you're absolutely right, we're totally ineffective over there right now.

[Jacobin]

25. Every day we stay makes it worse.

The first law of holes. When you are in one, stop digging.

What makes anyone think "staying" will make it better.

The exact opposite is proven every day.

[Selwynn]

28. Don't say - pull troops out, pour money into rebuilding.

Allow the UN to assist the Iraqi's with US money in rebuilding what we've destroyed.

[leftofthedial]

29. Bush doesn't want out

Bush wants to make it look like he wants out, because he thinks that will help his reelection effort.

If we stay, it will be slow-motion meltdown and a gradually escalating bloddbath, followed by horrible chaos.

If we leave now, it will be shorter and more violent in the short term, but probably better in the long run--definitely better for us, probably better for all concerned.