If there were strong signs of a positive turnaround in Iraq, would you be supportive?

[tinfoilinfor2005]

In the past few days there may be some signs indicating a decrease in violence in Iraq (and no, I don't listen to faux news). I do understand that the administration spin machine is in high gear now because they are at a make or break point. But just for the sake of argument, let's say that the firing of Rumsfeld and the instillation of a number of new leaders is starting to turn things around.

Would you rethink getting out of Iraq immediately and add your support to these positive changes?

I have always felt that going there was the wrong decision, but we did go and now that is the reality. And we've made a terrible mess of it. And I always thought we should just get out because our presence was adding to the violence and carnage. But then I started to wonder, how would I feel if things were honestly turned around, and we could see daylight, and the opportunity to clean up the mess we helped to create. Should we then stay to help the the Iraqis stabilize the region, build the schools, fix the plumbing?

I don't want to be one of those people who make decisions because they are the popular choice of my political party, but because I so mistrust the crap we have been fed by this administration, I don't know if I could be able to see another point of view.

Opinions?

[Demeter]

1. I Don't Do Drugs, so No.

And alcohol puts me to sleep. So the chances of my seeing any positive turnaround are less than nil.

[Rydz777]

19. Multiple choice answer

(1) No, (2) No, and (3) all of the above.

[Mark E. Smith]

2. I've Read Nothing That Would Indicate Things Are Turning Around In Iraq

Can you post what it is that you've seen?

Can't answer your question until I get to see some evidence supporting your premise.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

21. Tom Aspell, NBC news correspondent in Iraq, this morning,

said that they have noticed a difference in the bombings, perhaps by half or a little more since the troop increase. Can't give a link since I heard it on MSNBC only this morning.

I don't know that this means anything because in the next village the number of bombings may have doubled, and I certainly don't think that anyone can say things are turning around at this point, if ever. I'm just curious as to how people in DU feel about continued involvement in Iraq IF things were to turn around. I like the answer below that if it were to turn around, then the US should butt out and turn it over to the UN, but I don't see this administration doing that. Goes back to motive for being there in the first place, IMO.

[roamer65]

26. Tom Aspell is wrong.

BBC is reporting that while violence may be down a little bit in Baghdad, it is way up ourside of Baghdad as the Iraqi fighters change their tactics. I trust BBC much more than NBC.

[rodeodance]

3. No, too much blood lost already. and if there is success, I think it will only

be temporary-------while the extra troops are there.

the hatfield and mccoy style feud will not go away.

[Robbien]

4. We have invaded, occupied and bombed a country who was no danger to us

We do not belong there. If current military procedures are going better why would that justify our continued occupation and bombing of a country?

[Mandate My Ass]

5. Exactly

We had no business there. It would be adding insult to injury to stay because we killed so many people it got somewhat peaceful there.

[TwilightGardener]

6. I never thought

that we could withdraw from Iraq immediately. We will be there, in some form, no matter what. The thing I do not want to see happen is a claim of victory, because then this sets a precedent that pre-emptive wars are valid and beneficial, which may then very well turn into a justification for going after Iran. Also, I don't ever want this country to feel that this war was "worth it", no matter how peaceful Iraq becomes, because it was started and sustained under false pretenses, and the administration will have gotten away with its massive lies.

[TwilightGardener]

23. To add to my point...

I don't want the "These Colors Don't Run" crowd to feel national pride over this. We need a dose of humility, same as after Vietnam. A little dent to our national hubris can be a good thing.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

27. Yes, a claim of victory is a real danger, and I think that is their intention,

"the end justifies the means" mentality. And I am very dubious that that sort of peace would ever last.

[Selatius]

7. With the situation stabilizing, turn it over to the UN, we shouldn't stay.

The UN should be in charge of reconstruction at that point, assuming things are turning for the better.

Turning it over to the UN would be the only redeeming thing left to do.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

22. I agree, but I can't see that happening under the republics.

I don't think their original motive for invasion was to bring light and love to the Iraqi people.

[pampango]

28. Agreed. And I don't think the UN would accept a peacekeeping

role there. First there is not "peace" to keep and the UN has not been very enthusiastic about or effective at dealing with ongoing warfare. Second, I doubt that the UN could politically stomach and endure in Iraq if the violence continues at anything near the current rate. If there is enough Sunni opposition to living under Shiite rule and willingness to oppose it violently, I doubt that the presence of the UN will quell the violence against civilians and would eventually spill over into attacks against the UN as the new occupiers.

[tularetom]

8. I believe almost nothing I hear from the corporate media

so how the hell am I going to hear about these strong signs of a turnaround from someone I trust? Guess what I'm saying is it depends on how I learn about it.

[saltpoint]

9. The young woman in PAN'S LABRYINTH had magic chalk with which she

could draw doors into fantasy worlds.

The BushCo/PNAC folks thought they had magic chalk, too, in the Middle East.

Turns out, it's just ordinary chalk and this is what it's writing on the Middle Eastern chalkboard: YOU LOSE.

I lost, you lost, the U.S. government lost, Tony Blair lost, our soldiers lost, thousands of Iraqi civilians lost, our treasury lost, our national focus lost, our relationship with our allies lost, and on and on and on.

Petraeus himself is said to have considered the "surge" only a 1-in-4 chance for success. If that chance were realized and there was a dramatic turnaround, we'd have no choice but to readjust our thinking. But I don't think it's realistic and I don't think it will happen.

Iraq is a loser's leg-iron Bush drags with him into deep history.

[CJCRANE]

10. The problem is

Bushco want to keep the troops there forever. So they could say, "look it's working so we have to keep the troops there to maintain the situation".

[brazos121200]

11. There's no way 21,000 troops is going to turn around Iraq,

the insurgents are still there and are not going anywhere. For every insurgent we kill there are two or three to take their place, and when we kill innocent civilians it only serves to recruit even more insurgents. No, just like Vietnam, there will be no miraculous "turnaround" in Iraq, because the situation has not changed. There may be periods of lull as the insurgents adapt to different tactics by the occupation, but nothing essentially will change. American casualties will only grow until the troops are withdrawn.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

30. But now I hear that the 21,000 is going to be up to more like 50,000.

Do we even know the exact numbers yet or who might have that information?

[Double T]

12. "In the past few days there may be some signs indicating a decrease in violence in Iraq"............

I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is NOT true.

Roundup of Iraq Violence -- March 7, 2007
By Mohammed al Dulaimy
McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/16853624.htm

[peace13]

13. I thought maybe it was April Fools Day.

Do you read about the bombings and deaths that occur daily?

[wuushew]

14. Vietnam syndrome was a very good disease for this country to have

it kept this country largely free of military entanglements for several decades. To bad hubris and ideology are like ever resurgent cancer.

Invariably anything that could be spun as a success in Iraq would simply be used as propaganda to support regime change in Iran, with the resultant mass causalities that would follow.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Very well said!

Colin Powell used to tout the post-Vietnam strategy of going in big, hitting hard, and having a clear exit strategy BEFORE you begin--how quickly we forgot...

[genie_weenie]

16. The problem with such a

basic false dicthomy such as so-called strong signs of positive turnaround is the nature of the conflict in Iraq.

Insurgents can merely flee any area where we decide to station large numbers of troops, for example Falluja Nov 2004 and Baghdad Feb 2007, because the country is open to them.

Now, if the US was to go out and use the brutal tactics as witnessed in the US/Phillipine War of 1899-1913, the Second Boer 1899-1902, the French/Alegian War and as theorized by the French Writer Roger Trinquier, the US might be able to "win", where the definiton of winning is beat the population of Iraq into submission to US presence. These tactics would include, rounding up of women and children then placing them in Refugee camps, Free Fire Zones in cleared grided areas, limited torture of enemies not in uniform (which curiously would stop once information has been obtained and his status as an "enemy" has been declared), more killing of enemies than capture efforts.

Of course, such actions are morally reprehensible and should not be acceptable forms of warfare. But, that is the way you "win" a conflict such as Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070308/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[Dr.Phool]

17. Since I was against it before there was any violence. NO!

That seems to be the latest talking point though. "The only reason people are against it, is because we're losing. If we were winning nobody would care".

I've been hearing that a lot on the news and c-span lately.

[cotdom]

18. Yes, I would be supportive.

1. if in fact the signs were strong, and not propaganda. If they were sustained. If a little history passed.

2. I would not be supportive of the folks who got us there, under any circumstances.

3. I would be supportive of any situation there that was really turning around.

4. I see no strong signs at this time that I believe, and I do not expect to see any, because there was never a plan that would be successful.

5. Old economics: If the Middle East is in turmoil, American Oil makes profits. So I don't expect things will turn around.

[yardwork]

20. I haven't seen any signs that things are improving in Iraq

Please enlighten us.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

24. Nor have I. The post is meant to be hypothetical, although based

a bit on a news report I heard a couple of hours ago. See post #21 above.

[Kare]

25. Positive turnaround = U.S. turning and leaving. nm

[Bandit]

29. I'll have some of that stuff you are smoking

You must be high.....

[tinfoilinfor2005]

33. No, I was just always taught to look at all sides of an object

before forming an opinion, and I still try to keep an open mind. But not so open that my brains spill out. I think you'll find that I'm in agreement with your point of view.

P.S. Not smoking or even drinking good rum right now, but the day is young. :)

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. If pigs started flying, would I stop eating pork?

Suuuure.

[Jacobin]

32. I don't support rape, pillage, conquest and colonialism

If we were 'successful' it would not be a 'success'. It would only encourage more rape, pillage, conquest and colonialism

[Cosmocat]

34. Dude, I hate to state the obvious ...

As most have noted, they are saying things are improving at the same time we are hearing the SAME number of reports of bombings, killings ... ect ... Things are improving over there like our economy is "booming" ...

I hate to state the obvious ... But, this is these clowns trying to make lemonade out of lemons by recreating the aftermath of Vietnam, when these scumbags used pulling out of Vietnam to paint the democrats as weak ...

They are SUCCESSFULLY manipulating their MSM whores to say there was some improvement in this "surge" so that when the Ds FINALLY are able to muster enough support to pull this plug on this thing, they can spend the next three decades pointing to Iraq being in flames and saying it is the democrats fault for forcing a pullout ...

[The Night Owl]

35. Not a day goes by without me wishing that I were wrong about Iraq.

Not a day goes by without me wishing that I were wrong about Iraq. Unfortunately, not a day goes by without reports of violence and mayhem in Iraq demonstrating that I am right about it.

I have not seen any signs indicating a decrease in violence in Iraq and I really have a difficult time understanding why you would suggest that developments over a period of time as short as a few days should be considered an indicator of anything.

TNO