The morality of abandoning Iraq: Why we should stay.

I am not in total agreement with the majority of this board, those who wish to have an immediate pull out of Iraq - to simply pick up and leave. On a moral level we systematically bombed and destroyed an entire nation. It may take as many as fifteen to twenty years to rebuild itself back to a point equal to where it stood BEFORE we invaded. Countless innocents have been slain by our hands. In good conscience, I could not condone simply leaving as if nothing happened. I cannot condone leaving the Iraqi's to their own fate - a fate we have played a key role in creating for them.

We broke Iraq. We must carry that burden. American's may not like that - too bad. The majority of American's supported the invasion of Iraq, now they must carry the burden of that choice. Decisions have consequences. It is the height of arrogance to believe that we should - or that we even could - escape the consequences of our actions. To do so is to invite the same mistakes to be repeated in the future. Perhaps carrying the burden of Iraq will forever remind us of the folly of our actions, and humble us to be more rational in the future.

However, I do agree that we cannot continue with the same approach. We simply cannot rebuild the country. Two large factions within Iraq are hell bent on killing each other and we are being killed by trying to keep both of them at bay. If we leave, they will slaughter each other and the entire region could fall into chaos. Iran will gain a "new" western province. We cannot avoid the realities that will have on the region, the geopolitical realities it will have around the world, and the effect it will have on us here at home.

I didn't agree with going to war with Iraq. I disagreed with it from the very beginning. I've had family serving in Iraq. Yet here we are - in Iraq - now what? That is really the question that no one has an answer to: "now what"? We destroyed their nation, demoralized and dehumanized their people, indirectly created a civil war, and have failed at every objective we set out to accomplish - now what?

Personally, I think we are faced with very few options. We cannot save the Iraqi's from themselves. If they wish to engage in a civil war, then we can do nothing to stop it. Our goal should instead focus on the moderates, those who just want to live their lives in peace, and to have safety for their families. Let the radicals and fanatics kill each other if that is their goal. Save those who wish to be saved.

I would propose that we build bases in the more remote regions of Iraq, and that we actively undermine their so-called "government". It has failed on every objective. Their government is nothing more than a two faced puppet - one face for the United States and one face for Iran. The government actively favors Iran. Undermine them and get rid of them. There is no point in having a middle man. Forget democracy in Iraq - it is not going to happen. Not in the near future.

With bases built in the more remote regions of the country (at key locations) we should actively seek out Iraqi's who want to get away from the chaos. Use those bases as oasis's of stability in an otherwise chaotic country. Provide security, homes, jobs, and all the necessities for life. Let new communities and settlements grow up around those bases. Extend the influence outward as the years pass. Only engage insurgents through air strikes - do not risk American lives. Prevent Iranian influence through killing or imprisoning any leaders that arise within the country who support Iran.

In effect, we would be digging in and waiting out the insurgents. We will let them kill each other off as we actively ensure that they are in a constant state of chaos, and as time goes on they will turn upon one another as warlords step forward, fighting over scraps of land. Meanwhile, in our oasis's of stability, sane and rational Iraqi's will be influenced by Western ideals - democracy, secularism and equal rights. Their children will be educated in these things.

Fifteen to twenty years from now I could imagine the insurgency dying out, and perhaps - influenced by the western world - a democracy coming to fruition in Iraq. A true democracy, one born from the people and not imposed by a foreign power.

This could be accomplished by withdrawing our troops from bases located in peaceful nations such as Germany and other European countries, and relocating them to Iraq. It would not be necessary for a "surge" or an escalation of the war. We would no longer be fighting, unless to defend the innocent from attack.

I know a lot of people will disagree with this idea. The vast majority of people here want to leave Iraq and never look back, but how can anyone morally justify it? Sure, most Iraqi's want us gone - but more than that I believe Iraqi's want to live in peace and stability. Iraq as it stands will be neither, and it will become much worse if we leave. I would encourage people to read this story, and to also read this story in the Washington Post.



Can we really leave the Iraqi's to this, after we directly caused it? This is our fault. We have a moral responsibility to try and fix it as best we can. It will never be "right", and nothing will make up for what we have done, but that still does not mean we can walk away from the responsibility to try. America supported this war. America must bear the responsibility. People can hurl insults at Bush all they want, but if anyone wants to know who is really to blame all they have to do is look next door or in the mirror. America supported Bush and his misbegotten war and now everyone must live with the consequences of that choice.

Flame away.

We have the moral responsibility to quit giving money to the War Corporations and to spend it directly on Iraq. (this is the 1 "objective we set out to accomplish", we did not fail) We have the moral responsibility to help them, not continue to destroy them, to help rebuild, not continue to destroy to rout out "insurgents", to quit arresting and torturing but start throwing money, and healthcare, and food, and water, AT the people rather than continuing doing what we are doing to use up people and supplies and keep the War Profiteers rich.

That is where our energy should be focused. It is something that is more realistic, something that we might actually be able to force Bush to do, because short of the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney, giving the presidency to Nancy Pelosi - we aren't leaving Iraq. If we pull out of Iraq with a Democratic President, politically speaking the Democratic Party will be blamed for the failure to win Iraq. We will be blamed for the failures by the media, and if nothing else, Bush wants to ride out his presidency to pass on this cluster fuck to a Democratic President.

The suggestion I made above will not bear any fruit for years to come. Bush will gain no benefit from it, aside from stanching the blood flow of the American Military. I believe it is both realistic and perhaps the only way to make progress at this point.

I believe the Iraqi's (justifiably) do not trust us. I believe we should continue to pay the same amount per month that our military is expending now - only have the money go to international aid agencies such as the Red Crescent and to the nascent Iraqi government to fund rebuilding of infrastructure. The money would be given with no strings attached.
Security would be boosted by internaional peacekeeping forces made up mostly by people from the region, led by the Iraqi's themselves.
I honestly believe American troops are no longer in a position to be considered as anything other than occupiers by the population. We squandered the brief period of goodwill when we might have made a positive change there. We must leave, but we must also pay for many years to come.

Iraq has no security. Any money we give to the Iraqi government will either end up in Iran or in the pockets of those in power. The Iraq government is a sham and will do nothing for the people. International aid organizations can't do anything in the country because once we leave it will collapse into chaos even further. The whole point in withdrawing to more remote regions, and specifically in key locations, is to prevent the chaos from spreading into neighboring nations and to try and contain it within Iraq itself.

They do not trust us, and as you said - this is justifiable. However, we are the lesser of all the evils that they face. I do not see international peacekeeping forces being sent to Iraq. Other nations, rightfully, do not want to get involved. Our only hope at this point is to prevent chaos from spreading to other nations, to prevent Iran from gaining control, and to slowly - over the course of many years - rebuild the good will we squandered in the beginning.

Why wouldn't the dominant shiite majority in Iraq naturally want to alley with the Shia majority in Iran? Many fought together in the Iran Iraqi war. Is that bad? If so, why? I forgot why Iran is really really bad. Do you have any living memory of them attacking anybody? I don't.


If other nation do not want to be involved, it is a little late. Many have already participated by providing basing, military overflights, etc. If they are worried that war will spill over into their countries, then perhaps they would see it in their own interests to participate.

And then too, there are the countries who were "members of the coalition of the billing." Do they have
any responsibilities for their decisions?

The American people voted for Gore. Gore won Florida and the national vote. Why should taxpayers as a whole be responsible for the insane adventures of a criminal class who stole power?

Trying to play on both sides of the fence is a losing game. Either we take responsibility for prosecuting the criminals and demanding they pay restitution to Iraq for their crimes, or we just play the part of enablers, enabling the criminals to continue their current exploitation of both Iraqi and US citizens.

Expecting our military to behave like the Peace Corp is naive. What if in 20 years we haven't rebuilt good will? Will it be time to leave then?

I'll start at the end of your post and answer it in reverse. Our primary goal shouldn't be to try and rebuild good will. Our primary military objective in the region should be to prevent the chaos going on in Iraq from spreading to neighboring nations. Our secondary military objective in Iraq should be to try and create stabilized regions where Iraqi's who want to live in peace can relocate to and carve out a living. In the process of the second objective we should try and earn good will. We should remain in Iraq for as long as necessary, be it 20 or 200 years.

Yes, America must pay the consequences. The majority of the American people supported the invasion of Iraq right from the beginning. They may have been duped by lies from the administration and a willing and eager media, but that excuse cannot erase the consequences of what happened. A "I'm sorry I blew up your country, good luck" is not going to fix things.

To believe other nations, aside from the UK and perhaps Australia are really involved is somewhat silly. It is the equivalent of when Bush was trying to pretend that Poland was a serious coalition member. This is an American misadventure, and it has been right from the beginning, with the UK government giving its support. The British are just as guilty as the Americans in this regard and should also assist in bearing the consequences.

Iran is a hostile nation to the United States and the Western World, and it is not a democratic nation. It is nothing short of a theocracy, but worst of all it could end up provoking all out war in the region as it gains control of Iraq. Yes, it may not but is it a chance we can take? As I said in another post, Saddam served a purpose - while evil - he served as the man who created stability in the region. When we removed him from power we took up that role, and as a result we cannot just abandon it because we don't like what it entails.

the West, primarily the US, who refuses to negotiate.

We ceased to be a democratic republic on Jan 6th 2000, so what of it? Iran holds elections, you know. The ruling party just lost big a little while ago. What criteria do you use to claim they aren't a democratic nation?

If 200 years is OK with you, then why don't we just annex Iraq right now and quit pretending we aren't imperialists?

Have you ever given any thought to the notion that the bush administration screwed up so bad so we would have an open ended excuse to stay? Why did we start from day 1 building massive permanent bases in Iraq? So we could leave quick?

No, I'm already gone, and I was against the whole empire idea from the start. The faster we leave, the quicker Iraq will reach a balance the people can live with. Invaders and occupiers are not moral, no matter what excuse they try to use to cover up their actions.

If we leave, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and turkey will fill the void. And that makes a lot more sense than us doing it.

We should do massive air lifts of food, medicine, clothes, water, and other necessities to the civilians. When things calm down, we should send civilians to build infrastructure.

But we need to get out of the empire business quick. If we know what's good for us, that is. And staying in Iraq is the exact opposite of that.

The Bush Administration never had any intentions of us leaving. Yes, they are Imperialists. I don't think they purposefully screwed things up so we will be stuck there forever, the Democratic Party by and large support an Imperialistic agenda as well. The American people, by and large would not have cared if we seized control of Iraq and remained there. The only reason Americans are so angry at this point in time is because of all the deaths of American's. It's effecting them and they don't like it, and that is not something the Bush Administration wanted. I believe that the Administration really believed their own bullshit - that the Iraqi's would welcome us with flowers and candy. They were fools.

You suggest that we are no longer a democratic republic, I suppose the recent democratic victories are a fluke, then? That the American people's voice wasn't heard?

The power in Iran is held by the Supreme Leader not the President. The Presidency in Iran has roughly 25% of the power while the Supreme Leader has roughly 75%. If we wanted to deal with Iran it would be near pointless to deal with the President of Iran. I would suggest reading the Constitution of Iran for a better understanding of how the country is organized and its stated goals. Some key quotes:

"...in accordance with the aims and aspirations set out above, with the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others."

"1) the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;"

Etc. Those are just some minor highlights. Iran is a theocracy, not a democracy. Any who wish to run for National Election in Iran must first have the approval of the Guardian Council, most of whom are granted power by the Supreme Leader. (Notice the trend?)

power while appearing to be much more open and democratic. And probably from a pure democratic point of view, there are enough deeply religious followers in Iraq that many (whether it's 50% + 1 or not, I don't know) like having the religious dude as the final say on many things. This may change, depending on what ideas become popular in Iran among the huge young population demographic.

In the US, the person who spends the most money wins, almost always. In fact it happens so much, that overall control of congress is more determined by money spent on the race than any other factor i can think of.




It's proven our democracy failed in 2000, by selecting the president based on active suppression-of-the-vote schemes run by public officials to benefit their candidate.

Computer glitches seem to have a decidedly Repo bent here since the explosion of computerized voting schemes, running better than 90% according to voter problem recording and reporting groups. The sample sizes of problems reported due to "glitches" is growing and it's very strange that glitches favor republicans. I thought glitches were non-partisan.


So my point is, I'm not sure our government has the public perception gravitas to make an argument about Iran's power structure. I can't see how our current power structure is particularly superior to Iran's from the point of view of someone living in a third country. We both practice the death penalty, torture, and other barbarian stuff.

We both have Autocratic unelected leadership.

Your "Save the Iraqi children" argument is powerful but not logical. We are occupiers, and the reason those kids are in such piss poor shape is because we invaded and occupied. Our leader is a war criminal in the realist, most literal sense of the word. Everybody knows we used white phosphorous in Fallujah, everybody knows the Geneva Conventions specifically hold the occupying power accountable for the general welfare of the population. So staying to us, means occupation. Not welfare.

The "Save the children" argument reminds me of the powerful emotional argument used that helped keep us killing and dying in Vietnam for years. That argument went, "Our allies in South Vietnam are depending on us for protection from the communists." So we stayed. Was staying better for our allies, for ourselves? Not really. In fact, if instead of Johnson doing the build-up he had sought negotiations with Ho predicated on US withdrawal my bet is everybody would be much better off today. Here and in S.E.Asia.

We'd all be richer, happier, and healthier.

So we need to get out of Iraq for the children.

Then, if Americans want to return as NGOs or the Peace Corp to provide humanitarian relief, I'm all for it. But we fucked up very bad and sometimes the most graceful thing an occupier can do is make an exit. Do we really want kids throwing rocks at us for years? The Saudis need to come in and provide security for the Sunnis, maybe divvy up the oil proceeds in Kirkuk between the Sunnis and the Kurds. The Iranians can help the Kurds negotiate. Turn Baghdad into a divided city with a green line, The Shea get the South of the country and the oil there. It's messed up, but what about the children?

I understand you may not agree, but that's my take.

the Iraqi people for another 2 years. There is nothing we (thinking and compassionant) people can do at this time to correct the excesses of the Decider BabyBitch. Him and his team have mismanaged everything and why do you think that will get better- Bob Gates maybe - I doubt it.

We turn to them and demand that they find a way to fix it. Create new laws if they have to, or find ways to pressure Bush into doing something that is reasonable. Threaten him with Impeachment - do whatever is necessary. We have leverage now, and we should use every ounce of it to correct the mistakes that have been made.

Any laws the marginally Democratic congress passes are moot. About all they can do is tighten the purse strings and hope that we are not seen as leaving the military people in the lurch. Because you know the "Decider" will leave them in Iraq even if they don't have ammo to protect themselves. He. of course, will blame congress.

This is why I do not propose cutting the funding for the Iraq War. We know damn well that Bush will not pull out the troops even if there is not a penny left to spend. He will leave them there to fight with sticks and rocks if necessary. If we cut funding, it won't punish Bush or solve any of the problems. It will just harm the soldiers, and yes the Congress will be blamed and yes the American people will view the Democratic Party as abandoning the troops.

OUR goal should be to try and work with the Republican's in Congress to come up with a solution that can work. To work in a bi-partisan manor and side-step the Bush Administration entirely or to come up with something that the Bush Administration will agree too.

Bush isn't going to pull us out of Iraq. We need to solve this problem before the next Presidential election, because if a Democratic President is elected (highly likely) he or she will receive ALL of the blame for what has happened in Iraq. The American people will be stupidly duped into believing that everything was coming up roses until the Democrats took control. Every bad thing that happens will be enhanced ten times by the American Media.

If we pull out the troops, the Democratic Party will take the blame for the ensuing chaos that will result. Our only hope is to force Bush into accepting a reasonable proposal, or to get the Republicans in Congress to work with us.

look back" That I disagree with. "We have a moral responsiblity" That part I do agree with.
But first and foremost is to stop the deaths of our troops and of Iraqi citizens. It's true, the USA fucked up Iraq; we here know it was a mistake and that there are countless evils by bushco. But now we must let the Iraqis sort it out. Further military ops will not solve the dilemma. When the dust does settle, then we can and should institute recovery aid.

We let them sort it out, and in the mean time we do our best to ensure that chaos does not spread to neighboring countries. In the process, we use those bases as a way to allow Iraqi communities to re-emerge. We let it be known that Iraqi's who wish to live a peaceful life, with stability, to make their way to those communities - and we look for ways to ensure that they can get there. The VAST majority of Iraqi's just want to live in peace - they do not want to fight against us. That is the want of just about every human being - to live in peace, to not be threatened and to raise their family in a stable environment.

Those who wish to fight - those who wish to jihad - let them do it. Let them kill each other, but those who wish to have a future in this world we have a moral obligation to ensure that such a future is possible for them.

...toward restitution for any victim of crime is to stop the crime. We cannot help Iraq while we continue to occupy it.

the war and don't support the war. I don't think we can just pull out either the US needs to talk to the other parties in the region and work out a political solution. You are proposing we leave troops in Iraq for decades, that's what the F--- Bush wants to do.

DEFINE MODERATE. The moderates are being murdered. They're dead or fled.

Our "moral responsibility" was NOT TO INVADE. We FAILED. NOTHING we do will be accepted. We built schools. They murdered the teachers. School is suspended. Don't talk about the schools. NOTHING can come from us. We are the poison that killed them.

I'm truly sorry so many Americans can't face the outcome of our crime. We have to leave. When we leave there will be a bloodbath. WHENEVER we leave, today, tomorrow, next century, there will be a bloodbath. We carelessly destroyed a nation. It is NOT up to us to fix it now. We only destroy it more. Think fruit of the poisonous tree. We MUST leave. After the bloodbath abates, they will start to work out their own destiny. It is beyond arrogance to think we have any right in that.

The blood is on our hands. Staying won't wash it off.

Temporarily, Iran will have an advantage because of the Shia majority it is helping. But Iran Shia are not Arabs and the alliance will eventually fail as the two groups of Shia return to despising each other. The Sunni minority is in peril. But Sunni are the majority of Muslims so if they have to flee, they have a possibility of making new lives among their own. It is going to be a mess. If our guilt is overwhelming, and it should be, we can think about refugee aid to the nations that take them in...but only on condition that they are not segregated like the Palestinians were, because we know how well that turned out.

We broke it. We do NOT own it. We can't fix it. We have to leave the chinashop.

also on moral grounds. Just because you and I were against the war doesn't justify leaving the country in chaos. No matter what happened in the past and who did it, we're responsible for the consequences of our recommendations.

There seems to be a sense that Iraq can't get any worse. It absolutely can. The split in the military is so deep that without a US presence, a breakdown of command is very likely, in which the army splits into Sunni and Shiite factions and tacitly makes common cause with the insurgent forces. A wider war with surrounding nations is quite likely.

I don't know if supporters of immediately withdrawal don't believe this or whether there is a sense that because of Bush's bad decisions we can wash our hands of the consequences.

The immediate objection is that the US presence is making things worse rather than better. That may be true. But the only good thing about the US presence is that it's preventing open warfare, and there are other steps that can be taken to find a soft landing and a peaceful solution. The problem is that Bush is adamantly opposed to all of them.

I actually think that the most likely solution is that Bush will keep troops in Iraq until his last day in office no matter how badly it goes. That will leave it a new Democratic president to get us out of the mess. Hopefully it will not be too late for the Iraqis.

I think there is a prevailing feeling in America, even if it is unsaid, that if we get out of Iraq we can stop worrying about Iraq. We can pretend that it didn't happen. We can't wash this off our hands, and if American's think they can forget about Iraq - they are fools. An all out war in the Middle East is highly likely if we leave. I'm not talking about some measly little insurgent groups, I am talking about a war between nations. The balance was so delicate before we moved in - and now it rests literally on the edge of a sword. We are the only thing keeping that balance. Before it, Saddam - as evil as he was - he served a purpose. It was the reason we left him alive when we invaded Iraq the first time.

Now he is gone. Now we have replaced him. Now we must serve that same purpose, and if American's don't realize the implications... well yes, it is about the oil. That is our major concern when it comes to that region of the world. Problems could echo outward from that region and cause conflict in other parts of the world, particularly in developing nations such as China and India who have growing oil addictions.

People really do not realize the scale of what we have done. It isn't just Iraq. It is the world, the consequences of our actions will echo outward from Iraq to touch every developed and developing nation. I think those in power realize this, including the Bush Administration, and realize just how big of a cluster fuck they have created, and it is one of the reasons there is not a big push to leave. But I also believe that in Washington, there is no real answer on how to solve the problem - one that is acceptable to the American people (who want to leave) and one that is acceptable to the rest of the world.

because of national self-absorption.

America would be just as safe after a withdrawal from Iraq. But the answer is not the same for the Iraqis.

stop you from thinking. What makes you imagine that we have any clue how to stop there from being more violence and more orphans and widows? You have nothing but wishful thinking.

I think we have done a horrendous thing in Iraq. I don't think we can fix it. I don't believe any other peacekeeping force will come in while the US is in occupation.

I think if the US leaves, we could get an international force into Iraq. But no one is willing to follow Bush's disasterous decisions.

I think that the Iraqi government should not be allowed to sign any long term oil contracts right now. Any contracts should wait until the country is at peace so that the revenues can be shared equitably between the Iraqi peoples. I don't know if you realize that the iraqis had a democratically elected leader which we had assasinated because he nationalize the oil fields.

Before you overflow in self-sacrifice, ask yourself....which of the Republican leaders of this country are making sacrifices. Which ones of them have persuaded their own family members to put themselves at risk because of a) this is the battle for survival of our civilization or b) because we owe it to the Iraqi people.

The Iraqis have to solve their own violence. After they do that, we can PAY for them to rebuild, we can PAY reparations. But there is no way that the US should in any way benefit from causing this war. We should not get military bases. We should not get lucrative contracts.

... "wait out" factional rivalries that have existed for centuries. Your "plan" has no merit.

We are going to let them fight and kill each other. Most Iraqi's will take America up on the offer for safety and security, allowing the fringe elements to fight it out. There will not be enough food for them to fight forever. They'll either surrender, starve or die from fighting. We will bomb them from the air to ensure that they never build anything.

The radicals and fanatics will be left to stand all on their own, isolated.

... we are accomplishing nothing by being there. We should leave and let them sort it out. Any "resolution" that is forced on them by us will never stand.

We are keeping Iran at bay and keeping the chaos from spreading to the surrounding nations. The moment we leave is the moment Iran moves in and the chaos spreads.

... you are admitting that we'll be there forever with your statement "the moment we leave".

I don't want to be there forever. Being there forever is not a viable option. We have to leave sometime, and it might as well be now, why throw more lives and money down a rat hole?

Iraq is not a rat hole, and even if it were, we are the ones responsible for making it that way. How much it costs to fix it should be the least of our concerns, because there is not enough money in all the world to actually pay back the Iraqi's for all that we have done to them.

Second, we still have bases in peaceful nations like Germany and Japan. The goal of what I propose is to first stabilize the nation, by separating the peaceful Iraqi's from the insurgents and eliminating the insurgents. This is similar to how the Romans enacted their Imperial rule - they turned "Barbarians" into "Romans" and simply eliminated any opposition. However, to ensure that the Imperialists don't get their ultimate dream of controlling every grain of Iraqi sand, after the nation is stabilized and on the road to recovery, we begin a democratic transition. I would imagine that this could begin in 2015 - with a five-year transition ending in 2020. This is if the insurgency is largely crushed. Once there is a stabilized and democratic Iraq if they wish for us to leave, we should then begin withdrawing, but there cannot be a government of any type until we eliminate the opposition groups and the radicals who want to seize control of the nation.

One of the biggest mistakes made in the invasion was to believe that Iraq was like a post WWII Germany, where we could just hand things over to a "democratic" government. Now their so-called sham of a democracy is beholden to radical factions within their own country, trying to hold together, and those radical elements themselves want to seize control of the nation and bring it under THEIR rule. I don't support the tyranny that they wish to impose, because I actively believe that democracy, while far from perfect, is better than the other alternatives.

Sorry, again I don't buy your premise. It isn't just radical elements, it might well be a majority of the population.

Do you even wonder why the factional fighting has basically accelerated since the beginning of the invasion? It is because the Sunnis don't like the Shia, and neither like the Kurds.

It is the REASON that the Iraqi police force and the government have achieved NOTHING in 3 years.

I absolutely don't want to waste another American life on this conflict. It is our fault that this was unleashed? Yes, no doubt. But this isn't Pottery Barn. We broke it, but we CANNOT fix it, period. Only the Iraqis can fix it, and frankly what will eventually play out IMHO is one faction will "win" and that will be it.

As far as I'm concerned, the only strategy that MIGHT work would be to partition the country and give each faction a homeland. That is a POLITICAL solution, it cannot be accomplished militarily.

It's time for give Iraq back to the Iraqis. 2015, you have GOT to be kidding.

You can have the last word, your arguments are empty.

...to just allow the Iraqi's to slaughter each other until one faction "wins". Yes, I agree with you - this is the end result if we leave. You find that an acceptable solution to the problem. I do not. This is why we disagree.

I value the lives of the Iraqi's. If it costs one American life to save one hundred Iraqi lives I think that is more than a fair trade off, or have we become so arrogant to believe that our lives are somehow inherently "better" than an Iraqi life? Any sacrifices we make, either through blood or through treasure, can be laid at the feet of those who supported going to war and those who took us to war.

What I suggested should be done is perhaps the "best" solution for Iraq, but it is far from either kind or "good". To be blunt, I effectively suggested that we begin withdrawing into the remote regions of Iraq. We begin assisting Iraqi's who wish to cooperate with the United States, that is people willing to submit to our occupation, and we help assist them in reestablishing their lives. Especially, we focus on ensuring that children are cared for - many are orphaned having lost their family.

This effectively separates those willing to work with us and those who are actively working against us. After we have them separated, we then crush those who work against us through military might - both through bombing them into submission and cutting off supplies. This stabilizes the country because there is no one left there to oppose our occupation. We then spend until 2015 making up for the fact that we've killed thousands of their people by assisting them in rebuilding their country. We also strive very hard to blend Western and Middle Eastern culture. We do what we can to fuse them together so that, especially the younger people (who will basically be most of what is left - people under 30) will be more favorable toward the Western World. This will make the transition to Democracy easier, and by 2020 hopefully we will have a government that is at the very least favorable to the Western World even if it is not favorable to the United States.

We just have to begin a massive propaganda campaign to try and frame Iran and the insurgents for many of the bad things that have happened to try and win over the Iraqi's once we've isolated those who could potentially support us. Then we just have to cross our fingers and hope for the best.

This effectively achieves what we set out to do, and hopefully corrects the mistakes that were made from the beginning. It also avoids a much wider war within the region which would result in many more deaths that we cause in pacifying the country, and hopefully ensures a much better future for Iraq.

Is it a "good" policy? No. It is evil, but it faces the reality that we find ourselves and it ensures that Iraq does not fall into the hands of Iran, that there is not a massive war in the Middle East, and that Iraq will hopefully become a Democratic Nation in the future. Although the end result will be the deaths of many, the lives we take will be significantly less than those lost should we leave and allow there to be a massive war with one faction "winning".

Then a suggestion: read this and this.

Nothing I suggested conflicts with Clarke wrote. "Our efforts, then, are merely postponing the day when Iraqis find their way to something approaching normalcy." I agree, but what isn't said is what will be "normal" for Iraq. Massive genocide is what will be "normal" and thousands more dead. That is unavoidable, but it is unacceptable to think that we can't save at least some Iraqi's from that fate.

"A similarly illogical argument for staying in Iraq is that chaos would follow any near-term U.S. withdrawal. The flaw lies not in the concept that chaos will happen, but rather in thinking that chaos would only happen if we withdraw in the near-term." It is not the chaos in Iraq that is a problem. Iraq is already in chaos. It is the chaos spreading to the surrounding nations, something that the United States IS keeping at bay. If we leave it WILL spread to the surrounding nations and will cause massive regional instability. This instability will impact nations around the world, including the United States, and it is the primary reason we are still there today.

Nothing I suggested conflicts with the Time article either. I am literally suggesting we let the Iraqi's who want to fight and kill each other do just that. We would only have two military objectives: The first is to keep their civil war from effecting neighboring nations. Our second would be to setup bases in key remote regions of the country, regions that will fall completely under our control. We would then allow the Iraqi's who want to live peaceful secure lives to locate and live around those bases.

You see, the Iraqi's who want to fight - they will continue to do so no matter what. We will just ensure that they never grow powerful enough to be a threat. Overtime as more and more moderate and sane Iraqi's move to locate themselves around the bases, the insurgency will lose its momentum and power. Throughout that time we will constantly bomb them to keep them in a state of chaos and weakened. They will eventually have to give up or die - either from fighting each other or starvation because there will be no food shipped to them. They will have no structure supporting them or their cause and if they try and setup such a structure we will destroy it.

The Iraqi's who locate around the bases will be extremely antagonistic of any insurgents who show up and try and take root there - they will blame those insurgents for being forced from their homes. They will not want those insurgents to threaten their newly found peace and security, as that is the one thing all humans want and need: security.

do nothing to stop the violence from spreading. In fact, it will compound an already chaotic situation. The danger there is that it will devolve into anarchy.
The purpose of withdrawing from the battlefield is to take U.S. troops out of the equation for violence. Much more can be accomplished, politically and diplomatically, by pulling the troops out from the midst of a civil war.

We pull out of Baghdad. We go to remote regions of the country, and seize control over those areas. We do not focus on stopping the civil war, but on ensuring that it does not spread out of the country, while simultaneously trying to create islands of stability around our bases for refugees fleeing the chaos.

Clarke and others are suggesting we pull out and go somewhere like Kuwait. What is the point? They don't want refugees poring into their country. The only way we can contain Iraq and ensure that the chaos does not spread is by remaining in Iraq. We would not lose (many more) troops because we would not be risking their lives by allowing them to get involved with the Iraqi civil war. We would not be sending them into harms way unless the Iraqi's tried to assault the bases, which is unlikely because they will be too busy fighting themselves.

That would be until the Iraqis took over, by the deadline.

Also, you mentioned morality. I would not advocate just standing by and watching the Iraqis continue killing themselves. This is where the political and diplomatic solutions come in.

We all know that Bush is against diplomacy and working with others, and when he tries he normally fails. We aren't left with many options.

If nothing else Bush will want to remain in Iraq until he leaves office. The next President, who everyone at this point thinks will likely be a democrat, will be left to deal with this mess. The aftermath of pulling out of Iraq will ensure that it will be a one time Democratic President - the American people will blame that individual for the fall out. The Republicans will see to it and the media will work toward those ends as well.

This is why we must come to a solution while Bush is in office.

implemented without the presence of American troops in Iraq. Lay the framework, hand the country back to the Iraqis and withdraw U.S. troops.

Cut funding, impeach, whatever it takes to stop the madness.

If we could just hand it over to the Iraqi's everything would be moot. There would be no debate.

We are left with a few options:

1. More of the same.
2. Get help from Iran, who already has power in the country.
3. Pick up and leave.
4. Try something else.

The first isn't working so it is off the table. The second isn't feasible, because Iran will screw us over. Furthermore, it would just completely destabilize the region and Saudi Arabia will go into convulsions. Leaving pretty much has the same end result as the second choice, with the possibility for mass chaos. The only feasible solution is to try something else.

We cannot leave. We are stuck there because of the implications it will have if we leave. Leaving could in all honesty lead to World War III with nukes involved.

I seriously doubt that. This plays into the argument that the U.S. plans on abandoning Iraq. It's the "cut and run" argument.

Abandoning Iraq is spin for staying the course.

What will happen if Iran officially gains control over Iraq, and Saudi Arabia decides to do something about it? What will Israel do? What about Hezbollah in Lebanon and what about Pakistan? Then what will be the response from China, Russia and India?

One of the biggest mistakes we continuously make with the Middle East is not understanding how everything is interconnected. Everything is connected. Everything. One small action can ripple outward to effect surrounding nations and the political dynamics can shift dramatically. This then ripples outward to effect other nations, including the United States.

It is about the oil, it has always been about the oil, who controls it and who gets access to it.

devolves into anarchy and the U.S. has to leave in a hurry?

Fear is not a policy.

be hostage? The numbers on their side are massive, huge. We have the power to bomb them all back to the stone age, which is about what would happen. Probably will if we leave anyway.

It is really all talk and posturing now, we have already lost Iraq.

It is just a matter of how many more of our military and how many more Iraqis die for a war of lies.

Iraqis grieve

Bush is an idiot. He is trying to tempt Iran into attacking us so we can counter attack and bomb them back to the stone age. We don't have the troops to occupy Iran and he knows it. The whole so called surge is a distraction. He doesn't even care if he gets it or not.

In a nut shell: Bush is employing a scorched earth strategy. If Iran attacks us it gives him permission to counter attack. He will bomb them back to the stone age, ensuring that any claim that they have over Iraq is moot. Their country would be in shambles.

It is an evil and arrogant strategy, but it is on par with how we have handled things historically. Saudi Arabia will be happy though.

"we" are incapable of fixing Iraq. However, I agree that the United States is responsible for stabilizing Iraq, but that must be done by the UN or some other third party. Junior has worked his "magic" enough in Iraq and we really do need to get the hell out of Dodge tout suite because our presence is incendiary and counterproductive.

seems to be that the US military presence in Iraq will act as a benign force. From Shock and Disgust, to the rounding up of innocent civilian and torturing them at Abu Ghraib, to shooting families at checkpoints, I don't think that this is the scenario. From what I've read of the proposal from Dimson** the 'surge' involves kicking in more doors and disarming the populace. Not exactly benign in my way of thinking.

If the PSA's for the oil companies go through and our oil companies are stealing the Iraqis blind, do you really think that there won't continue to be a revolt? I don't. All that I know is that if another country bombed, invaded, occupied this country and then set about the business of robbing us blind I would be looking to take out as many invaders and collaborators as I possibly could.

Perhaps we should get the contractors out of Iraq and actually allow the Iraqis to be employed again. Take the money from the corrupt money machine of Blackwater, Haliburton, KBR and all of the rest and pay it to the Iraqis to allow them to rebuild their own country.

It seems to me that all we're doing is forcing the Iraqis to accept the will of our corporate overloads and at some point they will rebel against that, too.

The crux of the suggestion rests on the premise that now that we have a Democratically controlled House and Senate, it gives us bargaining power with the Administration. If nothing else, we should at least be able to work out some bi-partisan deals with Republicans in Congress, which may in turn make any veto's Bush uses moot.

We can put the pressure on Bush to go with a plan that actually has the hope of working. In the beginning the Iraqi's will dislike us and see us as the lesser of the evils in their country, but be willing to accept our offer because it gives them the best hope for survival of them and their families. Hopefully, as the years pass and we make progress within the country we can begin healing the wounds we've created. Even if we cannot our immediate goals should be to prevent the chaos in Iraq from spreading to the surrounding nations, and to at least TRY and help the Iraqi's who want it.

Bush really has nowhere to go at this point. He is surrounded. All we have to do is close in and threaten him with Impeachment if he doesn't cooperate.

Time to quit being what we rebelled against in 1776. Leave Iraq and its oil to its inhabitants.

more troops right from the beginning and the war would
have been over 2 years ago. Now the insurgents are much
more organized and it will take 200,000 more troops not 20,000.

We had 500,000 troops in Gulf war #1, and idiots Rumsfeld and
Bush tried to do #2 war with 135,000 troops.

The ONLY option now is to add the troops to clean out Baghdad,
and set a firm time table for Iraqi military to take over. Gen.
Abizaid and others are correct in that so long as our soldiers
are doing the dirty work, why would the Iraqi's get off their duff.

There is no point in trying to reclaim it with the troops we have, the insurgency is too deeply integrated now. Our only real option at this point is to withdraw and let them fight their civil war while helping those we can, while at the same time trying to ensure that Iran doesn't get its hands on the country, and preventing the chaos from spreading to neighboring nations. In about 10 to 15 years the insurgency should die out, because everyone fighting it will hopefully be dead or have given up.

mainly in Baghdad. But it CAN NOT BE AN OPEN ENDED WAR
anymore. If Iraqi military can not carry the ball after
6 months there is absolutely no need to sacrifice our
blood and treasure any more.

Does anyone honestly believe the Iraqi military will have a better chance at doing what the American Military cannot? If I remember correctly it takes roughly five years to fully train an American soldier. Even if we began training on the day we invaded we would still not have enough fully trained, fully qualified and fully ready Iraqi troops to take over Iraq. The whole "let the Iraqi's handle Iraq" strategy failed the moment the insurgency began. At best they dissolve and the country just falls into complete chaos, at worst they either turn to Iran for aid or join the insurgency.

We cannot stop the civil war. It cannot be stopped, not by us and not by Iraqi's. The Iraq government thinks that once we leave it can turn to Iran to send in support, and they will, but that will provoke Saudi Arabia... which may have a domino effect in the region, which then may provoke China, India and Russia... and then you throw Israel into the mix, Pakistan, and... very quickly you have a world war on your hands.

involved in a war. Iran will not openly invade Iraq knowing
full well of the response from US and Israel. Iran reminds me
of that commercial "We are defeating the US in Iraq just with
lots of money to back the shia. But not a single uniformed Irani
soldier is fighting in Iraq. That is priceless".

In the end the only possible result will happen...a compromise
government in Iraq with autonomy to shia, sunni & kurd areas and
will include help for people to relocate as they wish.

What about Israel? Iran will not invade Iraq with soldiers, they don't need to - they already control the country. However Saudi Arabia and Israel are not going to like Iran having so much control in Iraq. They could be provoked into action.

Russia, China and I am not sure, but I think India also have oil contracts with Iran. Russia is not so strapped for oil as China and India though, which are becoming addicted to it like us - which means that if Israel and Saudi Arabia do anything to provoke a conflict with Iran there could be a war in the region. The United States would naturally fall behind Israel and Saudi Arabia. We owe China tons of cash and Saudi Arabia has us by the nuts as well. We're screwed no matter what we do in that situation.

and Iran is in no way geting involved militarily in
Iraq. Therefore the burgeoning India-Iran trade is not
affected in the slightest.

I used to feel the same concerns that you express. My error was in taking the suggest too literally, often stated so bluntly on this board, that we leave Iraq immediately. It's not like the Congress could one day next week take a vote saying "okay, troops out NOW!" and all our guys are hopping onto choppers within the month. Troop deployments don't work that way. You have to hand over power, make arrangements, transfer control of facilities, evacuate vulnerable locals, determine status of US run facilities and the operations of all the American and western contractors (that's the construction teams and teachers and engineers and oil men, not just the mercs).

The quickest it could happen in the real world is six months. If it were to happen at all. As it is, the president of the United States controls troop movements (as it must and should be) so any sane Congressional resolution, even if taking the most extreme position of "out now" will still take many many months to implement. And of course Congress won't pass such an extreme resolution.

The real way our troops will leave is this:

Step one - The president will try his surge. It will fail. Congress will wrangle and Jim Baker will take Junior back out to the woodshed.

Step two - At some point in all the bitching over the next six months, Bush will be forced to agree to some stips from Congress

Step three - Those stipulations will require more authority being handed over to Maliki or the strong man who replaces him

Step four - As the surge creates higher body counts, peaking over this coming summer, Maliki will grow balls

Step five - Maliki or his successor, responding to local pressures, will start pushing for the US to leave quicker

Step six - Ahmed Chalabi will be assassinated by insurgents or more extreme Shiite factions. Some DUer will say Rove did it

Step seven - Reports of Chalabi's death will turn out to be wrong and I personally will be very disappointed

Step eight - After extensive hemming and hawing, the Bush administration will realize they're cornered and relent

Step nine - US troops will start to pull out in the Spring of 08. Bush will announce another mission accomplished

Step ten - A small force will remain to guard the Babelesque embassy in Baghdad and train Iraqis and die just a few week.

I know you're concerned about Iraq becoming Iran's "western province" in the future. But there's no reason to worry about that, either. It's already happened.

It's all but official at this point. My concern is the response it will provoke from countries such as Saudi Arabia. My concern is over who is controlling what, and the implications it will have around the world and on the United States directly.

I also believe that Bush knows his surge will fail. It's just a tactic to buy him time as he hopes to provoke Iran into an attack. If Iran attacks us we can call it an act of war and counter attack. We don't have enough troops to occupy Iran, but that isn't the goal I don't think. I think the goal is pretty much to cripple Iran - to blow them back into the stone age - so that they aren't a threat in Iraq and therefore a threat to Saudi Arabia.

{ignore}

no one should flame you because you genuinely have expressed something i think most of us agree with: the US broke Iraq and we have a huge responsibility to the Iraqi people ... this does not, however, necessarily translate into the continued occupation you are calling for ... there are other paths we can take ...

first of all, and without even a second thought, this argument, at least for me, completely dismisses your approach: we have been, for more than 100 years, an imperialist nation ... whether you and I are more noble and genuinely seek to make Iraq better for Iraqis, I'm afraid the powers that be have a far more selfish agenda ... American aid has always come with a devastating price tag that has allowed US corporate interests to virtually rape the country we were supposedly helping ... so, for starters, before we invest in all your benevolence in Iraq, we would have to somehow ensure that the greedy bastards that got us there in the first place no longer had any power ... surely you don't expect bush to do anything but exploit the Iraqis ... perhaps you believe we could elect a Democrat who would be better; it's not clear either party has been an adequate obstacle to the corporate agenda ...

secondly, you have a bit of a "who the hell do you think you are" problem suggesting we remain in occupation in Iraq ... the Iraqi people, in poll after poll, have overwhelmingly called for the US to withdraw ... in most regions, the "get out immediately" vote was around 85% ... another recent poll stated that 61% of the Iraqi people condoned the killing of American troops ... your arguments are noble but by what statute does the US have the right to ignore the will of the Iraqi people in their own country? i suppose a case could be made; i'm glad i'm not the one trying to make it ... i'll go with the will of the people in Iraq on this one ...

third, as suggested in my opening paragraph, remaining in occupation with a military force is not the only way the US can repair the damage we've caused ... i couldn't agree with you more that we have a huge debt we must repay to the Iraqi people ... what we've done to their country, their future and their lives can never really be repaid ... but the aid should only come in the form of humanitarian aid and infrastructure rebuilding ... maintaining a military presence does little more than destabilize the country ... some, perhaps you, would argue that if we leave, there will be massive killings everywhere ... that is certainly a possibility and it concerns me very deeply ... my belief is that the new "OIL LAW" that signs away Iraq's oil future to Big Oil will be the prime driver of violence ... poverty from exploitation is the wrong script for those who care about a peaceful future in Iraq ... the point is that the troops you want to keep there, just as they've done in Afghanistan, will be left in place to guard private, commercial oil pipelines and oil fields ... the best way for the US to stabilize Iraq is to remove its military and help Iraq create as much wealth as possible in the shortest possible time ... certainly there are no guarantees about what will transpire when our military leaves ... one thing's for sure, after occupying Iraq for longer than all of WWII, we've created a destabilized mess ... can anyone honestly say our military is playing a positive role in Iraq? and this business about withdrawing to remote bases is something just shy of the Murtha plan ... i say remove the troops from Iraq ... if we need to maintain a military presence in the region, that's a separate discussion ...

those are the basic objections i have to your approach ... in the end, i do not trust the US government ... that is, perhaps, the most fundamental difference between my call for "immediate" withdrawal and your plan ... you seem to believe that our government will finally do the right thing and your plan lays out the tactics and strategies to achieve your objective; i believe your tactics are ultimately meaningless because i do not trust that our government will do anything beyond catering to greedy corporate interests ... i share your goal for the Iraqi people; i see no way to achieve that with any form of continued occupation ...

I agree, we can't place our faith in our own government. It is sad, but the Iraqi's are suffering because of the American people who are too complacent to create REAL change in our own corrupt government. I am skeptical about even our Democratic Leaders. Still, even a life under corporate enslavement is better than death at the hands of a death squad? I just want to help the Iraqi people, but I do over all agree that our government will ultimately try and screw them at every turn.

I didn't place my faith in the Bush Administration though. I was placing my faith in our Democratic Congress, hoping that they could somehow rally behind some type of policy which the Bush Administration would agree to, or that they could get enough votes from Republicans in Congress to force Bush into their plan.

There is so much at stake here. Politically speaking, if a Democratic President is elected they are going to be blamed for every bad thing that has happened. The Democratic Party is going to take the brunt of the blame for everything. If we pull out and there is massive genocide, the Democratic Party will be blamed.

Then to make political matters worse, Iran will gain control over Iraq that could then provoke a response from Saudi Arabia, which could then have a domino effect in the entire region, which could then stretch all the way around the world. It's about the oil; it has always been about the oil. If there was no oil in the Middle East no one would be able to point to Iraq on a map, because no one would care.

i truly hope the Dems are worthy of your trust ... i hope you take the time to read my thread on the new "Oil Law" and some of the concerns i raised about the Dems non-response ... it is deeply troubling to me ...

the whole world is watching what the US does and what the Dems do ... so far, we've overthrown the government of a country that did not attack us ... we've destroyed any semblance of normal life there ... there are no utilities ... there are no jobs ... there is no hope ...

and piled on top of all this horror, the new "Oil Law" is going to strip Iraq of as much as 85% of its oil revenues for the next 30 years ... and in this climate of empire, with fresh new faces in control of the Congress, all is dead silent in America ... this has not been the case in the world press ... can we trust Democrats? perhaps they need a bit more time to get their legs under them ... the problem is, the oil contracts are all about to be signed and i have not heard a single Democrat speak against what is being done ... i would like to trust the Dems; should I?

here's a link to the thread i referred to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3054180&mesg_id=3054180

However, you can only hope for the best with this new Congress, and that is what I am doing, placing my trust in them and just hoping for the best.

Thanks for the link. I am reading that thread now.

in order to get over the rape.

America raped Iraq!


First of all, Bush was never elected President in 2000. That election was won by Al Gore, but stolen by GOP election officials with the complicity of Federalist Society jurists on the Supreme Court.

Second, millions of Americans and people across the world demonstrated against this war before Congress voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Those of us that have been against this criminal war from the time we first got wind that Bush was planning to attack Iraq, are certainly blameless for the Crusader bloodbath in the homeland of the patriarch Abraham.

Third, some of us welcome the consequences of "that choice," which includes the collapse of American imperialism, and the end of American militarism. The withdrawal of America from the Middle East and the world are good things that will come out of the mini-holocaust that Bush has unleashed. The next time America comes out of the inevitable isolationist cocoon that will follow Iraq, it will be an America that will act as a responsible member of the family of nations.

First of all, the American people overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Iraq. You as well as I know that anyone who dared speak out against it were called anti-American and terrorist sympathizers. Americans foolishly took the bait and were lied and manipulated into war. That does not mean we should shake the responsibility for our actions.

You seem to know as well as I what the end result of leaving Iraq will be - a "mini-holocaust" as you put it. How can you even suggest that will be a good thing? Does the end justify the means? I agree, it would be nice for America to become a responsible member of the family of nations, and for America to give up her imperialist ambitions, but how are you any better than those people who are imperialist? You are suggesting that we should allow thousands of people to be sacrificed simply because the end result MAY make this country a better place. I emphasize the word "may" - because there are no guarantees. It is idealistic and wishful thinking at best.

I do not believe the end justifies the means. America is imperfect and has done many evil things, but that does not mean we should allow more evil to be committed in her name in the hopes that the end result will be a better nation because of it.

If anything, bogging ourselves down in Iraq will prevent further imperialistic ambitions. We won't have the troops or treasure for more war, and with luck America will learn from this mistake and will become a better nation in the future.

I disagree with you, however - the end rarely if ever justify the means.

Iraqis did fine before we invaded them, and they will do fine once we listen to them and get the hell out of Iraq. The vast majority of Iraqis want us out of Iraq. Why are you and others like you still adhering to the mistaken belief that we know what is best for them?

I did not support the invasion of Iraq. I was here, along with you, decrying the Democrats who supported it. However, to think that they 'will do just fine once we leave' is insanity. There will be a blood bath and you know it. You said so in your original post - you called it a "mini-holocaust". You are allowing your political beliefs and hatred of American policy to cloud your rational judgment on this issue.

Just because the majority of Iraqi's want us to leave does not mean that it is what is best for them. Yes, I am saying it is not what is best for them. They want us to leave for valid reasons. I understand it and I feel the same way that they do, but unlike them I have "objective distance" - meaning I haven't had my family members killed as a result of this war. I haven't had my country torn apart. I haven't been reduced to poverty. Yes, they have very valid reasons for wanting us the hell out of their country, very - VERY valid reasons. It does not mean that we should leave, because the alternative of being massacred is much worse.

Many more innocents will die. It is unavoidable. Yet, if we withdraw to remote regions of the country, set up bases and allow Iraqi refugees to relocate there - they can have stability. They can begin rebuilding their lives.

The majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. Did that make it right? The majority of Americans are against gay marriage, does that make it right? The majority is not always right. Mob rule is a poor way to govern a nation.

What do you think will happen in the days, weeks and years after we leave Iraq? Answer that question.

Listen to what you are saying:


Our invasion of Iraq was partly prompted by the belief that we knew what was best for Iraq. Our staying in Iraq is also prompted by this same version of the "white man's burden."

What our present situation in Iraq boils down to is a very simple question:

How many names do we want to see in a future Iraq War Memorial?

Nothing we do can prevent our ultimate and inevitable defeat in Iraq. There are only two remaining questions. How humiliating will America's defeat be and, how many people will die in the interval?

There is another thing to consider, if we leave now, we can leave with some semblance of order. If we leave later, we may have to leave in a chaotic fashion.

By withdrawing into the remote regions of Iraq and setup bases we will have removed ourselves from the primary thing getting us killed: Being in the middle of a civil war. It would be no different than if we withdrew into Kuwait, only that we'd still be occupying the country to prevent Iran from moving in, and to provide a place for Iraqi refugees to come to while still remaining within the country.

This isolates those who wish to kill each other, and it creates a situation that allows us to control and manage the people better. It allows us to search each and every single Iraqi for a weapon, and ensure that they do not enter into our secure zones with weapons. It allows us to put up security fences around those secure zones to keep insurgents out. It allows us to control the situation.

Those who want to kill - the insurgents - they will remain behind. They will want nothing to do with America, and will ultimately die as we focus our resources on the Iraqi's willing to cooperate and work with us. They will either starve because of lack of infrastructure or they will kill each other in blood feuds. Either way, it eliminates our problem and gives us control of the country, while saving all those who wish to be saved.

Then, to spit in the Imperialists eye - ensure that when this is done that there are plans to begin assisting Iraq to form a Democratic Republic by 2015 to be completed by 2020. At this point if Iraqi's still want us to leave they have the ability to ask us to do so.

would result finish off what little credibility and moral standing America has with the family of nations. To do that would be to engage in an unforgivable level of irresponsibility and disregard for Iraq, the region, and the world.

Believe me, that's where this FUBAR situation is heading. If you thought the Soviets left Afghanistan in a hurry, it won't compare with our troops having to shoot their way out of Iraq to reach the Kuwaiti border.

come what may. That would be morally reprehensible...as reprehensible as the neo-con policy that got them there in the first place.

You may have noticed that those favoring this "surge," which is really nothing more than a continuation of the current failed poicy on steroids, try to paint everyone against the "surge" as wanting to withdraw immediately with no regard to the consequences.

We can't let them get away with that twisted characterization of all those who oppose the current policy; there are Democrats who do accept shared responsibility for this tragedy, and understand the moral imperative to pursue not just a new course, but a responsible course.

...is come together, get a responsible strategy for dealing with Iraq and its neighbors, get support for it among congressional Republicans, and then force Bush into pursuing that agenda. Bush asked for the critics of his "surge" to put forth their own plan. I am in favor of doing just that. The Democrats need to get their ducks in a row and face this problem head on, and that involves getting behind a cohesive plan that could potentially enjoy bi-partisan Congressional support.

We will, of course, or try to, but it's only to protect our hard-won oil rights. It has nothing to do with our debt to Iraqis.

And we owe them trillions, not billions, of dollars in reparations.

I can see you have given it a lot of thought and you should be proud whether anyone agrees with you or not. This should get everyone thinking instead of just complaining. However the sad thin g is Bush doesn't listen to anyone he disagrees with and he'll disagree with everything anyone comes up with. Look how hard the ISG worked and he completely kicked then in the face...including his own Father for pete's sake. He certainly isn't going to listen to Democrats. The next President or some Republican will have the only hope of finding an answer. Maybe he'd listen to Brownback. He's anti-war and is VERY conservative.

I admire you for your benevolence and your solution. It's well thought out...but I doubt if it could be completed.

I'm bookmarking and recommending this thread and everyone on this site should add their 2 cents worth of ideas. Who knows... maybe we could collectively find some good solutions for the next president to consider.

Complaining against Bush doesn't solve anything. I think people are letting their political views and emotions cloud them into thinking about what is best for Iraq, its people and the world at large. An honest debate could yield some real ideas.

You can't unscrew the pooch.

Iraq is an urbanized country, and our air strike tactics have already leveled its infrastructure. And you're proposing more of the same? Pulleeze Louise!!!

Look. If I break into your house with my hammer and smash every single dish to smithereens, I DO NOT have a moral obligation to take my hammer (it's my only tool) and make you another set of dishes. What I am obliged to do is to give you money to replace them plus a hefty annoyance surcharge, and get as far away from your house as possible.

Before an Air Strike would happen, the region would be evacuated of everyone willing to leave. They would be warned that staying behind may result in their death. The goal is to get everyone who isn't an insurgent OUT of Baghdad, everyone who wants to live a peaceful life and get them somewhere that we can control and stabilize. The goal is to isolate those who wish to engage in civil war. Therefore if we launch an Air Strike it will only affect the insurgency or those who were too foolish to listen.

Yes, it's harsh - but at the moment we are just striking at buildings in populated neighborhoods. At least in my suggestion we gave the people in those neighborhoods a way to get out and save themselves and their families.

Many Iraqi's have already fled Iraq to neighboring nations. Those who are left are either the elite who are enjoying American rule or the poor who didn't have a way of getting out.

Yes, I propose the systematic destruction of all insurgents within the country, after we have done all that we can to save those who wish to be saved.

At the moment we are fighting the insurgency on their home turf. They own these cities and people are afraid of them. If we offer Iraqi's a chance for a real future one that has the promise of security, and one that gives them a job and hope for their children, the sane and rational Iraqi's will take it. The radicals will reject it and become isolated, and in all likelihood they will either kill each other or starve because we will simply cut off supplies to the cities - we've evacuated them.

Since this was an Imperialistic venture we might as well follow the tried and true model of the best Imperialists who ever existed: the Romans. They didn't just walk into populated cities of "barbarians" and occupy them. They built their own cities and they killed all who opposed their rule. I oppose Imperialism, but as things currently stand we aren't left with many options if we want to save innocent Iraqi's and to prevent the region from falling into chaos.

...and just to spit in the eye of the Imperialists who caused this we should make Congress pass a law that clearly states that in 2015 we will begin turning over the Iraqi government to democratic rule, to be completed in 2020. Then if the Iraqi's want us to leave all their goverment has to do is to tell us to get out.

The result was that anybody with any connections there utterly loathes us. What the hell do you mean "people are afraid of insurgents"? If 61% of the population approves of attacks on US troops, you have just defined them as insurgents and recommended genocide. Sunnis are afraid of US-backed government Shi'ite death squads, and Shi'ites are afraid of Sunnis who do it right back to them.

Jobs? When we've just destroyed every single indigenous Iraqi industry with "free" market policies rammed right down their throats? And are preparing to steal 75% of profits made from Iraqi oil by British and American investors? When we took over "reconstruction" and spent billions with absolutely ZERO to show for it? And you don't think that Iraqis remember that in 1991 we levelled 95% of their infrastructure and they rebuilt it themselves within a couple of years? You can't be serious!

Why wait until 2020 when they are telling us to get out now?

The dishes analogy is lame.

--and expensive make a difference to the analogy? Trying to accomplish what the OP proposed with military force is exactly analogous to trying to make dishes with a hammer. What we owe them is money, big time, and if we don't quit blowing it on utterly useless military stupidity, we won't even be able to give them that.

Of course, we can't put back together broken dishes with a hammer, to use your analogy. It can't be solved militarily, and I do not agree with everything the OP says.

However, it's not just about a broken infrastructre and giving them the money to "fix the dishes." The mess we've created in Iraq is more than simply a mess of broken infrastructure (dishes).

Anyone affiliated with the occupation is the worst possible choice for such a task. Since we can't possibly atone for the destruction of their social structure, the very least we could do is pay for the destruction of their physical infrastructure.

is our money. A lot of it and none of it administered by any U.S. company. In fact, the U.N. should be in there (without a single American on the board) and they should be directing the rebuilding. I think we should pay and pay until they are rebuilt and I think a large chunk of that should come from Halliburton, KB&R, Dick Cheney, all the Bushes and anyone else from the PNAC evildoers (to steal a word from the moran).

I liken what we did in Iraq to rape. Who is the last person who can help a rape victim? Yeah, the rapist. We have nothing helpful left to do. We need to exit and pay reparations. Lots of reparations. It will never, ever be enough.

We need a timetable though IMHO to make it clear to all what's going to happen.

All ground combat forces out by 2010 at the very latest.

It continues to amaze and astonish me that so many people continue to support an ongoing occupation, one that has ripped Iraq to shreds and cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, as a way to bring peace to that country. Just incredible.

Don't you get it yet, don't you understand, the ongoing occupation by American troops in Iraq is an ongoing catalyst for all of the violence that you are seeing now. We cannot do anything about, neither fight a war to end it nor "wait it out" in the hinterlands. It will follow us whereever we go in that country, and continue to extract it's pound of flesh and gallon of blood.

Don't you understand, there is going to be a civil war in Iraq no matter when we leave. Because every institution that the US has set up is going to be considered illegit and illegal by a large segment of the Iraqi people, and they will tear it down when we leave, no matter when that is. We can't prevent this, much like we couldn't prevent the violence that followed our exit from Vietnam. Yes, it is an ugly thought, such conflict. But it is inevitable and another black and bloody stain that America will have to live with.

If we continue to have troops in Iraq, no matter how noble the reason, all we're going to do is exacerbate the problem on a continuing basis, leading to more blood shed and more of the country torn apart. We will not achieve anything positive, we will not alleviate the bloodshed, in fact quite the opposite, we will promote ongoing bloodshed.

What we have to do is bite the bullet and leave Iraq NOW. Work with Iraq's neighbors and the UN in order to insure that no other country, including Iran, fills that vacumn in Iraq. We leave it to the Iraqi people to work things out, including a civil war which is inevitable. But we also pay make massive reparations and lavish massive humanitarian aid.

Keeping US forces in Iraq, no matter what the intentions,is just going to continue to aggrevate the problem, not cure it. There is no easy, bloodless way out of Iraq friend, and our best possible option is to pull out now. The inevitable will follow, but then and only then there will finally be peace. The sooner, the better.

You stated it much better than I did.

I have read your well-thought out scenario with much interest, and what I have a problem with, is the "we broke it, we have to fix it". Your thoughts on fixing it seems to entail establishing safe communities and raising up the children in these communities by teaching them to believe that democracy, US style is what is best for them. Because our way is best, and those who do not believe it can kill each other off. So, the Iraqi people will have the choice of our way or the highway and if they choose our way, we will give them safety. Gee. Just do it our way, and your kids will get to eat, but in exchange for their food and shelter, please allow us to force our ways on them and raise them in that manner while they shop at a Gap, and eat a happy meal. Believe us, and you can have safety from what we have created in the first place. But the thing is, they'd do it, for food and shelter and safety for their children. I dunno, this sounds pretty f'd up to me. Like shopkeepers who pay protection money so that the people they pay won't harm them.

I do not believe a real solution exists at this point. Sometimes you just cannot fix what you broke. I never did support this crazy war, so please stop stay America supported Bush and his war. There were thousands and thousands of us trying to stop this. We are all living with the consequences, already. But it is arrogance to believe that we can fix it by forcing our ideas on the children in exchange for food and shelter.

Iraq may not be ready for democracy. It is not our country, or our right to determine that.

It is harsh, unfair, imperialistic and yes - arrogant. It was arrogance to invade with imperialistic ideals, and now we are forced to carry them out. The only other option is to turn Iraq over to another Saddam like dictator, rather than "ram our version of democracy" down their throats. Which is worse? The prospect that some day in the future Iraq - beginning perhaps in 2015 - will become a Democratic State at least in part sympathetic to the Western World and its ideals, or the prospect that Iraq will be much like it was before we invaded.

Yes, I believe democracy is better than tyranny. Even if Iraqi's do not agree and wish to institute a theocratic government, it is better for them and the future of their country to have a democracy, and yes I'm willing to "force it down their throat" if necessary. What is better for the children of Iraq? A democracy or tyranny? Yes, it is arrogant to believe that we know better than the Iraqi people, but we control the fate of Iraq - we are in charge. We must make good choices in order to ensure a better future. They have only known tyranny and oppression all of their lives, and I firmly believe that most of them would like to live free and in a democracy of some kind, and our objective should be to help that become realized.

about ramming democracy down anyone's throat. I know plenty of people in this country who fall through the cracks of democracy. It's a decent system, but it isn't pie in the sky for any and all.

This is the problem. People might criticize me because they don't like what I proposed, that's fine - there is plenty to criticize. I'm not under any illusions that it is fair, or that it isn't imperialistic - it is. There is definitely plenty that I don't like about it, but as I see it, it is the only solution that I can think of that can ultimately bring Iraq to a reasonable conclusion.

So do you have an alternative? If you support leaving Iraq, that's fine - explain how we will withdraw and what we will do to ensure that Iran does not seize control of the country. Explain what we will do to save those we can save from the eminent genocide. Explain what we will do to keep the entire region from destabilizing and falling into chaos.

I have offered my proposal, and I am open to suggestions from others.

It is broken. There is not going to be a good outcome and we CANNOT fix it. This is not a fairy tale and there is no magic happy ending. Staying is like trying to rebuild a sand castle on the edge of the tide.

Nothing that I proposed is a "fairy tale" ending. The stabilization of Iraq is going to be bloody. Here is a copy and paste from a post I made in response to another individual, who acknowledged that pulling out of Iraq will result in genocide until one of the major factions "wins" (meaning that they've successfully killed off all opposition).

There was never a broad brush enthusiasm for this illegal occupation and, in fact, gwb announced that it didn't matter what we citizens wanted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2798767

We had this shoved down our throats, plain and simple. MKJ

No matter if you want us on your land or not, "We broke your land, so we own it !!"








A touch of paternalism, perhaps?

Might this 21st century re-statement of Kipling's "White Man's Burden" perhaps stand "You break it. You fix it." on its head?

What measures might you suggest to "actively ensure that they are in a constant state of chaos"?


. . . . . . . . . . .


(Of course, with such noble goals, what kind of a person, after all, would criticize a few assassinations of leaders who "arise" who don't share our vision?

.......Training such ungrateful, less morally advanced, creatures to emulate our noble behavior takes time, you know..........)

...that anything you suggested is untrue. It is imperialistic. Yet the venture was began in imperialism. What would you suggest instead? That we leave and allow a Saddam like dictator arise from among many war leaders? That we allow Iran to annex the country - which itself is a dictatorial regime?

If you disagree with what I propose, that is fine - there is plenty to criticize. There is callousness. There is imperialism. There is arrogance. However, instead of just criticizing why don't you come up with a BETTER solution, one that ultimately is good for the Iraqi's, good for the United States, and good for the world at large?

Whether from the soldier, bullet, bomb, famine, disease, or unrest we've created.

The idea that a people with a broken system of their own, can somehow fix another system that their broken system broke is...well...broken. :)

that things will be better if we stay. I think the evidence is to the contrary. To imagine what will happen after we leave is not reality.

Imagination of what would happen if we didn't. People were seeing "mushroom clouds" in their sleep. We went to war based on a scenario of what Saddam "might" do.

...Iran will seize control of the country the moment we pull out. Hell, Iran already controls the country. We know that if we leave there will be genocide. Do you have any suggestions for bringing about a favorable outcome other than what I suggested?

We can imagine that. We don't know it.

That the Iraqi's will suddenly put down their weapons, embrace their new "democracy", reject the advances of Iran, and live happily ever after? Come on. You know that won't happen. That isn't the reality, because if it were this entire thread would be moot. The sham of a government either will collapse within the week or be propped up by Iran. No matter the outcome, if the Government collapses or if the government prevails, Iran will gain control of Iraq. Is that a favorable outcome to us or the world? No, it is not.

However, if you have a better idea than what I proposed, an idea that is favorable to American, regional, Iraqi and global interests... by all means I would like to hear it.

It really doesn't matter what we think might happen, we should deal with WHAT happens, not try to PRE-EMPTIVELY decide that what might or might not happen is fact.

I carry an umbrella when I think it might rain. I don't walk around with the umbrella open and over my head stating that it is absolutely positively going to rain and that you know it and I know it.

...and I find the attitude you have frightening. What if Iran seizes control of Iraq after we leave and then attempts to blackmail the United States with the Iraqi oil? You realize we will just have to invade Iraq again, correct? At the same time we would enter into war with Iran - as is already happening.

If you are saying we should not plan for our future, then I simply don't know what to say other than we'll never agree.

The war was based on a lie, there were war crimes committed, the Bush admin destroyed Iraq for no other reason than to steal its oil and kill its leader, and now an overwhelming majority Iraqis are demanding that Americans leave.

There is no morality in staying, only American arrogance.

How do we leave? We can't just jump into helicopters, jets and military buses and leave after telling the Iraqi's "good luck". There has to be an orderly transition. How will that be accomplished? Who will be left in charge? What will be the responsibilities of the United States, if any? What do the neighboring nations want? What is best for the Iraqi people?

Answer me those questions and tell me how you would see that it is accomplished.

First, as you can see this is not a immediate withdrawal as you want to see. In fact a large number of troops will be forced to remain "for the purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States" and leaving the 'number of forces that are required to stand up the Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel'. How does that change ANYTHING? We are already operating under the "minimal number" of forces required for those objectives. To achieve those objectives laid out it will require a much LARGER force.

The second issue is predicated upon the fact that we can actually work with the Government of Iraq. It has been proven through both words and actions that we cannot. The Iraqi Government has sided with Iran and is doing all that it can to undermine our efforts within the country, without entering into out right opposition to us. The Government, if anything, is a sham and the belief that we can work with them is counter productive to any of our actual goals, the first of which is "strengthening the national security of the United States". It is rather difficult to strengthen our national security when those we are depending on are close allies with Iran, one of our nations enemies.


I have no idea what it means exactly, but if I had to make a guess he is suggesting that we move more troops into the region and place them in Kuwait. In effect we will basically be flying over Iraq and dropping bombs on them to keep their country impoverished, and to ensure that no one rises up to challenge the ruling government (who he obviously believes should obviously be to the United States). Read: Prop up a puppet government like Saddam and assist that government in killing anyone who opposes it.


I can agree with the basic premise behind this, but the goals are dubious when taken in full context. Yes, diplomacy with all those people is important. We should work and speak with them all on a regular basis. However, we should not "ensure equitable distribution of oil revenues" - meaning that we should not begin handing out oil contracts to non-Iraqi's. The oil belongs to Iraq and whoever holds control of Iraq should control the oil in trust; using ALL profits made from the oil to assist in the reconstruction effort. After the reconstruction effort is complete, and Iraq transitions into a real Democratic government the trust should end, and the oil should be turned over to the Iraqi Government. Ideally the United Nations would be willing to hold the Iraqi oil in trust, to ensure that no single nation attempts to do what the United States and the UK are currently about to do. (And something John Kerry is indirectly endorsing with this proposal.)


Make them report to Congress. I can agree with that.

There is a big difference between combat troops fighting on the ground, killing Iraqis and destroying their country, and trainers preparing the Iraqis to take over. The same with the troops conducting counterterrorism operation, these are special forces, and no, it's not a larger, but a significantly smaller force.



The U.S. has no right to manage the affairs of the Iraqi government. Whatever government emerges is the government that will be engaged. That is similar to America's dealings with any sovereign nation. We don't occupy Pakistan. Should the U.S. invade and occupy that country because it harbors terrorists?



No, keeping the country impoverished is the goal of the current policy. There is still a war going on in Afghanistan. This is all counterterrorism that is our interest in the region. Remember Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqis.

Kerry didn't propose anything that Bush is not actively doing. He opposes a "surge" for obvious reasons, and the only thing that he is proposing is ensuring that people are reporting to Congress. He is, at best, arguing for more transparency and withdrawing most of the troops into Kuwait. That is what "over-the-horizon troop presence" to "protect regional security interests" means. It does not mean we bring them home. It means that we move them out of Baghdad and into some place like Kuwait.

The reason we have so many ground forces is because we want to avoid killing civilians. We COULD just drop bombs in civilian neighborhoods to remove insurgents. Instead we send in ground troops (most times) to avoid the killing of civilians if possible. If Kerry really wants to draw down the troop levels, he is proposing that we instead adopt a strategy where we basically just bomb the neighborhoods or try and force the Iraqi military to do what the American's were doing. Do you honestly believe the Iraqi military will do what we were doing, combat insurgencies? I bet you anything that the moment we pull out the Iraqi military either dissolves or fractures and sides with various insurgent leaders, thus exacerbating the civil war in the country.

Kerry's plan does NOTHING to address the realities of what is going on in Iraq. NOTHING. It is a thinly veiled proposal that changes little outside of hopefully ensuring less American deaths.

However, what I proposed would have the same effect, and would ensure that the chaos in Iraq does not spread to surrounding regions. I'm not saying what Kerry is proposing might not work. It is possible, but many - MANY innocent people will die as a result and the United States will do nothing to aid them. Iraq's oil will still be divided up, his proposal even states that is one of the goals: "ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues".

And ALL of it, every single word of his policy, is predicated upon the fact that we can rely on the Iraqi government to do its job. We cannot. It has proven we cannot rely on it.

Kerry lays out an intelligent plan for withdrawal that respects Iraq's sovereignty, and you, who advocates that continuing to occupy Iraq is America's moral right, despite what the Iraqis want, claims his plan is the same a Bush's?

If I am misunderstanding, then by all means - explain it to me. However, from reading it as far as I can tell he has no intentions of doing that. There are a lot of things left unsaid, but based upon past American foreign policy it is easy to fill in the blanks. Kerry is essentially hoping that we can work with the current Iraqi government. If we cannot, then we get rid of them and replace them with someone who is favorable to the United States. This has been American foreign policy for a long time.

Once our "favorable" government is in place, we then "assist" that government in crushing rebellion in his country. This will be done through arming Iraqi's who support this individual, who will be little more than a dictator like Saddam.

The oil revenues will then be divided, the government of Iraq receiving a portion - which should be interpreted as pay off money for the leaders who screw over their people - while the United States and the UK take the rest - as is already planned.

Now, if I am misunderstanding anything please explain this policy to me and explain, other than the fact that he is proposing that we withdraw ground troops into Kuwait to avoid the body count, how it is any different than what Bush is already doing?

These are your words and have nothing to do with what Kerry proposed. I suppose anyone can add words and attribute them to what was actually proposed, but that would be considered spin.

Is it because Kerry proposed it and therefore it is beyond reproach? Is it because Kerry sincerely has the Iraqi's best interests at heart?

If nothing else, he is proposing a whole lot of nothing. The only thing of substance is the suggestion that we withdraw to Kuwait (which is not stated, but implied with his "over-the-horizon troop presence" statement) and the fact that the Administration should report directly to Congress. It does not state HOW we should handle any of those things, it does not give any details, it is a simple outline that he is leaving up to the Administration to handle.

Now, if I'm wrong I'll admit it. All you have to do is explain it to me, filling in the details that he obviously left out.

Nothing you said is in Kerry's plan, stated or remotely implied. Simple.

His plan is more or less the same plan proposed by John Murtha. Read this article on John Murtha's plan, and incase you do not want to click on the links I'll give you the highlights.



You will notice that both the Murtha and Kerry plan use cute little code words such as "redeploy" and "over-the-horizon presence". It is not a pull out of Iraq. It is an occupation at a distance with no real future benefit to the Iraqi's.

In reality, what I suggested is not radically different. It is still an occupation at a distance, but focuses on separating insurgents from the moderate Iraqi's who are willing to work with the United States to stabilize their government. The main difference, aside from that, is that mine ultimately has the end goal of TRYING to make the future better for the Iraqi's while trying to satisfy our interests in the region.

Kerry has been saying it for years.

...remove the bases. It makes little difference if we just move our troops out of Iraq to Kuwait and off shore. We can strike at them from a distance. We have an air force, you know. We will also be arming the government of Iraq, in whatever form it emerges as, who will then (in their eyes) hopefully occupy Iraq for us. Remember Saddam from back when he was a friend? It's just more of the same.

Your responses throughout the thread are long, but laced with contradiction.

You advocate remaining in Iraq because of some perceive moral authority that the U.S. possesses and must confer on Iraq. Kerry is advocating withdrawing, maintaining no permanent presence and respecting Iraq's sovereignty.

I am not saying we have a moral authority. We don't. In fact, I either stated here or else where that we don't have any moral ground to stand on. That does not mean we do not have a moral duty - which is completely different - to do what we can for the Iraqi people. Just because we were wrong in invading, does not mean we should also be wrong and abandon them, especially after we are the cause of their problems. Two wrongs do not equal a right.

You are missing a few facts from Kerry's proposal:

1. We do not need a permanent presence in Iraq when we are maintaining - to quote his term "a over-the-horizon" presence. That simply means that we won't build bases in Iraq, we'll just move our troops outside of their country to launch missiles at them, and fly over them with our air force.

2. Kerry is not advocating withdrawing our troops. He is advocating a "redeployment" of the troops. I challenge you to find anywhere in that proposal that you posted that Kerry uses the word "withdraw" once. Just one time. Actually, you don't have to bother - I already checked. He doesn't. I already told you what "redeployment" means, and if you don't believe me you can investigate it yourself.

3. As for respecting Iraq's sovereignty... ha! Do you really believe the United States will respect Iraq's sovereignty if it welcomes Iran with open arms? America does not care about Iraqi sovereignty. Did Kerry care enough about Iraqi Sovereignty to NOT invade to begin with? No, he did not. He supported the invasion of Iraq right up until the point it was no longer politically feasible to do so. Kerry does not regret his decision to support the invasion of Iraq, he regrets how badly it has been mismanaged, the same as most other people in Washington. The ideal "sovereign" government for Iraq is one that is a willing puppet to the United States. Once such a government is in place, the United States will more than happily respect their "sovereignty".

That is Kerry's plan. That is the truth without the spin.

in his own words


Kerry never supported the invasion of Iraq.

If Kerry never supported the invasion of Iraq, he had a funny way of showing it by voting for the Iraq War Resolution. He can't have it both ways. He can't be for and against the war in Iraq.

Sure, he can change his mind - after having 20/20 hindsight (oh, how wonderful it is), but he can't deny that he was in support of it before it went south. In fact, he defended it right up until the Democratic Primaries when Howard Dean was kicking his ass. That is when he really switched sides, when he realized it was a political liability.

As I said, if anything - Kerry is upset at how badly the occupation has been mismanaged. Not over the fact that we invaded Iraq, unless of course you are just going to take a politician at his word. The way I see it his actions speak louder than any words he can ever speak.

The Kerry-Feingold amendment was nothing more than political fluff. He knew it would never pass as did everyone else. It had no hope, but he put it forward as a political gesture. It was basically the same as the Murtha proposal, and all one has to do to is read the amendment to see what was proposed. No where in the amendment does it say "withdrawal". It uses the word "redeployment" which is not the same. It is the same word that Murtha used - hell it's basically a copy and paste. Now i'll copy and paste from the Slate article again.

Vet, and I used to do redeployment orders. The definition of the word hasn't changed. When soldiers are deployed to Iraq, they don't remain in the U.S. When they redeploy from Iraq, they don't remain in Iraq. Playing with semantics is spin. Redeploy the troops from Iraq means just that: removing them from the country.

Kerry has been consistently right on Iraq.

You can find all that I am about to list in the "Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against violent Extremists" by Lawrence J. Korb and Brian Katulis - which is basically where both Murtha and Kerry got their ideas.

In a nutshell they wanted to begin their redeployment in two phases, but Murtha and perhaps Kerry didn't think it was fast enough. In effect it would bring the Guard and Reserve home, but divide the marines and army up between Afghanistan and Kuwait. This has likely changed significantly as the PPISA was written back in either 2005 or 2006. As things stand now if we "redeploy" we will have to pull out quickly, and this will result in leaving Iraq in chaos. We may be able to send most Guard and Reserve home, but the remaining military men and women will be stationed in either Kuwait or Afghanistan.

The PPISA also did not take into account Iran's involvement. It spoke of engaging Iran diplomatically, but no where did it speak of Iran's attempts to influence the Iraqi government. Furthermore, it did not explore the fact that Iran may simply refuse to speak to us, or even the fact that Iran would keep any deal it makes with us - both likely possibilities. If Iran will not engage us diplomatically or will not keep their end of any deals we make with them - we are screwed. A war with Iran would quickly become inevitable to preserve regional stability.

This is, of course, why we have those nice men and women waiting in Kuwait.

Everything that I proposed can achieve this, the elimination of combat forces - the return of reservists and the national guard. We may have to draw down the number we want to send to Afghanistan, but everything I proposed is entirely possible with the same end result. The difference being we actually, gasp, don't leave the Iraqi people hanging on a limb. We actively try and stabilize their country and ensure that a genuine democracy emerges.

As far as I can tell, Washington has given up for Democracy in Iraq. They figure if the Iraqi's just won't do what they say - then hey - they aren't worth the time. Pull out, kill them if the get uppity, and let Jeebus sort them out.

a long dissertation, it doesn't address a deadline and it's quite different from Kerry's in that it calls for U.S. troops to be used as civil war buffers.

"What if Iran seizes control of Iraq after we leave and then attempts to blackmail the United States with the Iraqi oil?"

What if that doesn't happen? I am not saying do not plan for the future. But the future is NOT cast in stone.

Experts say Iran will seize control of Iraq after we leave and attempt to blackmail us?

Experts said there were WMDS.
Experts said we would be greeted as liberators.

Excuse me, I remain skeptical, both of the doom & gloom, and of the hearts and flowers.

What then? The fact of the matter is Iran is giving us every indication that this is their intention. Furthermore, it is not so much the Iranian's I'm worried about as the Iraqi Government! The Iranian's would not have as much power as they currently do if the Iraqi Government was not supporting them.

However, if we leave and Iran DOES seize control of Iraq what would you propose that we do then? There will be consequences for leaving, what if the consequences are worse than staying?

All I am really saying in this thread, is that we should consider all of our options, and not just assume that because the invasion is wrong, we should leave. We should consider all possibilities and the consequences of those possibilities.

The Iraqis don't want us there. It is their country. We are no longer honest brokers, if we ever were. To say we know what is best for them, after creating the hell they live in, is wrong. To think we can make clearer, more "objective" decisions because we have not suffered the bloodbath that is Iraq as immediately as Iraqis have misses the moral point entirely. It disrespects their suffering entirely. We have no right to demand that they let us assuage our guilt by forcing our version of "help" on them. First, they would not believe or trust us, and rightly so. Second, we are incapable of putting Iraqi self interest above our own; I think sometimes that we are incapable of seeing that our interests and their interest may not coincide. They have the right to act in their own self interest, even if we feel they are wrong. It is their country. We have lost any moral authority to guide them. We can't even guide ourselves.

As far as safe, stable havens, do you honestly think violence would not follow us wherever we go? I think it would. They are not just fighting each other, they are fighting us. Do you think the people, if any, who would flee to these protected zones would not be endangering their own safety and the safety of their extended families by doing so? I think they would. We are hated, and have shown that our ability to protect the Iraqi people is close to nonexistant.

Genocide? I think Iraqis have already considered that, and still want us to leave. As I said before, we have no moral authority whatsoever to override their decision. We have lost that.

You think Iran will rush in to fill the void left by our leaving. I think perhaps the Saudis, Israelis, Turks, Jordanians, as well as the world community would have something to say about that. You ascribe a greater power to Iran than they have displayed to date. You assume that Iraqi Shia and Iranian Shia have identical self interests. I wonder if that is true.

I enjoyed your post immensely and think it very thought provoking. I just disagree that we have the right to decide anything for Iraq. What we have done to them in four years is criminal; they have the right to find their own way now and we must live with the consequences. Morally, we lost the right to do anything else through our own incompetence, arrogance and hubris.

But you see, the problem is greater than the Iraqi's themselves. This is the sad truth. In the long run, to most of the nations of the world, and especially to the United States, the Iraqi's and their fate is irrelevant. It is what lays beneath their country, the oil, that is ultimately what we are after. This is what Iran wants by helping Iraq. This is what we want by "helping" Iraq. It is what everyone is after. It is why Iraq is so important and why the nations of the world care about it so much. It is the reason we went to war.

Securing Iraq's oil is in our nations best interests and the United States - Democrat and Republican alike - are not going to give up on it. Even if they have to slaughter every single Iraqi.

The problem is those who propose that we leave immediately are overlooking the realities of the situation. We are stuck there. If we leave, Iran has shown that it has every intention of moving in on the country. It does not have to send in a military, the current government already supports them.

As you said the Saudis, Israelis, Turks, Jordanians, would all have something to say about that. We would be forced to intervene and be right back where we started. The problem is, of course, we've then engaged ourselves in war with Iran. This causes conflict with both China and Russia. It may cause problems with India as well (although I'm not completely sure). We catch ourselves between the two nations that quite literally have us by the balls - Saudi Arabia and China. Either one of them could cripple our economy.

You see, the problem is much bigger than Iraq itself. It is why we cannot leave - we are the only thing keeping Iran out and keeping the chaos from spreading into the surrounding region. If we leave and Iran managed to seize control of Iraq then there is a very real possibility that nukes could come into play. There are so many insanely bad scenarios, making our current situation look like the best possible of all the bad worlds.

To allow me to consider your post with the seriousness with which it was written, I must ask you some questions.

You say that the current Iraqi government supports Iran. Do you mean it seeks help from Iran, aid from Iran, or subjugation to Iran? What do you mean exactly when you say "moving in" on Iraq?

You say we would be forced to intervene if Iraq's Middle Eastern neighbors object to Iran's "moving in" on Iraq. Why? I don't mean this to be a stupid or silly question; why would the nation who caused instability in the Mideast be sought out to stabilize it? We, who have no understanding of their customs and culture. Or do you mean we ourselves would force intervention based on self interest?As I understand, Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons. Many nations who would oppose this move do. Why would they overtake a neighboring nation at the risk of jeapordizing their own existence? Are we the only global entity that can arbitrate this situation? Do not the Mideast nations themselves have more knowledge of Iraq's politics and culture than we do? Or are you saying they are incapable of resolving the situation on their own? If so, are we the only global entity that can do it? If so, it is a sad situation indeed because we are no longer considered an honest broker.


China and Saudi Arabia can most definitely cripple our economy. But is it in their self-interest to do so? Can they cripple our economy without also crippling their own? Or other nations of the world upon which their economies might depend? I think perhaps their own economic security depends, in part, on the health of the global economy. That economy cannot be healthy with a crippled United States.

I do not ask these questions in a belligerent or condemning way. I would honestly like to know why you feel our continued presence in Iraq is absolutely necessary to the security of the region and the world. Or does none of this matter and you feel we are there because we will never give up the oil?

I'll try and answer them as best I can, because in all honesty the situation is insanely complex with many layers. It is somewhat like an onion, each time you remove one layer you find there are still more beneath. Each layer is increasingly more complex than the one before it.



This is largely unknown. What, from my understanding, is going on is that the Iraqi Government is basically seeking to be propped up by Iran. If we leave we have to be honest and admit that the Iraqi's are not going to be able to handle their country on their own. Iran will have to move in and assist in stabilizing it, which will most likely come in the form of arming the militias favorable to the Iraqi government. This will escalate the civil war, which is basically three different sides who seek to commit genocide of each opposing side. They want to kill each other.

Naturally, not all Iraqi's are like this - there are thousands upon thousands trapped in the middle. They are the ones who will be hurt, and they are the ones that I want to help. We cannot prevent this civil war from happening - it is already under way. We are getting killed by trying to stop it. That is why I proposed that we withdraw into remote regions of the country, seeking to evacuate as many people as we can who are willing to cooperate with the United States in restoring order to their country. This essentially means accepting American occupation until order can be restored, and in return for complying we ensure that their basic needs are met and that they are secure.

This effectively cuts off any advance Iran hopes to make within the country because it isolates the insurgents who want to overthrow the government, and the radicals who want to engage in genocide. We can cut off supplies to them without the use of ground forces and through air strikes. They will either have to surrender to us, be bombed into oblivion, or frankly - starve to death.

The ONLY way to stabilize Iraq is to eliminate those who violently oppose American occupation.



First there is American interest. America does not want Iran directly or indirectly controlling the oil fields of Iraq. Second, the neighboring nations will demand that we invade Iran for their support of the genocide that will take place in Iraq. As the last remaining super power, rightfully or wrongfully, we have become the world "police". When something goes wrong in the world, rightfully or wrongfully, we either forcefully intervene (despite objections) or intervene upon request. Almost in all cases it is based on self-interests. Our interests is in the Iraqi oil fields. It is why we invaded. It is why we will invade again if Iran gains control over them, directly or indirectly.

Israel will demand that we intervene, and it is Israel who will threaten Iran with a nuclear weapon. Their relations are strained and we all know that Israel is crazy enough to do it, and Israel is also one of the only nations not to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. This will in turn enrage Pakistan who also has Nukes and have not signed or ratified the Treaty. With the threat of Nukes becoming involved, and China's connection to Iran you have China stepping in... and thus you have a domino effect and a situation that can quickly get very, very bad.


The reason is rather simple. The only hope for Iran to ever become a world player again is the Iraqi oil fields. They can blackmail the world with them, and of course if a Nuclear weapon is used the oil fields are useless to everyone. So it is a game of "go ahead, destroy us all".


Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The Middle East is incapable of doing it themselves, I should think that should be sadly obvious - after all if they were capable of peacefully dealing with each other they would not be constantly in turmoil. We are not seen as an honest broker, that is true, but we are the only nation with enough military power. We are the last super power for a reason. We spend almost 75% or over of our national income on the military. We spend more on our military than all the nations of the world combine. Therefore, largely speaking - we are really the only ones with the ability to pacify Iraq without massive casualties.


You are correct. They too would suffer if they crippled our economy. That does not mean they could not put a strain on us, and even the threat of crippling our economy could cause enough problems for us to comply. The end result - or rather, the goal should be - not to get caught in-between two nations with that power who both could in the very near future have very different national interests.


I believe both is true. I believe it is necessary for our security, the regions security, and the world security to be there. I also believe that we are there, and will remain there, because we will not (and will never) give up the oil.

Thanks for your questions. I answered them as honestly and as forthrightly as I could.

You've given me much to mull over, and I thank you. It's the Gordian knot for sure. I can't say I agree with your Iranian analysis, or the fact that we are doing less harm to our own security and the world's at large by staying in Iraq. By the way, did you hear Hagel's idea on Meet the Press this morning about withdrawing to the Iraqi borders, securing them to prevent Iranian intervention? I wonder if you agree?

I know one thing for sure, we need to begin serious work on eliminating the power and lure of oil. It's our only hope, in the long run.

Again, thank you for your ideas. I will think about them seriously. And, by the way, kudos on your staying power. Some of these posts have been brutal! LOL

I posted this thread in hopes of prompting people to discuss the issue or at least think about it in complete terms. I'm not anti-ideas, because I would sincerely love someone to post the "magic bullet" strategy that will create a "fairy tale ending" in Iraq. I really believe that through debate and the exchange of ideas we could come up with a solution that is to the benefit of all in the long run. I did my best with my proposal - I know it has a great many of flaws (most of which are flaws on moral grounds)... but I ultimately feel that what I proposed is the best solution in the long run for everyone involved. By the long run, I mean fifteen, twenty, thirty, fifty years from now.

I am so angry at people like Colin Powel. He knew all along that this would be the result of the Iraq war. He knew and in the beginning he tried to warn Bush and the American people, but he was silenced. However, instead of trying to speak up even louder he decided to go silent and "support the President" by becoming a willing acomplis. He knew it was wrong but did it anyway. I sincerely hope that the deaths of both Americans and Iraqi's haunt him until his dying days. He deserves nothing less. I place so much blame upon his shoulders, because I believe that if he had spoken up loudly enough he could have prevented this war from happening.

However, I am in full agreement with you. I would favor cutting our military budget significantly if we could use that money on research and development of methods to END our dependants on oil. It is an inevitability that someday the demand of oil will out strip the supply, and after that the oil will eventually be all gone. Sigh.

He knew he went to the UN with questionable data, if not outright lies. To keep his honor, for which he was so lauded, he should have resigned and told the truth to the American people and the world. His reputation is in tatters and will never be restored. He will live with this until his dying day.

I have some hope that we will, hopefully very soon, elect a President who is not enslaved to the oil industry. Maybe then we can begin to regain our freedom from almighty oil. Imagine that! Oil could stop being relevant to our security and day to day lives. It's the only way. Again, thanks for your viewpoint. I will think seriously about it.

...I would love to see Gore run for President. I believe that he would seriously consider an alternative to oil as part of his strategy to combat Global Warming.

I'm so disappointed in the United States. For so many years, under both Democrats and Republicans, our foreign policy has been one based around oil. Our problems with Iran came about over oil. If you really want to know where our problems with Iran began, you should probably start here. This action effectively killed Iranian democracy which was a real possibility. We killed it. Now, as things stand today, I think we stand on the verge of possibly crushing Iran by bombing them into oblivion. Iran could once again - perhaps in the next twenty years - stand a chance for democracy. Our war in Iraq has slowed that process as anti-American sentiment has risen. If we take actions against Iran it could be another 50 to 75 years before they see a real democracy within their country. However, as per usual, our foreign policy does not concern itself with people and their welfare.

If we had a candidate who could point out the connection between national security and alternative energies, we would have a winner. As yet, most environmentalists tell us how we are causing global warming, which is true, but they don't seem to emphasize how the quest for oil is undermining our security, and that of the world. I think it's an aspect of climate change that deserves exploiting.

...global warming is a national security risk. We all know the long term results. It may already be too late, and this doesn't just effect the United States - it effects everyone.

However, sadly, as things stand we have an addiction to oil that we just can't seem to quit. In all honesty, it's hard for me to place all of the blame squarely at the feet of those who guide us through this horrid policy. Most of it has to be left at the feet of the American people themselves. The policy is being driven by our need for oil and natural gas - so that we can drive our gas guzzling SUV's. Americans by and large don't care that we've exploited so many innocent people to have the luxuries that we have. They've turned a blind eye to the world, preferring to dumb themselves down or isolate themselves from the rest of the world pretending that it doesn't effect us.

In a democracy, when the people have the power, how can it ever lay clearly at the feet of the leaders when it is the people themselves that put them in power? It is always easier to point a finger rather than to look in the mirror.

the occupiers. WE are the invaders who caused all this problem.

You act as though we are doing something noble there. There is NOTHING noble about what we are doing in Iraq.

We need to get out NOW, today. We need to turn over ALL the bases to the Iraqis, cancel all the oil contracts and turn over ALL the oil to the Iraqis. Then we need to pay them reparations for the next one hundred years or so to try make up for the the damage we have caused them with our illegal war.

There is NO WAY in the world our presence will ever help. We are criminals.

Yes to all of those. It is 100% correct. We caused the problem. We are currently exasperating the problem. We are occupying their country, and yes we are largely the enemy.



No, we are doing nothing noble there at the moment. You are correct.


Yes, indeed the United States has committed criminal actions, and it is something I believe we should be held accountable for - and one of the reasons I believe we should remain to rebuild Iraq at least to the point of where it was before we invaded. At least.


No amount of restitution will make up for the lives we've taken or the criminal actions we've committed. However, the Iraqi's don't need money - they are in need of much more primitive things at the moment. Shelter, food, and clothing come readily to mind. The rebuilding of communities, the reunification of families and grief counseling follows.

Yes, Iraqi's should ultimately have control over the oil and their nation.

However, you over look one simple thing that undermines every single point you've made. Who are we turning all of these things over too? You say the "Iraqi's", but that implies that Iraq has a government. In the best case scenario the Iraq government would have been a puppet government for the United States. However, we are not in the "best case scenario" - the scenario in which we currently are in is one where the Iraqi government is an active ally to Iran.

Now, you might be willing to hand over Iraq to Iran but I ask you - is that in the best interest of the Iraqi's? Is it in the best interest of the region? Is it in the best interest of our allies or the United States? The answer to all of those questions is: No. If Iran seizes control of Iraq - which it will if we do as you have suggested - it will provoke actions from Saudi Arabia and Israel. There could be a very serious war within the region with the very real possibility of nuclear weapons coming into play.

You see, the problem we got ourselves into - Saddam was a stabilizer. This is why we left him in place when we invaded during the first Gulf War. Bush Senior realized this and wasn't a fool. He foresaw the calamity that Junior ran into - everything that has happened was foreseen far in advance. Now that Saddam is gone we are filling the role of stabilizer. We are preventing the Iraq chaos from spreading to the surrounding nations. We are containing it within the country. The balance of the entire region rests on the edge of a sword... and if we leave that balance is lost.

This was the problem with invading Iraq. We are stuck in Iraq for the foreseeable future because if we leave the resulting consequences could be worse than if we stayed.

Now, do you have any other suggestions?

Let America pay all expenses.

...to take our place as an occupying force in Iraq?

We can not work with the Iraqi Government who actively wants EVERYONE out so that they can cut a deal with the Iranians. The only nations I can imagine willing to occupy Iraq in our place are: Iran, Saudi Arabia or Turkey. Each of them has their own motives, each of them with motives even worse than our own.

Every day we do we make the situation worse. It's time for the UN or NATO to send peace keeping forces. I wasn't talking about other single nations.

They have abandoned Iraq because they see it as an American failure, America's fault and something America must fix. Do you honestly think the UN and the nations it comprises want to occupy Iraq as we have done and having THEIR soldiers killed in the process? No, their people do not support staying in Iraq. That is why most nations who have sent troops have either withdrawn or have begun to withdraw them. Even the British are beginning to withdraw. Do you think they want to send more simply because it is under the banner of the UN? As for NATO they've failed in Afghanistan, the Taliban is making a come back.

The United States is the main military force of both the UN and NATO. If there are soldiers in countries under those banners they are comprised mostly of OUR soldiers. Thus, if either the UN or NATO were to take control of Iraq America would STILL be at the forefront of the occupation militarily.

Your suggestion, would at most ensure that the UN or NATO takes diplomatic control over the situation. This could be useful. However, in all likelihood nothing will be done, and regardless of what happens the United States still bears the brunt of the costs in both blood and treasure.

Your various statements just don't seem to compute......

You claim,





When presented with reasoning that we invaded without just cause, are occupiers, and have followed criminal policies, you claim to agree, and favor accountability.....


And you claim to base your position on morality:





You respond to comments by saying that charges of imperialism are valid, then repeatedly make statements that our involvement was "begun in imperialism", as if that somehow should dictate our future actions.....

And then, while making the above claims,you directly proceed to advocate this:





And all of this you frame as coming from the moral high ground.

Do you believe that the polls that have now shown for more than the last year that the majority of Iraqis desire us to leave are incorrect?

Or do you just feel that the opinion of Iraqis (as lesser creatures "hellbent on killing each other" who "we cannot save from themselves" as you choose to put it) is just not relevant?


. . . . . . .


Does anyone else have a difficult time believing that your conclusions actually came from the underlying principles you claim to believe?

Your statements would make more sense as a most energetic attempt to frame neoconservative/neoliberal militarism in the clothing of progressive ideals than as a logical basis for your conclusions.


Am I out of line feeling this way?

You are correct..

Are you saying that you believe Iraq is pretty much a total loss, but that despite the fact that our staying is not going to help the Iraqis that we must stay to protect the oil?

Why do you think that after what we have done, that we deserve that oil?

I was never for this invasion at any time. The oil belongs to Iraq. We need to get out of that country ASAP. We also need to arrange for another peacekeeping group to come to secure the country. I believe that we are responsible for paying those bills.

Yes, I said all of that and yes I am suggesting that. I am in no way pretending that it is a "good" thing - in fact it is an evil thing. War is evil and we are in war because the American media and the leaders of our country took us to war, with the majority of American's supporting it. Now that we are there we are stuck there.

It is sad, but as I claimed in other posts my plan is better than both the Kerry and Murtha plan because it actually gives a crap about the future of Iraqi's. Yes, thousands will die as we attempt to pacify the country and we will occupy it until the insurgency dies off and we can assist them in establishing a stable democratic government.

Bush's plan boils down to this: Try and pacify Baghdad in hopes that it gives the Iraqi Government room to breathe. Provoke Iran into assaulting us so we can bomb them back to the stone age to prevent them from gaining a foothold in Iraq. Then implement a plan similar to Murtha or Kerry.

Kerry and Murtha propose a plan where we withdraw, enter into diplomacy with the surrounding nations, and basically occupy Iraq from a distance. They in no way advocate bringing ALL of the troops home. They wish to keep them there to secure the oil and indirectly aid the Iraqi government by arming them to basically kill anyone who opposes them similar to how Saddam came to power. They believe Iran will be kept in check by assisting Iran in becoming part of the world community again, which would be Iran's political intentions in Iraq.

Neither side has what is the Iraqi's best interests at heart. My plan proposes, like the Kerry and Murtha plan, that we "redeploy" as they put it, they favor leaving Iraq and moving offshore and into Kuwait, I favor in remaining slightly closer in the remote regions of Iraq. There we will prevent the chaos in the country from spreading outside. We will actively seek to separate the moderate Iraqi's willing to submit to United States occupation until we can stabilize their country. We will provide them with security and help them get back on their feet. At the same time we will crush the insurgents, both through air strikes and cutting off supplies. Once the insurgency ends we can then begin assisting Iraq into a gradual transition into a stable government. One that is democratic, and if after that they want us to leave - we should.

Now which is worse? The Bush proposal, the Kerry/Murtha proposal or mine? Mine is the only one that has as one of its main goals to ensure a better future for Iraqi's.

IF we pull out it will be under either the Bush plan or the Kerry / Murtha plan. Pick your evil. I do not pretend in any way that what I proposed is "good", "noble" or even very highly "moral" - only that is better than all the alternatives that are currently placed on the table.

This is the gist of your OP and subsequent statements:

After illegally invading Iraq, America owes it to the Iraqis to control their affairs; therefore, the illegal occupation must continue despite the Iraqis' calls for foreign occupiers to leave their country. America owes them an occupation. America also owes it to the Iraqis to determine the type of relationship Iraq will have with Iran and other neighboring countries.


That doesn't remotely resemble anything Murtha, Kerry or Feingold proposed.

Basically the same old crap--kill 'em for their oil, but pretend we're doing it for their own good.

Since you are now CONCEDING that your own plan is (in your words) "evil",

and since you now say,





why did you, in fact, frame this whole issue as our "moral responsibility"?

Why did the title of your thread focus on "morality", and what we "should" do?

And why did you sum up your initial argument by saying,







But now, when difficult challenges to your position are made, (based upon the very "morality" issue you brought up), you now resort to an attempt to deflect criticism of the morality of your position by claiming that ALL the options are "evil", and to defend your position by claiming you "never pretended" that your position was moral, you now assert,





But you continue to refuse to address the fact that the Iraqi people don't agree with you.


. . . . .


So I'll repeat the question that still seems relevant:

DO YOU BELIEVE that the polls that have now shown for more than the last year that the majority of Iraqis desire us to leave are incorrect?

OR.... DO YOU JUST FEEL that the opinion of Iraqis (as lesser creatures "hellbent on killing each other" who "we cannot save from themselves" as you choose to put it) is just not relevant?


. . . . .


Which course is best? (Or, as you put it, "Which is worse"?)


. . . . .



Why not ask the Iraqi people?

Or, for that matter, why not ask our troops?

Or, perhaps the American people?

Give an alternative that will do the following:

1. Secure United States national interests, by ensuring that Iran does not seize control of Iraq directly or indirectly.
2. Ensure that there is a genuine democracy within Iraq, so that the Iraqi's can live peacefully and free.
3. Ensure that there is not regional destabilization.

My plan offers these things. It is the most "moral" out of every proposal put forth that I have seen to date.

I am fully aware of what the Iraqi people want and what the American people want, but what they want is inconsequential to what is best for everyone involved. Most American's want to disallow gay marriage, does that make it what is best? Most American's supported the invasion of Iraq, did that mean it was a good idea? Most American's supported George W. Bush and believed he was doing a good job around the time of the Iraq invasion, did that mean he was actually doing a good job as President? You can't use poll numbers to justify what actions we should or should not take in Iraq. I don't blame the Iraqi's or Americans for wanting us to leave - I would like to see us leave as well. Hell, I wish we would have never went in the first place - unlike MOST Americans. Now that we are there, in the middle of things, I believe we must bring things to a reasonable conclusion that is beneficial to everyone involved. That means it must also be beneficial to the Iraqi's NOT just the United States.

You're kidding, right?

anywhere, including here. Don't make me laugh.

As for Iran, how Iraq chooses to deal with its neighbors is its own concern, but we should seek to foster amity, not hostility. We already started one Iran-Iraq war, remember?



And as for regional destabilization, wtf do you think we're doing there now!?

Forgive me if I am skeptical of your motives, but after all this blather about our "moral responsibility" to "not abandon" Iraqis, it appears your real reasons are finally surfacing.

And, your words are indeed direct:



Perhaps others here may feel that one little point may be worth considering: IT'S THEIR COUNTRY.

Your 3 points:



I would think, are WORTHY GOALS of American foreign policy.

In fact, I believe they should be near the top of the list. (Straight out of the neoconservative/neoliberal playboook though they be.)

. . . . .

But being a WORTHY GOAL of American foreign policy DOES NOT confer upon us the right to pursue those goals militarily, while violated the lives, property and liberties of human you appear to think beneath you.

. . . . .

I think that that is perhaps the fundamental difference between your philosophy and that of some of your critics.

You might want to reconsider whether or not such a policy (of forceful pursuit of noble goals, regardless of the rights or opinions of others) is, in fact, an approach likely to result in success (or whether it just might be likely to foster and solidify perpetual conflict and intransigent hatred.)

Perhaps you might also want to consider whether it might be helpful to state your priorities opening and directly, rather than clothing them in faux-compassionate language of "moral responsibility" not to "abandon" Iraqis.

To say this:



I HAVE NOT NOR HAVE I EVER STATED NOR IMPLIED THAT I THINK IRAQI LIVES ARE BENEATH AMERICAN LIVES. I'll put that in bold and in caps so that you can read and understand it.

I find that you would imply that I think such a thing offensive. In fact, I clearly stated multiple times that even if it costs more American BLOOD AND TREASURE, that I think we should pay it to ensure that those three goals I listed are fulfilled. The reason? We broke their country. We should fix it.

You are suggesting abandoning their country when you know full well that they lack the capability to put it back together. You know damn well that many of them will turn upon one another in blood feuds and a three way genocide will become the norm. This is what I call abandoning the Iraqi's this is what I see as the true immorality. Yes, what I propose is not pretty - it involves more killing - but at least it involves a way to save at least some of the god damn people instead of just throwing them to the wolves. This is what every other proposal thus far has come up with. We leave completely or redeploy to Kuwait. We let the Iraqi's handle their own mess - the mess we created - and basically let them die while we rob them blind.

If you want to talk about immorality - that is immorality. That is what YOU are supporting. You have assaulted me, called me a neoconservative (in all likelihood I am more liberal than you are), and claimed that I do not have the interests of Iraqis at heart. Yet you have still not offered any plan that accomplishes the three goals I stated, and that you agreed were worthy and noble goals. If you have a better way, then by all means I am listening. If you do not then you should reframe from insults and lies.

Paint me a villain and lie to yourself all you want, it does not change the reality of the situation.

Let's try to focus on the substance of your suggestions:

The impression that you feel Iraqis to be beneath you was based on your statements that Iraqi desires to have us out of THEIR COUNTRY is inconsequential, and your assumption that we have the unique right to decide what is best for them, even to the extent of occupying THEIR NATION against their will (all, of course, for their own best interest).

My impression was not that you might think Iraqi lives were of less values than American lives. The impression I gained from your statements is that Iraqis themselves are beneath you when it comes to issues related to their own governance.

A plan which patronizes Iraqis, disregards their wishes, and advocates manipulating their governing processes might perhaps suggest to some that you feel them beneath you:












By the way, rather than calling you a "neoconservative", as you state above, what I actually said was that your 3 stated objectives





were WORTHY GOALS, with which I can find no fault, even though they were "straight out of the neoconservative/neoliberal playbook". Does that statement make either one of us "neoconservative' or "neoliberal"?

But again, the fundamental distinction suggested was that noble goals that are worthy objectives of diplomatic policy do not necessarily justify military action or occupation.

These are nuances which do not seem to be appreciated by apologists for militarism and imperialism, whether they be "neoconconservative" or "neoliberal".

Does the fact that 80 percent of Iraqis want us to leave not register with you?

Colonialism is a historical dinosaur. It no longer is effective

...most American's supported the Iraq war made it a good idea, then? If that is the logic you are using to justify your argument it is flawed. Why should any policy be dictated by poll numbers? I am well aware how the Iraqi people feel and they are completely justified in their feelings. I have said this countless times before - read some of my other posts in this thread.

comparing a 60 percent approval of americans wanting to go to war in someone else's country, to a country that has been ravaged by americans, killed 600,000 plus of them and destroyed their infrastructure appears to me to be a very weird leap.

It IS their country, lest we forget

...Americans who favor denying gay people equal rights? Should we always follow the will of the people even when there are better solutions available?

How about when most Americans overwhelmingly favored slavery? By the logic of going with the will of the people - we would still have slavery in the United States.

The fact of the matter is the Iraqi's have every reason to want us to leave. Bush has completely fucked things up. The war was horribly mismanaged and as a result he has made the Iraqi's lives a living hell. They have a damn good reason to feel the way that they do. Yet, at the same time - is it in their best interest for us to leave and allow massive ethnic cleansing? Should we leave and allow genocide when we might be able to save some Iraqi's who are willing to work with us?

I wonder how many Iraqi's will have a sudden change of heart when a death squad enters their home, grabs their children and begins torturing them with power drills, something that has already happened? I wonder if some of them will suddenly think, "Wow those Americans were bastards, but at least they weren't actively seeking to torture and kill my children."

America might have been evil, and it might be evil to stay, but it is even more evil to not try and save those who are willing to be saved.

Seems the CIA and Pentagon are both sponsoring them so I guess there's a little competition to see who can leave the most corpses lying face down in the gutters. And let's not forget who's behind the torture prisons and renditions.

They won't miss us one iota.

It is the height of arrogance to believe that a civilization that predates the United States by a long long shot needs our white colonialist military help to fix it.

It is the height of arrogance to believe that our society, which has done more damage, more permanent damage and more damage on a wider scale, to the rest of the world than perhaps any other nation in history, has anything to offer anyone else in the way of advice.