posted
When Kerry and other politicians talk about getting out of Iraq, it makes me cringe.
Iraq could be, with the proper handling, a friend to the US.
The last thing we SHOULD want to do is get out. We need to make Iraq strong and secure and independent-- and in the process, earn the trust of the citizenry so that we can maintain a mutually profitable relationship with them.
But 'getting out' isn't even a valid option. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I don't like that we are there, but we are and pulling out now and leaving it to fate and the strong men is the worst thing we could do for both them and us.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've already pulled out of everywhere but the cities, and several of the cities, and left them to strongmen. What do you think "independent Iraqi security forces under the direction of a shiite cleric" is a euphemism for?
This is not surprising, as its pretty much exactly the "strategy" Bush followed in Afghanistan.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, fugu, but what is your alternative? Set up US run administration in each city, town and village? Attempt to run the place ourselves without empowering the local population?
Who would you put in charge instead of the strong men? There are people who have abused power in the past. I think they should be avoided if you can tell who is who. But surely you have to use people who have experience in government?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rubble, you only underline fugu's point. If there is no viable alternative other than the strong men to run the cities and the villages, then democracy isn't happening, and may not ever happen.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
If you want to make your case, you can start by rebutting those articles, Scott.
Every time someone brings the topic of Iraq up, I am going to link to my thread. Until those articles are rebutted, I am going to consider the case to stay in Iraq on shaky ground.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Article #1 (Cato Institute): Doesn't address much of what I've laid out here, until page 17. America MAY BE alienating Muslims by occupying Iraq.
Two can play-- America may be solidifying relationships with a peaceful Iraqi democracy by helping to rebuild the country.
:shrug:
Article #2: I'm not concerned about the cost. I'd support raising taxes to help rebuild Iraq.
Article #3: Again-- are any of those reasons to withdraw, now that we're there? We've an implied (if not concrete) responsability there now, Storm. The WORST thing we could do is abandon Iraq.
[ August 10, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, are saying America should leave? It shouldn't? It was too costly in the first place but you aren't saying anything as to what America should do now? Does the rest of the coalition have a meaningful say as to whether you should abandon/stay?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not an ultimatum so much as trying to bring 'facts' into the discussion. It's also me being irritated that no one hardly responded to my thread which had lots of 'facts' and are responding to yours which, no offense, is just an opinion, really.
I'm not trying to be snarky to you, Scott. It's just that I realized recently that the war on terror hasn't really been discussed very much on this board. I need to get into a dialogue with people on this board so I can kind of make up my mind about Iraq, andd in order to do that, I think it's important to understand the fact-based pros and cons of being there.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to go to work, Bob, but real quick, the key assumption that I and other people who have advocated staying in Iraq are that 1) the Iraqis will settle down and the country will accept democracy and 2)the troops and money we are spending in Iraq are going to work towards that end and 3)that Iraq is the best place for our money and troops to achieve that end. I am not convinced, at this point, that ANY of those points are going to happen or are true. For instance, just looking at the article on how much we are spending in Iraq, 2 to 4 billion a MONTH, it's hard for me to rebutt the argument that if we just fed the world and engaged in world building programs with that money in countries where the majority of the people would welcome our presence and that these programs wouldn't do far, far more to help combat terrorism with soft power than our hard power ever will.
This isn't to say that I'm oblivious to the fact that if we leave, Iraq would be catapulted into calamity. The question is, is the prevention of that calamity possible or can we just delay it? Even if we can delay it, is it worth it in the large scheme of things?
So, to answer your question, my mind isn't entirely made up in any direction. That's why I want to get a dialogue started.
posted
Iraq has to be built from the ground up with the people of Iraq making the decisions. The coalition forces should only remain as subservient to a representative government, though with freely given advice. For my money, these representative governments need to be as decentralized as possible, and made up of states. A large American occupying force giving orders to a large authoritarian government is only going to end with more insurgents. ___________________
Look at US Reconstruction after the Civil War, we razed the land, killed an army of people, and we put an authoritative government full of American stooges and carpetbaggers, as we quartered a large army on their land. The result was resentment and the KKK. Instead of the Klu Klux Klan, we have Al Sadr.
The fundamental problem with our reconstruction effort. Iraq needs to neuter the insurrgents by pull all of these guys into a civil and democratic system, with a decentralized government, and democratic city states with large legislatures and small mayors. It may be too late for al Sadr, but his soldiers need to be made state congressmen in a minority party. There needs to be a change in rhetoric from the American force, and that will lead to a change in rhetoric from Allawi.
_______
And while I'm at it. Instead of Halliburton, we should have outsourced this to as many different Arab, and hopefully Iraqi, private firms as possible. Sure, there would have been corruption, and there is so much missing money in Halliburton that if we are going to throw money into a pit, let's do it and at least build some integrity in their economy, and place the administration of the contracts in the hands of the Iraqies, and articulate this to the world as a priority. That's the price of freedom and stability. We have to give up power.
posted
Okay Storm, the articles do make some strong cases. The cost is astounding, but the price of war always is, both in dollars and human lives.
Are we hamstringing our own economic recovery efforts by trying to rebuild the damage we, and the Iraqis, did to Iraq during the war? Most certainly. Right now, it is money going down a rathole. And it's a rathole we're partly responsible for creating.
Is the world safer? In a warm and fuzzy, feel-good kind of way, yes. The old monster under the bed (Saddam Hussein) has been dragged out into the light and we've found he was about as dangerous as the dust bunnies he was made from. But bin Laden still looms in the dark closet nearby and the world can't sleep too soundly yet.
bin Laden is probably dead (that's where I'd bet my money) but his organization and bin Ladenism lives on and his call to Jihad is being played out in minuet in the streets of Najaraf.
But are our dollars doing any good? Are the blood, sweat, tears and toil of our soldiers doing any good? Not to the Mahdists, or the warlords in Afghanistan, and probably not to the Saudi royals. But I do believe that to the plain folks of Iraq, those who just want to go back to their lives and raise their children, I believe it will, in the long run, make a terrific difference.
What happens if we just up and pull out? Honestly, it would work out for Americans better in the end. Iraq would quickly devolve into outright Civil War, probably with eight to 10 factions going hammer and tongs at each other. The Kurds would get their own homeland, the Sunnis their own tiny plot and the Shiites would establish a state or two of their own. And then someone, in one of these areas, would look to Haliburton and cut the Devil's deal to get the oil flowing again, free of OPEC influence.
Sure, we'd save the money, and maybe, just maybe, put it to the good uses stated in Saxon's linked articles. But chances are it wouldn't go there. Look into your hearts and ask truly, would either the Republicans or the Democrats be willing to give it all over to truly good works? I bet you didn't get the warm fuzzies.
So this money is going down a rathole, as are American lives, and it probably doesn't really mean a damn to you or me. But somewhere, over in Iraq, I hope and pray that there's someone at the bottom of that rathole who might be able to see a better day because of our efforts.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this rate, no Iraq will not settle down and accept democracy. There is no security and there are no signs of things becoming more secure. If anything the coalition seems to be abandoning more areas to hold tighter to the cities it does “control.” Not that there’s a single safe point in the area. I just can’t imagine things settling down until the general population comes down on the insurgents and I don’t see the population doing that until they see some real results. Like running water, electricity, a stable government, control over their natural resources. You know, infrastructure things. But I don’t see infrastructure things happening until there’s security. It seems to be a catch-22 that I haven’t been able to work out yet. It parallels any area plagued by terror. Have we solved the Israel/Palestine quagmire? No? Then I worry for Iraq…
The troops are, I believe, doing the best that they can. They’re protecting the areas they’ve been told to protect (which is all they can and should do and is nothing to sniff at). But there just aren’t enough of them and they’ve been there for a long time with no real end in sight. I keep saying it, but the rest of world really needs to take the high road here and get on board with Iraq. Enough of this quiet smirking at America’s current failure, this isn’t the time to take your ball and go home. And America needs to get off its high horse and admit they can’t do it without the help of the rest of the world. Pride being what it is, I worry for Iraq…
That’s a pretty big chunk of change, sure. But the thing is, the general population of America is still by-and-large behind rebuilding Iraq. They do seem to feel that they went in to make a change and they owe it to the Iraqis to see that change through. Because of that they don’t begrudge their tax dollars being spent on the rebuilding process (of course, like typical Americans, they *do* begrudge the fact that they have taxes at all ) I don’t think you could get that kind of unity in the population behind a more nebulous problem that “we didn’t start. It’s my mess, why should I have to clean it up?” If you abandoned Iraq tomorrow and started siphoning all that money to other countries it wouldn’t take long before people started saying it’s money better spent at home. Of course, people are already saying that now and they’re getting louder. America needs global support in this too, but well, see the above paragraph. And that’s not even getting into all the shady things going on with the money that is being sent overseas.
So, yeah, I think Iraq’s pretty much boned. While they deserve the best shot the world has to offer I don’t think they’re even going to get that.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something else I should have said: Pulling out would be political suicide. After all the noise America has made about toppling an evil dictator for the people, this was not about oil. This wasn't even about WMDs (I'm even going to give that to them for the purpose of this point). If they abandon it to chaos, let them kill each other and swoop in to control the oil reserves? I shudder to think of what the rest of the world would do. It's already a situation where many people fear America more than terrorists. America is a daily source of harm that does more damage than terrorists could hope to do (I'm looking at you steel tariffs). In the long run, what would be more damaging? Somebody flying a plane into the CN Tower or America forcing Canada to sell its fresh water? Much as I think Iraq is doomed, I don't think pulling out is an option at all.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If there is no viable alternative other than the strong men to run the cities and the villages, then democracy isn't happening, and may not ever happen.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) I don’t think you could get that kind of unity in the population behind a more nebulous problem that “we didn’t start. It’s my mess, why should I have to clean it up?” If you abandoned Iraq tomorrow and started siphoning all that money to other countries it wouldn’t take long before people started saying it’s money better spent at home. Of course, people are already saying that now and they’re getting louder. America needs global support in this too, but well, see the above paragraph. And that’s not even getting into all the shady things going on with the money that is being sent overseas.
