Actually I meant that we need to stay to help ourselves, screw the Iraqis In all serisouness though, a country with an infrastructure in place after we leave will be significantly more stable than one that we just cut and run.
I think that's such a false hope. The insurgency will continue as long as the US is there. Kill one terrorist, create several more. It's classic palestinian math, as the Israelis found out. There's a reason why the vast, vast majority of the Iraqis want us to go home. Things are already a mess there, it's not like it's going to get much worse if we leave, and if the main motivation of the jihadis to blow stuff up disappears, then they sort of lose a reason to exist. The case for cutting and running is actually pretty good if you evaluate the situation.
Actually there's a pretty good case to be made that whenever we leave it will get worse. There seems to be a reasonable expectation of a total civil breakdown, followed by a 3-way racial free-for-all. This older thread cites one example. I have seen other news stories which make similar claims. Fundamentally, the idea of cutting and running upsets me. It is the international political equivalent of running up huge credit card debt and declaring bankruptcy. It seems to me that there we made a big ol' mess and we want to sneak off to avoid cleaning up our mistake. That having been said, I think the explosion in inevitable. I would point to Yugoslavia, where Marshall Tito and others held in check the animosity that started WWI for nearly 100 years. But as soon as the force of the strong central authority vanished, the hate resurfaced and Croats, Serbs, Albanians, and Bosnians were massacring each other for 5+ years. I would prefer to see us fall back to a situation not unlike IFOR in Yugoslavia. Basically retreat from the ground but maintian a "big stick" option nearby to help keep things from going crazy.
In that earlier post I had meant to post this link that mentions a December 2005 Atlantic monthly essay, which outlines the case for leaving now, parts of which are excerpted here http://www.ww4report.com/node/1389 As the writer said, and as I hinted .... there's ALREADY a civil war going on that we're largely powerless to stop, a civil war which is exacerbated by our presence. It's very hard to be part of the solution, when you're part of the problem.
I suppose that's partly true but the civil war is also being breeded due to the factionalism and fragmentation inherent to Iraq. Sunnis and Shi'ites are vying for control or more control and in many cases this has driven them to engage in violence and terrorism. Iraq's current security state is far worse than the administration admits. There is virtually no military and even its basic police and law enforcement capacity is non-existant. The country is virtually lawless without a US presence. Our troops aren't just trying to stamp out terrorists, but are even being forced into basic police and law enforcement functions because a stable law enforcement system is still non-existant. Not to mention the fact that the Iraqi military has at most 20000 soldiers that are capable of operating as an independent group. Without any US presence, Iraq is literally reduced to a chaotic state in which smaller factions such as Al Sadr's group or other radical leaders could essentially take over parts of Iraq like Al Sadr did earlier. The Kurds have already started a process of isolating themselves from the rest of Iraq and probably would speed this up if the US were to simply leave the country. Also terrorists could easily shift their focus from the US to the new government which many insurgents aren't big fans of. Things are just too fragile right now. I would love for the US to leave quickly, but the alternative is worse. You may be right that a civil war will occur with our without our presence but a US presence is fundamental to minimizing that to buy time for some minimal level of reconstruction (no matter how incompetently and poorly it is being done). Also, we need time for the government to stabilize itself out and make it a permanent power in Iraq. The US literally is the only thing keeping this country together because all three factions, the kurds, sunnis, and shi'ites have steadily drifted apart despite the creation of a political process that was supposed to unify all sides. Immediate withdrawal simply isn't an option. The US will need a phased system that takes into account external features like reconstruction and government and the creation of an Iraqi military and law enforcement system. I'll be the first one to say that this reconstruction has been a disaster so far but sadly the alternative simply is worse.
Good points, but the argument is that the country is virtually lawless anyway, because of US presence. As for the Kurds they're on their way out the door no matter what (and rightfully so, in my opinion), so whether that's now or later, not sure in the grand scheme if that matters. It doesn't really matter if Iraq breaks up, which seems inevitable at some point, it only matters how messy the breakup is. By making it a jihadi playground by virtue of sheer presence, it's hard to see how the US is contributing to the non-messy-ness. Is the alternative really far worse? Most Iraqis seem to feel it's the opposite, which is why a lot want us to go.
I suppose where we diverge is on the question of whether Iraq's total collapse is inevitable. I still hold out some hope that this can be cleaned up to a degree and thus believe that a continued US presence still has some value.
Not necessarily - I'm not sure if I totally espouse the view of the author. But anyway - the point that I am hitting on is that the gulf between total collapse vs. status quo is not really as big a dfference as its made out to be.
Warning: Clicking on the link below will display a photo with lots of blood. The article author lists an email on his website at http://www.nirrosen.com. I just sent him the following message: [rquoter] Read your article from Atlantic Monthly. Saw you left your email address on your website, so I hope you don’t mind being messaged by dilatants like me. Do you think it possible that some groups of Kurds or Shia might start systematic ethnic cleansing of Sunni (who as you state are much weaker) in places like Kirkuk and other places where Saddam altered the cultural mix if the United States “cuts and runs? (i.e. taking back Mosul for Kurdistan) Thank you for your time. [/rquoter] If he responds I will post it here. The author's page has some interesting and Iraq photos.
We invaded both Cuba and the Phillipines (the Spanish surrendered in Manila after losing the naval battle to the invasion fleet) during the Spanish American War, which was a war of territorial expansion if there ever was one.
Freeing them from the Spanish, of course. As the issue of the day was independence in both cases (look at TR and Congress's continual wrangling on the issue) it would be wholly mischaracterizing the occupations as 'territorial expansion.' In fact, TR fought especially hard to get Cuba its independence. Saint Louis said we invaded and never left the countries of South Korea, Kuwait, Japan, Okinawa (okinawa was part of Japan so somewhat redundant), Cuba and the Phillippines. That is incorrect. We didn't invade South Korea or Kuwait at all. We didn't invade the countries of Cuba or the Philippines, rather Spain - and we're don't have occupying troops in the either anymore. We haven't even had bases in the Philippines for about a decade and Guantanamo is there by treaty, not as an occupying force. Further, troops in Italy and Germany are there as part of NATO, not as occupying forces and in Japan for similar security concerns - again not as occupying forces. Not sure why its the same thing. It is flat out incorrect to say we invaded the countries of Cuba and the Philippines.
so you're saying St Louis only made a mistake by calling Cuba and Philippines as countries.. if he simply said we invaded Cuba and Philippines then he's still correct..
