This is the question that makes something a quagmire. You make a mistake and then you can't get out. Even assuming you along with thousands of HOustonians had the yard signs from the Republican Party "I support President Bush and the Troop 110 Percent " you still need some idea when and how we should withdraw. I have a brother in law who was against the war, though he usually votes Republican. He now says that though he didn't support the war we can't just withdraw now as we'll leave a messy civil war and the remains of Iraq could perhaps be an even greater threat to the US. This rings somewhat true, though I don't believe Iraq was ever a real threat to the US. So my first tentative answer is as soon as: 1) We will have to return to the body of nations and try to mend fences with the rest of the world. Not just the coalition of the coerced that reluctantly agreed to our war. 2) We can then turn this whole matter over to an international body with some real legitimacy. This would have to be the UN. 3) We will have to turn over a large number of our troops to UN control to assist them in keeping the peace. We will have to provide extensive funding to the UN to do so. This builds on our two main strengths-- a large military and wealth. 4) We will have to stop the war profiteering. The group that sponsored the war can not be allowed to profit off the rebuilding. This rules our Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld families, friends and past close business associates. Halliburton, Bechtel Group and the Carlyle Group will have to withdraw along with the troops under our flag. We have to be scrupulous about this. We can'g get other countries to agree to take up the policing slack while these guys hog all the profits. 5) Iraqi oil must remain a state owned company with the proceeds going to the Iraq people. You can't just let the spoils go to the guys who created this mess. You can't just let them use Iraqi oil to bust OPEC and drive down the price of oil for all producers. 6) Elections need to be held very soon and if the Iraqis want a Shiite religious state it should be allowed to happen despite Rumsfeld public announcements to the contrary. The respecting of such democratic wishes is an important first step in returning the US to the respect of the world community, whose help it now needs to withdraw from the Iraqi quagmire. Unfortunately given the need to admit some errors and the politics of 2004 it is unlikely that even rudimentary steps to do this can be taken during at least the first Bush term.
This, I think, is going to be one of those deals where you have to someone from another party make the call... a variation of "Only Nixon could go to China." A Dem President will have to have the courage (and the thick skin, for he will be crucified by the right) to bring in international partners, restructure the corporate involvement in Iraq, and deal with a host of other problems that will come up between now and then. I don't see Republiucans (and especially a second Bush Administration) admitting that the original policies were wrong and working in a way to mitigate the problems already surfacing.
I totally agree with you on most of these points. i think the most important move that has to occur is the establishment of the UN as a leader in the rebuilding project rather than us. I am not saying retract the troops in any way, I am saying to have it look like the UN is taking care of things even if we (the US) are doing everything behind the scenes. i think from the iraqi perspective a US soldier within the context of a UN force is a lot less threatening to them than that same soldier under a US "occupying" force. we still need to do the bulk of the work, but we need the int'l community there as soon as possible to assist us.
We should withdraw when: 1. Iraq has a stable government that is friendly to the U.S. 2. They have a strong enough military to defend themselves against, say Iran Withdraw anytime before that and we have wasted the lives of every American who fell. Also if we just cut and run, our reputation in the region will be direly affected.
There is that other element involved...whattya call them? Oh, yeah...the Iraqis who died. Surely if we don't establish a favorable trading situation whereby we can profit, and or exert our political power in the region, their lives will have been 'wasted' as well, no? I mean, if we can't make some bucks out of the dead Iraqis, or at least get some diplomatic oomph, they might as well have just gone on living... So are pro-war folks starting to admit that putting in a 'pro-US' government is/was among the reasons for war, as opposed to WMD, freedom, etc. Funny, I coulda sworn I was repeatedly bashed a few months back for suggesting just that.
Who cares about the Iraqis who died? I don't think the WWII generation wept for all the Japanese and Germans who died. They are the enemy and you kill them. Simple as that. What's wrong with a friendly government in Iraq as opposed to another unfriendly one? And why is it always that you anti-war folks always bring up the profitability issue like its some kind of conspiracy? We of course are going to give the contracts to our companies, as versus the French or Russkies. I don't think the Bush admin, as much as I disagree with them on other issues, would go to war for the sole purpose of profit. To say so is ridiculous.
Actually my father served in WWII, and I can tell you that they were upset for everyone that died. However the Iraqis aren't the enemy. They were the one's we were freeing right?
Even with the problems evident in this story, I suspect there are more Iraqis with this kind of attitude than those acting out of loyalty to Saddam. Iraqi Fighters: Yankees Go Home Somewhere In Iraq, July 21, 2003 CBS News In an exclusive interview with CBS News, three men who claim to have participated in several recent and deadly attacks on U.S. soldiers say they're not doing it for love of Saddam -- but instead for God and their country. U.S. officials blame "remnants of Saddam's regime" -- "dead enders" they call them -- for the unending attacks. "Are any of you former Saddam loyalists? Work for Saddam? Love Saddam?" asked CBS News Correspondent David Hawkins. The men all shook their heads "no" as a translator said, "They just follow the instruction of Holy Koran." "So this is a religious war?" questioned Hawkins. "It's a holy war?" "Yes, yes, " said one man. "We are farmers. We're Iraqis. This isn't about politics." The three claim to be the ones who attacked a military convoy last week west of Baghdad -- an attack that killed one American soldier. A Baghdad gun-runner arranged a meeting with them for CBS News. "Why do you fight? Why do you attack American soldiers?" Hawkins asked. "This is occupation, so we fight against the occupation," said a fighter. "You're very upset the Americans are here," asked Hawkins, "but are you glad Saddam is gone?" "We feel happy now because we can speak freely, but at the same time we don't want Saddam neither, or America. We just want the American soldiers to leave our country," reported the translator. The Iraqi fighters chose the meeting spot in the middle of the desert -- in the middle of nowhere really, because they felt safe there. They said they know the territory well and the Americans don't. "All of them will die here. We advise them that they have to leave Iraq before they die here," stated one fighter. Threats from these men won't frighten anyone away, but their fanaticism and fervor suggests that they'll put up a fight -- for some time to come.
We should start replacing many of our troops with a UN peace keeping force, at once. We should also send more non-military humanitarian aid in there. We shouldn't pull out entirely until the Iraq is stable. To pull out now, and leave the Iraqis to power vaccum which could result in a huge blood bath. The Iraqi govt. should be established quickly, and U.S. presence put into the background as quickly as possible. No matter how greatful some Iraqis might be for the overthrow of Saddam, nobody likes to walk to the store, and see a foreign military force running your country. That would be true if conditions were rosy. Conditions aren't rosy. There is the heat, most people don't have electricity for an entire day, people who were once employed don't have jobs, and everywhere they go there are tanks and soldiers of an invading force on hand. That's not a good thing, even if they are happy Saddam is gone. The sooner they are in charge the better. The smaller the visibility of U.S. forces there are on the ground the better. The U.S. should be part of the UN team, and they shouldn't be out until the new govt. of Iraqis tells them they don't need any more help.
Two minor distinctions, for those of us who like to quibble... The Germans and Japanese attacked us, and as such we killed in self-defense. The Iraqis who died did so doing their job; defending their country against an enemy force which invaded them without first being attacked. And also there were those pesky civilian casualties...you might have overlooked them under the euphemism of colateral damege, however in color television they still play as civilians we killed. I have never said they went exclusively for profit...However I also feel that 'ridiculous' is a stretch. WMD isn't working out so well...liberation seesm to not be rushing us to arms elsewhere, like say Liberia...there are many nations with documented connections to 9-11, unlike Iraq, and the UN thing sort of fell apart when the UN balked...so you tell me, again, why were we in such a rush to get into Iraq, whereas we seem to be less hasty regarding N. Korea, with a more evident WMD issue, or Liberia, where the humanitarian issue is actually backed up by repeated appeals from the general populace? What was the distinction that demanded we get involved in Iraq, if not potential profit, that doesn'y apply at least as well else elsewhere...seemingly to no avail?
I agree it's not the sole purpose, but would it be ridiculous to say profit is the primary purpose? Or the third? Or tenth? Where does it fit in your view BS?
It doesn't, at all. I don't think profit figured in anywhere into Bush's thinking, either for himself or his friends in that much-hated "big business." He wanted to get rid of Iraqi WMD, oust Saddam and install a friendly government. We've accomplished Saddam's ouster, we're looking for WMD (in a country the size of Texas, how hard would it to be to hide a few cannisters of anthrax or some chemical weapons? Not hard at all) and we will install a friendly democratic government.
It wasn't as far as I understood it. The original topic talked about AMericans who lost their lives fighting for toppling Iraq. Someon else said not to forget the Iraqis. I take that to mean the Iraqis who lost their lives in the fight too whether by accidental U.S. fire or later by the Iraqi guerilla warfare that's going on. The reply to that was who cares about the Iraqis.
