Having already made my position clear on whether or not we should have gone to war, like many other war critics, I had also concluded that, as we are there, and we can't take it back, we were compelled by both honor and morality to stay there and clean up our mess. But increasingly of late, as our post-war invasion has been more and more revealed to be virtually non-existant, as we have increasinyl been reactive instead of active, and as our actions have been so essentially stupid, clumsy, and outright immoral, it has begun to occur to me that we are doing more harm there than we can good. With the torture scandal, the prospect of winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis, an absolute necessity if we are to have any kind of positive effect, seems to have become virtually impossible. The premise has been that, were we to loeave, either a civil war would erupt, we would see another Iran, or some form of neo-Saddam would take power. It seemed, at the time, that our presence was necessary for the good of Iraqis. But increasingly, even those who supported us in Iraq want us to go, and our chances to have a positive effect are dwindling every day. So perhaps we should get out, for the good of the Iraqis, and let them get on with their own self-determination. Yes, there will be a cost on their side, but it seems inevitable now anyways, and they will at least be taking control of their own land. As Gandhi said, " Any people will much prefer their own bad government to the good government of a foreign power." And ours has been anything but good. As to the cost to US prestige, pride, etc. Oh, well. We created this, we must bear the responsibility. And it seems increasingly possible that the price should be paid in leaving and admitting defeat rather than in staying and making things worse by trying to pretend it isn't one. I am not sure of this position at all...but whereas before I was sure we had to stay for the good of Iraq, I am much, much sure that that's the best decision, and part of me is starting to wonder if indeed we must go, for the good of Iraq.
The cost of leaving a power vacuum in Iraq could very well be more than pride and prestige. The region is too strategically economically and politically important. I cannot see an easy way out.
I used to believe that we should not leave Iraq until we had stabilized it. That was the least we could do. However, I think that not having a clear vision or plan, constant bungling, and not human rights abuses by the U.S. in Iraq has ruined any possibility of this happening. I don't think any power vaccum left by us pulling out could make things work. We should immediately turn security and decision making over to NATO, The UN or a combination of both and withdraw immediately.
I'm completely torn in two as to whether we should get out of Iraq. Half of me wants the USA to finish the job and deliver what has been promised...a free, democratic Iraq. The other half of me is convinced that the factions in Iraq are going to kill each other no matter what, so we might as well get our troops out of there before it begins in earnest.
It was hard to believe before last week that our presence was actually making things worse than complete anarchy and chaos. Now its not so hard to believe anymore.
Think about the bungling and incompetence of the Bush Administration. Think about how incredibly complex and difficult a task it will be to establisha stable Iraqi government. Do you think they are up to it? Or even competent enough to keep it from melting down before a new Administration is in place? I don't. Therefore we should get out as soon as possible. It will be the best for Iraq and the US.
There is a world beyond the next election, and although you may not care, people in that world are killing and being killed, torturing and being tortured, and many, many more will be. To them, at least, the decisions about Iraq mean more than just how they effect the next election.
So should the US just 'get out' and let them fight it out for themselves. Que sera, sera. Or is essential to ensure a process for order is established first (whether it be UN or otherwise). I tend to think the latter.
What if an overwhelming percentage of Iraqis want us to leave? How many should we kill to avoid leaving? How many causalties should we take to avoid leaving? How does this square with "we're doing it for democracy'?
This is still the case. If we leave, one of these 3 will occur. Can we say one of these 3 are preferable to occupation? The US has in the past built strong nations through occupation without civil war. That's obviously what Bush was hoping for. I can't think of any historical examples where a government was toppled from abroad and society was able to build a new democratic government without turmoil. On the other hand, perhaps Iraq will not be able to build a legitimate government without turmoil. It may be that the only viable government will be the one that really fights for its own survival. My own feeling on democracy-through-occupation is that the US can no longer be successful with this model because we do not have sufficient lattitude for oppression. Not that that's a bad thing, but it does mean we can't make people do things our way. It may be best long-term for Iraq for us to leave, but the short-term is going to be bloody and the US will be blamed for it. Remember when we invaded Afghanistan, the Afghanis complained that we had abandoned them earlier after helping to fight off the Soviets so that they fell under a different dictatorship. Do we topple each successive neo-Saddam until Iraq gets it right?
A) What if we can't ( ensure order) or won't ( defer to UN)? B) What if they really, really don''t want us there? BEFORE the pics were released, a majority wanted us to leave. WHat do you think the sentiment is now? My Gandhi quote still stands, backed up by another one he made to British officials: " Despite the best intentions of the best of you, you must realize that you are, in fact, masters in someone else's home."
Possibly their hand is played out in this case. They must, however, assume the responsibility of passing that torch to someone else. Do i get some kind of an award for mixing up as many metaphors as possible???
I'd like to know how this democracy-through-occupation is supposed to work. Does anyone really have any confidence that occupying powers can effectively install a functioning system of government that is totally alien to the people whom it is supposed to serve?
To use language Bush can understand, this war was r****ded at the beginning and it's r****ded now. But we have no choice -- we have to stay and clean up the mess. If we hadn't crapped all over the U.N., we could allow them to help. But because of our arrogance, we can't even do that now.
Sure, it's just like Japan and Germany!!!! Actually, it's not, there is a Sahara desert of cultural, political, & economic differences between those examples of post war rebuilding and Iraq so as to render them poor examples. There was an article I read a while back in Atlantic monthly about the mistakes made in the rebuilding process, and it had a telling comment from a former CPA person who had since left. Anyway, he flew over with the first batch of civilian "rebuilders" and said something like "I felt uneasy on the way over there because everybody on the plane on the way to Baghdad was reading books about Japan and Germany -- and not one person was reading anything on the middle east, arabs, or Iraq."
My own feeling on democracy-through-occupation is that the US can no longer be successful with this model because we do not have sufficient lattitude for oppression I agree probably not enough "lattitude for oppression" with this silly uproar toward torture and all. Well there is always intermarriage. Maybe we can send about 20-25 million Americans to work over there rebuilding the country for a generation or two. As Jorge says liberals should not be against reverse outsourcing in which we export our out of work citizens. We could give them some sort of incentive to marry the local population. The Spanish and Portuguese successfully did that in Latin America in prior centuries.
The main hurdle to this process is that we believe in separation of church and state imo and they will have a hard time implementing that concept. Democracy cannot exist without this premise.
