|
to think it will go away just because we do. There are a dozen factions in Iraq, and most of them would rather anarchy than to allow their worst enemy to rule. We aren't their worst enemy. We are teh most hated faction at the moment, but once we leave, decades of animosity will continue, and without anyone to act as a counter to it.
Iraq isn't a real nation. It isn't a melting pot, like the US, either, where people from different backgrounds are thrown together into the same mix. It is a country forced together from several different factions, some of whom are incompatible. The Sunni and the Shia will have different goals, the different factions within each group will have different goals. The Shia and the Kurds have large supplies of oil, the Sunni very little. Thus, the Shia and the Kurds will have little reason to give the Sunni a share of control. The Shia will have allies with Iran, as they did in the Iran/Iraq war. The Sunni will find support from other nations and groups, such as the so-called Al-Queda groups.
Without us there, they will keep fighting. We have destroyed the military and police which could stop the fighting, and the police who have been trained will ally with whatever factions they belong too. Obviously not everyone. Some, maybe even most, will support a central constitutional government, but there will be plenty who don't, and as in all such situations, those who don't will be willing to create anarchy to prevent the other side from gaining control.
We created the insurgency. Right now it is aimed at us. But by destroying all control in Iraq, we also have allowed old grievances to emerge, and revenge to take over. Notice how many Iraqis are targeted in the insurgency. It's easy to assume the all anyone in Iraq thinks about is us, but that's not the case. Right now we are the biggest factor. But we aren't the only factor. We are, however, the only force strong enough to bring some organization. If we pull out now, civil war will erupt, amongst more than two factions, and the slaughter will make ours look minor.
The strange thing is that you said something at the end that makes me think you agree with Hillary and Kerry. You said that the withdrawal requires great skill and careful negotiation. Obviously, then, like Hillary, you don't support an immediate pull out. You support us trying to leave the nation in the best condition, and that will require us leaving some troops in place until we can withdraw them safely. Which is exactly what Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are saying. You are just emphasizing the withdrawal, they are emphasizing the negotations. As leaders, that's what they should do--be cautious in what they say.
I actually don't agree with Hillary, and not really with you. I think we should pull out immediately, and turn peacekeeping operations over to an international body, like the UN. We should supply troops under their control, and should pay for the damage we've done. In short, we should withdraw our name and our control, but not our money and our troops. I just don't think America would ever do what we should do, so I'm willing to listen to people like Clinton and Kerry who are taking a middle road. Bush's methods won't work, ever, and complete and immediate withdrawal would only work if we did things we won't do. Their methods, which are just about the same as yours but with a more open-ended time frame, are about the only ones right now I think we can pull off.
I'm just sick to death of this DLC-bashing crap. They are one faction in a diverse party. They talk like they control the party, but they don't, and never have. They like Hillary because she's the best chance to win in 2008. She may not be by 2008, but as of now she is. So hearing all this "I'll never vote fory Hillary" crap just sounds to me like I've wandered into Freeperville, or worse, into Naderland. When I first started here the common theme was to bash Gore as a DLC sellout who surrendered Florida (rather than starting a civil war, I guess). Four years later, only becaue Gore wasn't running, he was the darling of the people who called him a devil four years earlier, and then Kerry was the whipping boy. Now it's Hillary--again once the darling of liberals. As soon as Hillary drops out or loses, she will be the darling of the party, and people will claim the DLC destroyed her because they hate liberals. Don't believe me? Do an extensive search on Gore, that's exactly the path his reputation took here.
Hillary's one of the good guys. The bad guys all have Rs in front of their name. When we regain control, then we can start arguing over the shade of D we support.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
