If we leave Iraq now, there will be deadly civil war.

[Redbear]

If we leave Iraq six months from now, there will be deadly civil war.

If we leave Iraq two years from now, there will be deadly civil war.

If we leave Iraq ten years from now, there will be deadly civil war.


Given these four facts, when should we leave?

[RC]

1. Let's ship everyone that voted for bu$h the second time to Iraq.

Let them stop the civil war.

[Jose Diablo]

2. Uh, now? n/t

[Warpy]

3. If we stay in Iraq for the next twenty years

there will be deadly civil war.

After the war has exhausted everyone enough to make them work together, then they'll throw us out.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Exactly

because Bush is going to hold on to his Precious and he will never let go.

[htuttle]

5. There's a deadly civil war now

[rocktivity]

6. You left out the most important fact.

We're IN Iraq, and there IS a deadly civil war.

:headbang:
rocknation

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Do you realize that this kind of chaos is the kind of stuff that the CIA

spends months, years, decades planning for? And we're giving them a country in chaos as a by-product of Bush's greed grab. The CIA should pin Bush with the medal of honor.

[EVDebs]

20. Ted Shackley's "Third Option" nt

[Parche]

8. iraq

I say we put Grant in charge, and let Sherman run thru Baghdad and Basra

[JuniperLea]

9. The sooner the better

Get it over and done with. The sooner we pull out, the fewer US and other lives will be lost.

[Schema Thing]

10. I disagree with your premise

These people lived as a country for decades w/o a civil war.

I wish my fellow dems were not so flippant about OPG. (other people's genocides)

[Mythsaje]

11. Because they had a strongman dictator

keeping the lid on it.

Not because they WANTED to get along.

[Schema Thing]

17. And your point is?

divisions boil over in the frickin' US of A, sometimes.

Yes Virginia, there IS a need for stable governments and rule of law to protect people from chaos.

Rwanda could have been prevented, it just wasn't.

[Life Long Dem]

12. Eventually the whole population of Iraq will be wiped out and then we can call it a victory.

Isn't that what we are doing? Civilians turn insurgent and insurgents are killed. The number right now is over one half million Iraqi's killed since March of 2003. You do the math. Another fill in the blank years.

[sallyseven]

13. 20,000per month till we are gone.

Let them sort it out.

[ewoden]

14. WRONG, If we haven't left Iraq in ten years

The waring factions will have united to throw us out.

[Boo Boo]

15. Obviously, if the only thing at stake was whether or not Iraq's civil war

would intensify, we'd be out of there tomorrow.

[Cha]

16. There is and will be "a deadly civil war"

without our Soldiers being in the middle.

[Jon8503]

18. I vote for all of those who feel we should stay until the mission is

accomplished or the job is done. It is a total mess where if you leave there will be complete disaster, if you stay there will be complete disaster. I guess you could say Junior's greatest accomplishement is a complete disaster.

[EVDebs]

19. Numbnuts McCain: We'll be in Iraq "10, 20 years...That's not so bad"

http://www.frostcloud.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2565.html

This guy isn't going to win the R nomination for '08.

[leesa]

21. Now, of course. When you discover you are raping someone, you should stop.

[Donna Zen]

22. I expected to see this article:

Who's Running The White House Show?

When I opened this thread, I expected to see this article, which contains some clarifying quotes. Joost Hilterman of the ICG has many on-the-ground contacts in Iraq, a reason I look for his writing. There obviously is a deadly civil war in progress, what is often negated through neglecting to mention the concept, is how much worse it can get. And...it can get much worse. Here's a snip:

Knickmeyer -- who has courageously stuck it out in her perilous posting much longer than most reporters -- sees ominous signs of an impending disaster far worse than the present chaos, bombings, sniper attacks, kidnappings and predictable carnage.

Knickmeyer spoke with Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group. He said, "We're not talking about just a full-scale civil war. This would be a failed-state situation with fighting among various groups." He added grimly, "The war will be over Iraq, over its dead body."

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador, sees the consequences of partitioning Iraq: "To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale."

That would certainly mean the Saudis, Iranians, Turks and Syrians would be drawn into the conflict, aligning with various factions to protect their own interests, borders and security.

Repeat: "The war will be over Iraq, over its dead body."

If all options look bad, it is because they are. When should we leave? Perhaps the better question is "How should we leave?" The best we can hope for now is leaving under circumstances that will not necessitate our return or further involvement. That, no matter what dictator rules Iraq, means some stability. Hopefully Iran will have come to some regional agreements with its neighbors that can satisfy their security needs. But the regional Sunnis cannot stand by to witness a genocide.

Now I'm off to read Nir Rosen's Anatomy of a Civil War for each article, each book has something to offer. Personally, I don't know how supporters of this war, even those who now claim the mantle of "oops" can read about this unfolding tragedy.