Iraq: Your Opinion, Please.

[H2O Man]

I'm taking a little informal survey, and would appreciate your help. I'm curious what you think is the best course for the US to take in Iraq? I think that the vast majority of Americans recognize that the Bush-Cheney administration has not created a serious problem for this country, and that there probably isn't a "good" answer or solution to the mess they have created.

I think most DUers share concerns that replacing Rumsfeld with Gates is not a step in the correct direction. More, James Baker III may be evaluating American options, but one suspects that he represents the interests of a very narrow group's interests. As pointed out in another important DU thread, he is representing the Saudi interests, rather than American citizens', in a significant case.

My questions are: What do you see as the biggest problem we face in Iraq now? What do you think the best option is right now? How can democrats best work towards the option you advocate? And how does your choice impact the Middle East?

There are, of course, no right or wrong answers here. (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld already made that wrong choice.)

Thank you.

[Coexist]

1. Take the training wheels off.

I favor Murtha's redeployment.

MAKE them stand up. The moles will declare victory and come out of hiding. Find them. Neutralize them. What's left is your loyal military and police.

It will get ugly, then it will get better, then we can pack up and to home.

[LynnTheDem]

12. "training wheels"

Just when you think American arrogance can't possibly get uglier...

[Binka]

132. 10,000 Posts Under Her Belt And She Says That?

I am shocked at what passes for progressive/Democratic thinking. As the mother of a Marine nearly killed in this illegal, immoral invasion I find the "training wheels" comment not only arrogant and ugly, I find it deeply offensive.

[mike_c]

2. immediate and unconditional withdrawal!

The U.S. should pay war reparations through a third party, like the U.N. for it's reckless war of aggression against Iraq. Chaos will ensue-- we simply have to accept that. However, the war against Iraq is a crime against peace, a war crime by definition, and NO argument for continuing it, in any form, justifies the continuence of an international crime. That includes plans for "phased redeployment" and "timetables" which are political cowardice masquerading as proper action. The war against Iraq is a CRIME. Every day that foreign occupiers remain in Iraq compounds that crime.

[DemPower]

6. agreed!

Dennis Kucinich should update his plan for withdrawal and we should follow it.

The biggest problem is that Democrats keep perpetuating stupid lies that the republicans put out. 82% of Iraqis asked us to leave over a year ago. They don't want to stand up for democracy? Bullshit. They want us out.

Anyone heard of Negroponte and his death squads? Ever wonder who they are killing?

[malaise]

14. Agree 100% n/t

[roody]

52. Thank you!! Troops home NOW!

[maryallen]

53. Agree.

[trashcanistanista]

78. Agree, with a time line

New time line - ALL troops home by Thanksgiving, 2006.:patriot:

[shraby]

3. I agree with take the training wheels off.

What will follow is a great big shake-up in Iraq and what will come out of it is they will have a dictatorship by a religious faction or other entity. This is the type of government endemic to the middle east and I don't expect them to end up with any other kind. The U.S. being there is just prolonging the agony.

[H2O Man]

76. I've mentioned

on some other threads that a friend who was a Marine for many years has been working on a project on my house. He had been around the globe, and has a good understanding of things military. I respect his opinion. He says there is no way the US can "win" in Iraq, and that men like Murtha understand this. The US "won" the invasion part of the conflict, no matter if one agrees with the administration's reasons for invading or not. But the occupation only adds fuel to the explosion that threatens to take place .... and the longer we stay, the worse it gets.

[misternormal]

4. The Sunnis and the Shiites are going to fight it out...

... anyway for who is going to control the country...

I say pull out now, and let them fight it out. get our people out of harm's way. Period.

[MichiganVote]

5. Get out. Nuff' said. The job is done, whether we like it or not.

[jaxx]

7. Get out now and let the Iraqi's find their own government.

They have fought each other for all time, why would they quit now? As long as we stay in Iraq it just gives them more fuel to use against us. I agree with the one above who said pay some reparations through a 3rd party when the bombing and killing go on hold.

Will we get hit again someday? I think so. But I highly doubt it will be Iraq that does the damage. And I hope whoever is camped in the oval office will have better sense than to invade a country to save face because they can't get the current band of terrorists.

Bring em home............alive!! And do it today.

[ismnotwasm]

8. Withdraw as soon as possible

It's my opinion that Iraq will become a fundamentalist Islamic state. I see no other option-- no matter what we do, stay, go, train more Iraqi troops, subsidize them, get the oil flowing in the direction we want, whatever.
I will say, I'm not expert here-- that's simpley been my opinion since the first troops set foot in Iraq

I also believe the country will implode, break down into civil war before this happens. Our soldiers who are trying so hard, and dying so often are a buffer to this, as soldiers so often are. As as the Iraqi people who are dying the tens of thousands are as well.

So a withdrawal plan, and a concrete time table for withdrawal.

[Me.]

9. I Think Baker Represents

the Carlyle group more than anyone. Murtha's plan should receive consideration because I believe it comes from the experts who are being most pragmatic about the situation though I suspect that when all is said and done, the country will likely partition itself into 3 parts as Biden has suggested. So much blood has been spilt it may be generations before they can even have anything to do with each other in any form of reasonable way.

*shadow government*

[magellan]

10. My first choice would be to engage the int'l community on this

I would like to bring our troops home, the sooner the better. Their presence is not helping things there. It's been handled wrong and their involvement needs to be excised. The Iraqis deserve better than the mess we've created.

But in order to do that we first need to develop and implement a plan for stabilizing the country. We need the "best brains" on the mideast and Iraq, including Iraqis; a team of independent advisors with no political stake in the outcome. With their help we have to figure out how to reach the different factions and bring them together, while marginalizing the groups who would force their will on everyone else through violence, rather than letting them run amok as they are now. That may mean dissolving the current government (the current Iraqi gov't is not respected by Iraqis; there's been too much division and distrust sown by the militias and the links to the US) and starting over, or perhaps even partitioning (personally I feel that would lead to more trouble than it's worth) -- but that's the sort of guidance that's required.

Basically I'm saying build a plan to empower the Iraqi people rather than the instruments of power. The Iraqis are tired of being controlled and oppressed by RW ideologues. They need to be given the tools to build a genuine coalition government, without interference. If they can be made to feel they truly have control over their government and that it works for all of them in compromise, they'll move away from the extremism that's gripped the country.

[DemPower]

18. Get the death squads out!

What are they doing there?

Who are they killing?

Okay I'll tell you.

We have death squads in Iraq killing insurgents, and blaming it on sectarian violence.

[magellan]

84. Yes, all the tomfoolery has to stop

I didn't state that well, but I do think we basically need to go back to square one with Iraq and proceed on the up and up this time with a plan to salvage things.

[Selatius]

11. We should adopt the same approach when Yugoslavia imploded

Get in UN monitors and negotiate ceasefires between major combatants. Let the Iraqis partition the country if they feel like it in open negotiations for all to see. At the same time, evacuate US servicemen and claim "victory" to save face.

[blondeatlast]

59. Very wise appraoch, IMHO. About "claming victory,"

it will raise an enormous vocal opposition and we'll get tremendous criticism, but we've been shouting so long about getting out it falls on deaf ears.

We need to brace ourselves (even here at DU) for the criticism and get ourselves the hell out.

[stevedeshazer]

13. All wars end with a political solution.

And that solution is to repartition Iraq into three independent states.

The tough part will be allocating resources fairly between the Shiites, Sunni and Kurdish factions.

Our friends the British created the artificial construct known as Iraq, as I'm sure most here are aware. It was formed at the point of a gun by a foreign nation. Our own Founding Fathers rejected such folly, and thus was born the United States, governing (most of the time) with the consent of the governed.

That type of settlement has so far worked in the most analogous situation I can come up with, that of the former Yugoslavia. Breaking it up along ethnic and political lines was the only practical solution.

Just as the Soviet Union created but failed to hold together the union of the various Balkan factions by threat of force, the United States will not be able to force the disparate religious and ethnic factions of Iraq into dropping thousands of years of animosity and living together peacefully. It was, and has always been, pure fantasy.

Iraqis won't be forced by anyone from the outside to submit to the will of America anymore than the Yugoslavs did following the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was due at least in part, by this type of overreaching policy. They went bankrupt. We can't go down the same path.

First, American troops should redeploy, per John Murtha's plan.

Second, there must be multilateral talks with all the parties involved: The three factions in Iraq, the U.S., and Iraq's neighbors, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, and yes, even Iran.

Third, this means Condoleezza Rice must go, for she is incapable of real diplomacy. At a time of unprecedented world peril, the American Secretary of State was out campaigning for Republican candidates instead of engaging and encouraging active negotiations between the parties. We can't leave this to the new Iraqi government. That government has already failed.

It is imperative that the American government admit that the war was a mistake based on lies. That would be a good start.

There's a hell of a lot of work to do to repair the damage. Let's get busy.

[Quixote1818]

15. I think we go with Wes Clark's plan

We engage with other countries around the region and wheel and deal. We also wheel and deal with the insurgency. It may not work but it's worth a shot.



If we just pack up and leave without trying anything and Iran takes over Iraq then the Democrats will get blamed and we will get our asses kicked in two years. We have to be careful with how we leave.


If it doesn't work then we simply tell our soldiers to pack up their stuff and leave, but at least we will have shown the American people we tried.

[H2O Man]

35. I think the democrats

should have a Murtha-Clark Commission.

[Spazito]

45. Clark certainly has the credentials and the respect of the international

community and Murtha the respect of Americans, the two working together would be a HUGE step towards finding a way out of the chaos/disaster that is Iraq today, imo.

[troubleinwinter]

63. It hurts to pull out a sliver, but it must be done anyway.

I agree with supporting a commission such as Murtha and Clark. These are people who understand the appropriate redeployment and the safest method better than I do. One hopes to withdraw ASAP in the safest manner for all.

[TahitiNut]

49. It's pretty clear to me that any approach to solve it ...

... must EXCLUDE (correct) one of the grosser errors made in creating the disaster. That mistake, which is a total blind spot for this regime, is in engaging in diplomatic dialog with an opponent - even an ENEMY. (Peace cannot be made with friends - only enemies.) The Bushoilini Regime's attitude that the demonized 'enemy' is beneath the level of contempt that would even allow discourse and dialog is a fatal error - a philosophy that can only lead to a world constantly at war. If there's anything that disqualifies someone from being a part of a national leadership, it's that specific attitude.

[Cameron27]

111. I have to agree

Baker's motives have got to be questioned, and I hope that Democrats regard him as one of the poisonous tentacles in Poppy's little empire.

Wes Clark has a good perspective on the war, and a Murtha/Clark initiative should be looked into. Iraq is already a catastrophic disaster, and massive international diplomacy is deperately needed. Our troops need to be brought home ASAP.

[barbtries]

16. well, i'm no statesman

but i do have an opinion. whether it is even slightly compatible with what will happen i don't know.

the reality as i understand it is that we are an occupying force in a sovereign nation. somebody should be over there who is in charge and can speak for the US. In my end of war fantasy, this person or group of persons calls for a general truce, reaching out to all iraqis regardless of whether they be shiite or sunni or whatever. it is as well my understanding that if we continued to occupy iraq for one million years those two factions would still hate each other and make war on each other.

so we can't fix that. We call for a general truce and cease fire and put a time limit on it: as much time as it will logistically, realistically take to get our children back home and present the iraqi people with their country. PNAC is dead and the USA cannot impose lifestyles and governments and culture upon these people. they have an ancient culture - never mind that i will NEVER get why they insist on killing each other, but essentially we will have to let that be their problem.

I think that the country is owed a restoration of basic services. I hear that in large areas the people to this day are without electricity or potable running water. There should be a way to account for most of the victimized civilians in Iraq: orphaned children. survivors of attack who may yet be alive but will never be able to work again. how many people have been turned out of their homes, stripped of their livelihood, torn from their loved ones? i don't know the answers to any of these questions, but i do believe that if we simply turn our backs and leave them in a state of abject destruction that would certainly compound the wrong.

Reparations are in order.I just do not have any kind of feel for what it must be like in iraq right now. but i know that much loss of life, much serious injury, and much destruction has come to that land via the US military. A system should be set up to process reparations at the same time that basic services and vital buildings and roads, etc., are being physically restored prior to the final withdrawal.

i can imagine that day being a pretty distant one, timewise, but my dream is that with a dialogue going on between the iraqis and the occupiers, the cease fire, or truce if you will, would change the adversarial nature of the interactions between allied military and the "insurgents," so that up until the final withdrawal there would be at least a semblance of peace, and as the engineers soldiers diplomats drivers and so on and on from the west go about repairing the damage, making good faith efforts to restore the lives of those survivors disenfranchised by this aggression, working with the people of iraq toward the goal of giving them their country back, the seeds of friendship would be sown.

righties and bushies have proven fairly brilliant at supplying euphemisms, attaching meaning to words and phrases and training the masses to respond "properly" as pavlov's dogs to their little catchwords and phrases and triggers and shit. i should be too ashamed to say that i am a liberal since that can only mean that i am a traitor to my country not to mention stupid and hostile to all right thinking people. Suicide bombers, hostile iraqis hanging out on rooftops to snipe at american soldiers, the people planting land mines over there - they are known as "insurgents." this is definition number 1 from websters online for "insurgent:"

a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.

it is not difficult for me to imagine that the US is not considered by Iraqis to hold any valid lawful authority in their country. over here, sure, but in their country? i have to put "insurgents" in quotes, because if some big bad country from far away came and invaded my country - saying they were there to save us from a despot but then ravaging it worse than, say, GW ever dreamed of doing, i guess i'd be an insurgent too. but over here we'd be patriots...

that's my fantasy. and if it's too late, if chaos and civil war are in fact going on and promise to go on for some time; if the people won't listen or trust us (seems quite possible this could be the case), then we say, "Okay. You all are on your own." and we get our children the fuck out of that hellhole while they're still alive. amen

[burythehatchet]

17. 1. Apologize to the universe

2. Dismantle the bases that are under construction
3. Ask the Europeans to help Iraq reform a constitution based upon THEIR interests
4. Donate the amount of money that a majority of people can agree is the cost of rebuilding what we destroyed, and liquidate every company that profited from this adventure to pay for the reconstruction
5. Use the reconstruction funds to employ every able-bodied Iraqi in the reconstruction effort, with the provision that the reconstruction can only be done by Iraqi companies, with outside assistance as needed.
6. ....well once the first five are done, I'll provide 6-10. :)

[tomp]

127. best i've read so far. nt

[DemPower]

19. K&R

[Me.]

20. Challenging

Already we have a number of different opinions in one thread, a variety of different solutions and a great variety of opinions, which points out how difficult a task lays ahead. Which is the best approach and will those with the most influence get to make the choice. One thing I am sure of...the considerations should involve more than simply saving junior's bacon or what is best for the profiteers. Whatever solution is applied, I hope that it leaves the Iraqi people in charge of their own destiny. I think the first question asked should be what they want, if a consensus can be formulated.

*shadow government*

[DemPower]

21. Most Iraqis Want US to Leave Now

A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to polling results obtained by the Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released today by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believe the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends to keep permanent military bases in the country.

http://www.sfgate.com/

[Patsy Stone]

22. I say we listen to them.

and it's off to the greatest page with you!

K&R.

[H2O Man]

33. Very important point.

Most Iraqis want the US out. Also, surveys indicate most support the use of force to remove the US.

[Ms. Clio]

105. thank you for your posts -- I would add that Iraqis do not want their country "carved up"

just see Riverbend's blog on this subject, and that of other Iraqi bloggers. Nor are they all a a bunch of primitive religious fanatics who have always been fighting each other, etc. It's so depressing to see the ethnocentric ignorance perpetuated on these threads.

[we can do it]

23. Get Out Now - n/t

[some guy]

24. I seem to be supporting

the McGovern-Polk plan, as outlined in this Truthout essay:
Truthout link

mostly, because it's recent, comprehensive, and gets the US completely out.

I went looking for Dennis Kucinich's plan, the version I saw was from 2005.
I went looking for Wesley Clark's plan, I didn't find anything with good detail.

I'm open to any plan that:
a. gets the US completely out ASAP
b. offers some chance for stabilising Iraq
c. does something to help restore US credibility as a somewhat compassionate nation.

c. is the reason I dilike the "just pack up and leave" scenarios.


(oh - yeah, I'm not the most patient internet searcher, so if someone wants to post links to other plans, I'll be happy to read them...) :)

[leftofthedial]

25. let's see. it's 1:20 Washington time on Sunday

I think we should start loading US troops onto planes for home at 1:21.

[mopinko]

26. turn that "embassy" into a hospital.

send the army corps of engineers over there, and get the water and electricity turned on everywhere they can. but seriously, turn that shrine to american corruption into a symbol of hope and peace. get out troops out there proving we are the good guys.

make sure every village has a feeding station for civilians, particularly women and children. make sure they are safe there, and do not have to "give" anything to eat, if you know what i mean. keep the f'ing religious police out.
from there, make sure there is health care for women and children. (i am tempted to say 'fuck the warriors', i guess that would be complicated.) but get the hospital up to speed.

we have a peace corp. we know how to wage peace. just do it.

[judy]

29. No, not the corps of engineers..

Hire Iraqi engineers to rebuild their own country like they did so well after 1991!
Agreed on the mega embassy...good plan :)

[mopinko]

34. i agree in principle

but if we are going to pay for it, we need to have some control. (so, no contractors. direct employees only.) by all means, hire as many iraqis as you can find. especially for the water and electic. if we haven't killed them all, hire them back.

[independentpiney]

27. Immediate cessation of offensive operations along

with a rapid phased withdrawal. The only time US troops should get involved during the withdrawal is to stop an overt ethnic cleansing. Whether and how it breaks up needs to be left to the Iraqis, with diplomatic input from from all of the neighboring states. I see no realistic threat of a "terrorist" state in the Sunni area, whatever foreign jihadists may be there are a temporary ally at best and will be quickly tossed out as foreigners when the US presence is gone. The Kurdish/Turkey issue has always been the 800 lb. gorilla imo, and what concerns me the most in the aftermath.

[judy]

28. The biggest problem is WAR PROFITEERING!!!

I am posting this everywhere I can, because it should not be overlooked!

War profiteering has created more unemployment and hatred, has done more to ignite sectarian fighting, than the invasion and the occupation itself. This is where the country has really been stolen from the Iraqis, along with the hard earned money of American taxpayers. And don't count on Baker/Hamilton to fix this. They are probably there to make sure it keeps going, and whatever cost.

In 3 years, and after billions and billions, the infrastructure is still non existent, and there are still no jobs for Iraqis. It is a huge scandal. War profiteering is illegal according to international law, and pulling all these no-bid contracts should be the first priority of the new Congress. Such a move, would go a long way toward establishing a new found good will, and would allow for an easier pulling of the troops later on.

Also, if the Iraqis are working on rebuilding their country (at a fraction of the huge costs of Halliburton, KBR etc.) they will have less time to wage civil war against each other.

Remember: for the profiteers, the Iraq war has been a huge success! If they don't get pulled first, there is no solution indeed...

[Gregorian]

30. Maybe we should ask the Iraqis.

I doubt this will answer your questions. But this is what comes to my mind.

As in every country, there are the people, and then there is the government. And nearly every one of the people in a country do not want war. War is waged for corporations and a very small number of people. Your typical Iraqi wakes up every morning and starts a day. A peaceful day.

I want to say that we should embrace the UN, and bring an international group of people to the region, in order to bring stability, first. But I think it ultimately comes down to what the Iraqi people want. Do they want to be divided into three or more groups? If so, work from that perspective. Can they live like us, as a melting pot?

And something occurs to me as I think about the lie of "spreading democracy". If that were not a lie, how would it be done? Perhaps our Constitution should be shared. It has worked for us. In fact, it just saved us, if not temporarily. Maybe human beings are similar enough that a set of rules like The Constitution would work even in an Islamic region.

Whatever we do, we should try to see it from the everyday Iraqi's point of view. If we honestly want to help them, then there is little that can go wrong. The specifics are not as important as the intentions.

[Jed Dilligan]

31. Mass public execution televised worldwide

of the perpetrators, instigators, and profiteers.

Followed by handover of entire war budget to UN for peacekeeping and pullout of all American troops.

[Lilith Velkor]

125. And there's plenty left in that budget

That's for rebuilding their infrastructure.

[Hepburn]

32. Get out NOW!

Let them fight it out on how the hell they run their nation. We have NO business being there in the first place and we need to get the hell out NOW!

[TahitiNut]

36. An essential prerequisite for civil disengagement from Iraq is the exposure

... of the corruption and privateering underlying the invasion and occupation. As Peace Patriot said, "wishing won't make it so." Nor will voting. The patient must be laid bare - naked for all the people to see - before the surgery can be performed without killing the patient. Thus, unless and until the underlying tumors and boils of the corruption associated with the Downing Street Memos, Plame/Brewster-Jennings, and the Energy Task Force are laid open under the sunlight of public review, no decent strategy can even be designed.

You cannot solve a problem when entrapped by the same falsehoods and secrets that led to its creation.


It's not merely a matter of some 'informed' minority arriving at a workable exit strategy, it's a matter of creating a knowledge base for the development of the political will within our nation, not just now but in the aftermath of whatever consequences are seen in Iraq. We've already seen what happens when the nation is ill-informed - how abysmally ignorant our nation is/was of the Western involvement in Iran and the elevation of the Shah which led irrevocably to a fundamentalist overthrow and embedded antipathy to the Western powers (and Great Satan) that facilitated his excesses and complicity with corporatist neocolonialism. We MUST learn from that history.

[H2O Man]

38. Is it fair to say

that Congressional investigations are essential if we hope to end the US war in Iraq?

[TahitiNut]

43. I think it's fair to say ...

... that some critical mass of Iraq-related 'high crimes' must be investigated to the degree that we're embarked on the impeachment road before we can hope to disengage from Iraq under anything even close to the best prospects for the next 20 years.

I'm NOT saying that an Iraqi regime fully allied with the U.S. is part of the objective. I quite frankly don't even think that's even feasible at this point - which is, I believe, the base misapprehension in the Bushoilini Regime. I'm merely shooting for some amelioration of the radicalized antipathy we're looking forward to at this point.

I'm also not saying that impeachments must be seen beforehand ... but I think it's inescapable that the same prerequisites for an acceptable (not just to Americans) withdrawal from Iraq would be the "handwriting on the wall" for impeachments AND criminal prosecutions. I just don't think it can be separated.


On edit: I don't think any acceptable disengagement from Iraq can be accomplished without (1) nullification of the perpetual entitlements to global corporations (e.g. Halliburton/K&R/Bechtel) and (2) repeal of legal immunities of US military AND PRIVATE personnel. You can bet at any odds that'll be fought - successfully without disclosure. That's just one subcomponent of the corruption.

From a economic/political perspective, the GOP and Global Corporatists would regard a divisive and polarized 'resolution' as more acceptable than one that exposed the corruption - since there are PROFITS to be made from antagonism and strife on a global scale. I think we deserve better.

[noamnety]

62. Nope

Ships and airplanes are necessary for ending the occupation, because it's too far for the troops to swim home.

Investigations are necessary for exposing the corruption and holding the responsible parties accountable for their actions.

[H2O Man]

67. Bush is president. n/t

[ms liberty]

70. Congressional investigations are essential...

Not just to bringing about the end of the war in Iraq, but to our survival as a democracy.

We have to know the what, the how, and the why. We have to face the rather terrible things that have been done in our name. If we ever want to be able to wash the blood from our hands, we must have an public accounting, and an acceptance of our guilt and culpability. And we have to be willing to prosecute and/or impeach those who violated our laws and Constitution. Justice - not revenge or payback.

As for Iraq, we have to start moving our troops out of there, like yesterday. Our very presence is exacerbating the situation. We need to do it in an orderly fashion, we can't pack up and leave overnight, because we've created an effing disaster area. We have to talk to Iraq's neighbors and ask for their help. Then when we pull back and out, we need to pretty much stay out of their business, try to be friends and allies, and hope for the best. We owe them reparations of some sort, I have no idea where we'd find the money since we've borrowed til we're beyond broke, but that may be the only good thing we can do.

I'm not afraid to say that I don't think there are really any acceptable, ideal solutions. I don't think we can make any lemonade out of this lemon. It's already too screwed up. I know that sounds negative, but when I think about our history with the arab states and the people of the middle east, and what we've done in the last 6 years over there, I don't feel real hopeful.

[Annces]

56. I say yes to this too

Bush, Cheney and the rest are all raiders, pirates. They don't care about peace, and they need to hide their true intentions. Getting out of Iraq also involves cutting the financial strings of Halliburton.

The other matter is who rules. Since Sunni's are used to being in control, there are matters of who gets to rule now. That is beyond my understandings.

[tomp]

128. absolutely!

i just came off the pitt thread about impeachment being an obstacle to reform. i think impeachment (and the investigations that inevitably go with it) is the prerequisite to reform. nothing meaningful can happen until the people know. then anything is possible.

[boolean]

37. Accept defeat and GET OUT

The war has been won. By them. Accept that fact of life and leave.

[Thickasabrick]

39. Make nice and turn it over to the International community. It will

involve admitting we fucked up - so it will probably never happen.

[Igel]

40. You won't get any sort of coherent response because the

underlying assumptions are too different.

Those that think all the dead Iraqis are at the hands of American-backed death squads are likely to think that with the US out all will be fine and dandy.

Those that think that Iran's in Iraq up to its navel, killing Sunnis and other non-Iran-supporting Shi'a are unlike to want the US out unless they think Iran is a good actor.

And so it goes.

My assumptions are fairly simple, and I simply don't know about Iran or Syria. I think the NIE portion that was released--not the portion leaked--is on the money. To stay is bad; to leave, likely worse. This doesn't provide a solution, and leaves out Iran and Syria, not to mention Egypt and Sa'udi Arabia. But it provides a constraint I think should apply to the set of possible solutions.

The Afghan Arabs were emboldened, and spread as victors after the Soviet Union left. Their supporters in the Pakistani madaris sent their tulaab--their 'talibs', aka the Taliban--to restore the proper kind of order, and that resulted in yet more Afghan deaths. The Afghan Arabs were in Bosnia; they were in Albania and Serbia. They were blowback for Sa'udiyya and killed there, as well as aiding and assisting in Yemen, Kenya, Indonesia, and Tanzania.

Most people seem to acknowledge only the leaked portion of the NIE, claiming that the NIE is gold when it agrees with them and shit when it doesn't, an extreme case of confirmation bias. While that might be the case, they need to provide evidence for that beyond their beliefs.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

47. What, then, is the victory condition by which American involvement can be ended?

[peanutbrittle]

41. Either: Funnel the Iraqi's who wish for peace and prosperity out.........

to TEMPORARY refugee camps (offer them money to do so.) Drop 100,000 + troops on the border to block. The only ones left will be the ones who are armed and wish to fight. Move troops from Baghdad out in all directions and troops from the border inward, leaving behind enough to keep the border secured. Surround the insurgents from both sides and force them to put down their arms or be killed.

#2 Force the Iraqi's to solve this problem themselves by setting timelines and our phased withdrawal to the periphery in combination with Sunni/ Shia negotiation for dividing up their country.

[bleever]

42. Establishing security and safeguarding infrastructure come first,

and it seems to me that repartition offers the possibility that Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds could assert sufficient military/police control within their own regions to make this happen.

Internationalize the peacekeeping forces; remove Americans as targets.

Distribute the national wealth from the oil industry proportional among the three regional governments.

Find common ground with Syria and Iran, and quit acting like the Lone Ranger.


Edited to add: I think the Murtha-Clark commission is an excellent idea.

[porphyrian]

44. Negotiate for Iraq-friendly allied troops to replace ours, bring ours home.

We are still responsible for the mess we've made, and we should do what we can to clean it up, but without our physical presence, as that is only making the situation worse. I don't know exactly how long it would take to institute this, but I can't imagine it would take longer than a month if we want to make it happen.

Edit: typo

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

46. Announce a hard deadline for complete withdrawal (no more than a year).

If the Iraqi goverment and army, such as they are, cannot pull it together by then, keep to the deadline.

This gives some time for then to KNOW we will be gone and try to get things organized accordingly, but we must leave whether or not it's going well.

[TacticalPeek]

48. Declare a mistake and come home.

It's hard work, I know.

[Vincardog]

50. How about this? We regroup our troops to A THIRD COUNTRY.

We offer them as support to the elected government in support of lawful activity.
We ask the UN and neighbor countries under the UN flag stabilize the country.
We allow the IRaqi government to investigate the looting of their country under the US OCCUPATION and recover funds from the perpetrators.

[Hubert Flottz]

51. Send Rummy over to be the new "Viceroy"

[danm8r]

54. combatting the right's strawman arguments

The biggest problems we face is the predictable insistence that we provide an immediate solution to the problems they created. I saw this at a blog called Shot in the dark - http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/index.php It's a conservative blog so of course the guy that runs it is trying to set up strawman arguments against any plan democrats might propose.

For what it's worth and I apologize for the length here, this is the lastest response to his question - "how do democrats propose to withdraw troops and achieve victory.


Wonderful. Now we’re getting somewhere.

The goals? Including but not limited to…

1) removal of terrorist safe havens (accomplished, twice)

Really Mitch? Accomplished? TWICE?

So, the first goal offered by Mitch has been attained. We’ve removed the havens for terrorists. Check.

And how’s that working out for ‘ya there Mitch?

2) the spreading of democracy (in progress) to destabilize totalitarian, especially terror-supporting regimes in the area.

And yet just another Bergian platitude which fails to answer the question but in itself is very revealing. The “goal” in Mitch’s meandering, half conceived fantasy is a western style Democracy in the heart of the Region. The result of achieving this goal of course, ideally is the spread of Democracy across the entire Mideast.

Of course, Ancient Rome had a word for this. It was called Empire.

Regardless, let’s work with what Mitch does offer.

Goal #1. Remove terrorist havens. Remember, according to Mitch, we’ve achieved that goal but terrorists aren’t Marshmallow Peeps Mitch. There’s not a limited supply. It’s not like, once they’re gone, they’re gone. Our policy and our presence is creating more terrorists and consequently, more terrorist havens. Your goal, earnest as it may be, is not attainable by the actions we’ve taken so far. Afghanistan is a disaster. Iraq is a disaster. Your plan to achiveve this goal has failed miserably and now we get to clean up your mess. You (Republicans and other supporters of the administration and the Administration itself) need to held accountable.

It’s not a realistic goal and i’m taking it off the table.

Goal #2. Establishment of a Western Style Democracy in Iraq. What needs to be said other than we’ve apparently achieved that goal as well? We’ve had elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember the pretty purple fingers? Now, we sit back and watch democracy spread to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia like an overflowing toilet with too much sh*t and paperwork stuffed into the system.

Again, the goal is flawed Mitch and what you’re asking us to do is propose a plan to attain a goal that you’ve declared.

I know you work in the technology field Mitch and I know you understand the concept of scope creep. I know, at least I hope you’re smart enough to understand what happens when scope creep gets so out of control that failure is imminent. You pull back, figuratively and you redefine goals that are realistic and you develop a strategy to attain those goals.

You’re asking Democrats to offer a plan to fix your scope creep. You’re asking for a plan based on your flawed goals. We don’t have enough information to do that because after 3 years, no one in the administration has offered a full accounting and honest assessment of what’s really going on.

I would hold out hope that you’re honest enough to acknowledge that what I’m saying is legitimate but I doubt it. I expect more charges of being condescending and dodging your “question”. So be it.

Apparently, there are other “goals” which you can’t share.

“I have defined the goals - over and over and over; including but not limited to…”

Come on Mitch. Please share. I’d really love to know. Lay out those goals for us so we can see what strawman you plan on knocking down.

[DoYouEverWonder]

55. First, kick out the contractors

Then turn on the electric and water and hire Iraqis to help do it.

Next get the US out and give the Iraqis, the Green Zone, the new Embassy and their oil fields and wells. Make it clear to the world that all the money from Iraq's oil, is for the Iraqis to spend has they wish.

Get the UN and International communities involved in helping restore law and order and to start to help the Iraqi people rebuild their own country.

I think once the Iraqis have control of their country again and a source of revenue to sustain their economy, most of the killing will stop.

[many a good man]

57. Biggest problem? Genocide.

Ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in the capital region by Shia militas must be avoided at all costs. The Iranians have been strategically trying to reach out across sectarian lines in the Muslim world by aiding Palestinians and other Sunnis in Lebanon and Syria. They must be engaged in any dialog among the factions to bring a halt in violence.

This also must be done in a way that tempers Iran's growing influence. Baghdad province must remain secular and be kept as Iraq's administrative capitol. Kurds can maintain semi-autonomy but won't be granted independence. A semi-autonomous Shia south can set up Islamic law but there must hold out some degree of protection for minorities.

Diplomatic wheeling and dealing is required. It must be acknowledged that Iran has been the only winner to come out of this tragedy. If not treated respectfully they can easily look the other way while the blood flows even more freely on the streets of Baghdad knowing they can walk away with two-thirds of Iraq. They will join Turkey in squelching militarily any attempt at Kurdish independence. This is a path that will lead to even greater instability in the region so it must be avoided at all costs.

Democrats realistically have no role to play other than calling for redeployment and diplomacy. There is no way any other country is going to commit troops in the middle of a hot zone, but they can lead the effort to administer humanitarian relief until the situation calms. The UN may be able to broker an agreement for international forces to block arms shipments from abroad and protect the oilfields from attack. Maybe we can offer Jimmy Carter, George Mitchell, and Jesse Jackson to got to Tehran and to European and Arab capitols to help jumpstart the negotiations.

[H2O Man]

74. Interesting.

I like the ideas for sending people from the US to discuss the regional aspects, and perhaps jumpstart a new initiative. I've thought for a while that we might benefit from asking Oren Lyons from the Onondaga Nation to go. Older DUers may recall when he and other traditional Native American leaders went to meet with the Sadinista government to discuss the issues involving the Miskito Indians. (See National Geographic; 9-87; page 385.)

For many years, especially since 1977, the Haudenosaunee have been recognized as providing a type of leadership that cannot be provided by people like Condi Rice or John Bolton. In 1977, they presented the papers to the Non-Governmental Organizations of the United Nations in Geneva, which have become known as "A Basic Call to Consciousness." Many people who would hesitate to trust anything that comes from the Bush administration would be more open to listening to some of the creative sources of Consciousness .... The three you mention are good choices. I like Mitchell, but I would think Carter and Jackson might be the most likely to open doors.

[gulliver]

58. It's out of our hands.

The U.S. is going to have to play a supporting role now, IMO. Bush screwed the pooch so badly in the Greater ME that any idea remotely connected to the United States is discredited, even despised. We can't be "bailed out of" the humiliation and disgrace Bush has brought to us. The only thing we can do is live it down. That can't start until the source of the disgrace (Bush, Cheney, and the rest) are completely out of power.

Until then, the United States has to back off. As Clark has said, the powers in the region need to be brought in. They are the only ones with any credibility. They are the stakeholders. They may be able find a solution to stabilize Iraq. Just as likely, though, is that Iraq will destabilize them.

I don't see any non-bloody solution to Iraq, especially not one emerging from U.S. brokerage. I see the fever running its course, and I think the patient (the world) needs to be prepared for that. So another key thing the U.S. needs to do is what Baker is reportedly going to do: "Stop telling people that America is going to achieve victory in Iraq." Tell them that Bush has us in a fight for our lives at this point, because that is the truth.

The decider decided. He made the biggest single mistake in human history. If it doesn't engulf the world in the years ahead, we will be very lucky.

On the positive side, wisdom has come back in vogue. The poor foolish demented Americans who decided to try this rabidly partisan, arrogant, bang-on-the-TV-with-a-brick approach to world leadership have their result. We've learned the hard way. Unfortunately, I think we've still learned less than we needed to learn, and it hasn't gotten even close to as hard as it is going to get.

Have a nice day!

[Joe Chi Minh]

60. Approach the Iranians to re-establish stable government and law

and order. Same branch of Islam as the majority in Iraq. I was suggesting it some time before Bliar came up with the idea - adding Syria for good measure. But I would think it would be better to keep it as simple as possible. There's enough chaos there already, with a foreign trade mark.

They'd probably expect substantial funding from the US, but it would be cheap compared to the current fiasco - leaving aside the futile loss of American lives. Cheaper than Halliburton's pay cheque, I dare say. Even their official one.

I'd love to know the talks John Kerry had with Middle-Eastern leaders having an interest in the future of Iraq, went.

The idea that the US and the UK were ever concerned about the oppressive-seeming culture of Islam towards Moslem women is hysterically comical. The day any superpower which keeps millions of its people sleeping on the streets, entertains plans for a fairer world, will be the same day hell freezes over!

[here_is_to_hope]

61. Out. Now. n/t

[butterfly77]

64. I believe that ...

we should start withdrawing troops little by little so that the Iraqis can begin to take over different areas themselves. I think that they should take over the jobs to rebuild their own country.

[dalaigh lllama]

65. Probably impossible to do with any speed, but

Have commanders on the ground over there that impose without exception respect for the Iraqi populace and transparency in the "prisons," by which I mean no more torture. If we in the U.S. hear stories about rape, massacre, and random shooting of some poor Iraqi's sheep for fun, how much more are they hearing over there? It seems to me the "insurgency" really took off after the Abu Ghraib story came out, and I can't say I wouldn't do the same if a foreign power did here what we've been doing over there. How is it that U.S. troops occupied Germany and Japan after WWII and more recently Bosnia and Kosovo without such bloodshed? I think it boils down to the commanders in charge, NOT the troops, and those commanders took their orders from B*shco, who take ultimate responsibility.

If somehow Iraqis could be convinced that A) NEW leadership is in charge with a completely different attitude of respect, B) we WILL leave, and C) Iraqis, not global corporations, will own their resources, maybe things could turn around. (Sigh! I know I'm being too simplistic, but hard to know where to start with this debacle.)

[SwingVoter2006]

66. Whatever we do, don't throw Iraqis to the wolves!

In our rush to "correct" the occupation problem, we risk leaving Iraqis totally out of the equation. A solution which throws Iraqis to the wolves, is not a solution in my book. Maybe we need to take the suggestion often offered that we re-divide the nation into its original ethnic/religious components? Whatever we do, we cannot just assume that walking away and washing our hands does Iraqis any favors at this point in time.

[Disturbed]

69. Murtha/Clark Commission is a great idea.

The Dems need a solid plan for Iraq.

[Jcrowley]

68. Immediate withdrawal

The violence would decrease immediately and exponentially though there would still be a significant amount.

Reparations are in order.

War crimes trials for those who brought about this immoral and illegal invasion.

Biggest problem "we", not sure who that is, face in Iraq is being in Iraq.

The Middle East breathes a collective sigh of relief. I'm speaking of the vast majority of people not governments.

More importantly the question is for the Iraqi people and they have already deicded that unequivocally.
Out Now!

[LWolf]

71. The biggest problem is the mess we leave behind.

Trying to ensure some sort of protection for Iraqi citizens, some sort of reasonable order, and some sort of structure that won't be gunning for us after we're gone, years down the road.

[H2O Man]

72. That's an extremely

important point. When Bush first ordered the invasion, I assumed it would end up a divided land. I have thought that it would be worth considering sending some of the traditional Native American elders to meet with Iraqi leaders to discuss the ideas involved in a confederation of separate but related states.

[LWolf]

73. That's an interesting idea I haven't heard yet. n/t

[stop the bleeding]

75. Call ne naive

but I think is is critical to seek diplomatic support from Iraq's neighbors, especially in regards to gaining control of civil unrest, providing medical support, and just general day to day "things" that will help people leave the gun behind.

I believe Biden has a plan sorta like this, I also think Iraq should be divided up into 3 states with each state having some access to oil and natural gas.

Like I said my way of thinking is naive, but then again there is no Silver Bullet out there with Iraq's name on it.

[H2O Man]

77. In the early 1980s,

I read an article by Dick Gregory, regarding Iran. He said that Uncle Same was having a problem with the young radicals there, because the USA had never come to grips with Malcolm X. I always thought he was right about that. I think that the problems we face today are, in many ways, summed up the same way. There's the one radical young cleric (I'll probably get his name wrong) Maktada al Sadr; the USA is not sure how to deal with him. I think that talking is a good place to start.

[trashcanistanista]

79. Consider this

Sunnis and Shiites unite and demand US out. Americans leave, all gone by the end of the month. Sunnis and Shiites overwhelmed with happiness declare themselves winners and unite to reform and rebuild Iraq. Violence decreases, hearts and minds are won. Iraqi people unite in the realization that they have defeated the greatest military power in the world. Iraq rebuilds, uses oil money and US reparation money to pay for it.

[H2O Man]

83. I noticed that

when there were elections, the violence seemed to stop .... if only for a brief time. But that indicates there are sources of power with the ability to stop -- or start -- the violence. It may well be that the single biggest cause of violence is the US, and that the sooner the US just leaves, the quicker order is restored.

[Jacobin]

80. I'm part of the minority

I think Gates is a good choice, since he is NOT a neocon. Poppy never wanted to try to conquer Iraq and Gates is Poppy's man.

It also tends to de-fang Cheney, since Rumsfeld and Cheney were the main two miscreants pushing to get this started.

Baker, while clearly part of the Bush mob, does have influence in the Arab world and hopefully can broker some kind of alliance to at least try to keep the Iraq conflagration from spreading across the region, which is a serious concern.

I'll give them some room to maneuver. Its going to be a godawful mess whatever happens, but I've sworn I won't give anyone any lip who works to get us out, because THAT is the point.

[Fovea]

81. These questions have a gordian quality

First, The biggest problem we face in Iraq right now is the nature of Iraq. This is the same problem Saddam faced, and frankly, some sympathy for the devil might be in order here. Saddam succeeded for the most part at holding the so called nation together *and* fighting a major war with Iran. It is to be noted that some of his bloodletting was as reprisal to uprisings initially urged by GHWB.
The problem is the macaroni nature of Iraq, poly-faithed, poly-cultural, poly-glot. Oh yeah, and not everyone got the oil.

But the problem suggests the options.

The options are -- Unity government with high authoritarian mechanisms, like Yugoslavia under Tito. -- Federation, with a low authority central government and strong regions with highly different systems, like Yugoslavia under Milosevic -- Partition, giving pieces of, or all of Iraq to neighboring states.

Oh, yeah, and anarchic withdrawal.

To be equally brief, Unity government is not going to work. The effort is beyond the potential of Iraq to become one nation under anyone's god...and that's part of the problem.

Federation would require equitable division of resources and responsibility... and a degree of stability and economic viability that Iraq is not capable of right now.

Partition raises challenges akin to Yalta. Who gets what, and how much. The big loser in this game would be... well the Iraqis.
The new owner might not be as well disposed to the former Iraqis as their resources.


Ok, here is my best option right now. Three federated states under the protection of the UN. The oil revenues of all three states divided per capita equally.
The opening of an American university in Baghdad, free to Iraqi (or indeed any) students who could qualify on TOEFL testing. I would even recommend a 10% stipend from Iraqi oil revenues for the UN to defer costs.

as a fall back--
Regional talks with Turkey regarding the impact of a Kurdish state or even the inclusion of Kurdistan as an autonomous region of Turkey.
The same issue exists between the southern Iraqi Shiia and the Iranians. But I suspect the Iraqi Shiia would not respond monolithically in that situation.

A redistribution of contracts to at least 65% domestic contracting.
A military withdrawal with a UN force phase in over six months.

But get the jobs in the hands of Iraqis and give them something to hope for.
A person generally does not blow up something he or she built the day before.

Oh yeah, and anarchic withdral stands a strong chance of working no worse in the end than what we are doing now. But it is far from what I would call an optimal solution.

[Spurt]

82. To design an effective solution...

first one must properly define the problem(s).

I don't know what is really going on in Iraq and I think few others do either. (Hell we don't really know what is going on in USA!)
Before developing solutions let's shine some sunlight on the current situation and then address the REAL problems the sunlight reveals. What is needed first is detailed situation appraisals by independent and competent people.
Similarly an effective solution must be designed to meet a known outcome. There are still widely varying opinions on the outcome that is being sought. The desired outcome should definitely not be proscribed by the USA.

Also IMHO, USA has no credibility left and must relinquish any notion of leadership in resolving Iraq. No matter what comes now from any USA administration, it will be seen by Iraq and the world as tainted at best, and therefore probably doomed. Changing the political party of influence will not of itself restore the confidence of the world, especially with the same fool in the White House.
And yes, that by inference means admitting that the "six week cake walk" has been lost.

I'd like to see France and Germany invited to share diplomatic leadership under UN oversight, with USA abstaining from veto powers on any Iraq matters.
Neither France nor Germany has bloodied hands from this conflict, and both have had to rebuild their nations from political collapse and physical destruction within living memory.
They have first hand experience in forging domestic peace and reconstruction. They have international credibility because they stood honestly before the world and called the invasion a sham before a shot was fired and despite their being ridiculed by the USA administration. I also have a suspicion that their intel is better and they just might know what is really going on from a detached perspective. This fight between the USA coalition and Iraq obviously needs a neutral referee.

It is time to eat humble pie. Lots of it too!

Cheers.

[mogster]

85. Bring in the UN

To make this immoral war into a war with a moral foundation, you must get support from the world community. That means going under a UN banner. But I seriously doubt any move can make this war winnable as long as Bush is the president, and the US troops is major contributor to the forces. Too many skeletons in the closet, too many unresolved issues, too many undefined goals, too many lies. A nation that has such problems with its own democratic standards can't be a believable guarantist for democracy in Iraq.
Sorry, but that's inconcievable. Once you have learned to distrust Bush, you never ever trust him again. He's not the legal president, he's a John without a Land. To tell you the truth, all of the so-called 'western hemisphere' shares the responsibility for the war in Iraq, because the double standards we live by and promote as 'fairness' is just a bucket of hollow lies, and has been so for many decades. Just look at the 'Coalition of the willing'; only in Poland - and only for a short while - was there support for the war in the opinion. The coalition was supported by the political elite only, and not all of them supported it either.

I would start with:
1. Define the 'war' on terror. What is it? Is it a war? How should it be fought? Who's the enemy? When did it start? When does it end and how does the world look then? Because today the 'war' on terror looks just like the war on liberalism.

2. Remove every issue that confuses the goal of 'exporting freedom and democracy' as far as the Iraqi war is concerned.
That means beefing up the 'coalition' and make it an international enterprise.
That means throwing every American Oil company out of Iraq and leave it to the market/internal Iraqi politics to decide who get's the contracts. The American people has been screwed out of x billion dollars by Halliburton and the Club, there's no reason to think that Iraqis has been any luckier in dealing with them.
That means not to build the biggest US embassy in the world outside Baghdad, and not to build the numerous military bases throughout the country that signals, no matter what the US officials says, that the occupation will be more or less permanent.

If you wanna win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis you must have their hearts and minds as first priority, not the political goals of self interest. It's the lack of credibility that makes this war a mess. Double standards and lies made it come about, for dubious reasons, and the only way to set it on the path to success is to give the Iraqis a feeling that the future they are being promised isn't just another lie down the road.
Funny enough; out from what I see and have seen for the last four years, the Iraqi people and the American people agree on almost everything. They don't like Saddam Hussein, but think it was wrong to remove him by force. They have no warm thoughts about the Bush administration, and don't trust them. They don't like Halliburton and the crazy capitalism club. They think lies and organized false info applied as reasoning for the invasion sucks dirt. They cry and grieve for their lost ones, just as the Am. people does.
Over all this hovers the selfish, illegal Bush junta, lying and stealing at will, while calling it 'freedom'.

[Matriot]

86. My vote is to

lock down the borders and systematically take away every frigg'n weapon they have including in the Iraqi Army and police. If you're not an Iraqi citizen you get thrown back across the border. Let the government set up and govern. We should go the way of the non-profit organizations as they go into cities and ask the people what they want built and employ them in the rebuilding. When that's done we give the government back their weapons, say have at it, then leave. The military should only be utilized to secure the borders, securing work sites and the actual rebuilding of Iraq. The Iraqis can train themselves as obviously we're teaching both sides how to fight one another.

Yes, I'm in the military and I'm sick of tired of being used as a pawn. Let's get this shit done, move in and move out!!!

[H2O Man]

87. I just showed your

response to the ex-Marine who is working on a room upstairs. He said to tell you that your grandfather was right.

[Matriot]

92. Huh?

Am I missing something about my grandfather? I'm the one who posted.

[H2O Man]

93. In your profile,

you mention your grandfather in the "comment."

[Matriot]

112. Thank you for reminding me

It's been so long since I've looked at my own profile. You know, my grandfather had such strong convictions when it came to taking care of his troops, that there was an incident while serving in Korea where he went to go run over his commanding officer over with a piece of heavy equipment. He was booted out of the Marine Corp, but then enlisted into the Army and went right back. He made that sacrafice to protect his troops. Now who is there to protect our troops by keeping the politics out of our military?

[dogday]

88. They don't want us there and I think we should

go and give them all the help they need from afar...

[mikelewis]

89. The only plan I'd support....

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mikelewis/68

I posted this a few days ago...

[mod mom]

90. Here are my thoughts:

1. Withdraw to outside borders.

2. Use diplomacy to bring ME countries to the table. It is in everyone's interest to find common ground for lasting peace in the region.

Note: I believe for ME/world to believe we are sincere, we must:

* Investigate for war crimes and proceed to bring justice.
* Investigate for mis-appropriation of funds (and hold Halliburton/KBR et al both criminally and financially responsible for their actions).

[demobrit]

91. The question is

The question is.
How do the US and UK and the rest of the coalition of the willing get out of Iraq?
When we pull out there will certainly be a power struggle in that country with much bloodshed regrettably.
In a tribal society the notion of Western style democracy is a far off pipe dream.
Even though representatives are elected to a parliament the people still owe their allegiance to local sheiks and elders who make all the decisions on peoples lives.
The fear is that the bottom third of the country that is dominated by shears will become a greater Iran and the remaining rump will be divided into Sunni and Kurdish enclaves.
In the end the Iraqi people will decide and we have to pull out sometime so why not within 6 months
A strong man may emerge who can keep the Iraqi people together but the notion of Democracy as we know it may not survive.
Stability is what is required and only the Iraqi people can do that themselves.

[Ganja Ninja]

94. Take care of American's first.

First off we should realize we don't have any real good choices. We can't fix Dubya's screw-up. Staying is no guarantee things will get better and leaving is no guarantee things will be worse for the Iraqi's over the long run. So lets just make this as simple as possible and take care of our own by pulling out as soon as possible.

[Kelly Rupert]

95. I'm going to buck the trend,

which is dangerous for a newbie, but hey.

We completely f*cked up going into Iraq. We shouldn't have invaded. Rumsfeld, Pearle, Wolfowitz, and the like are criminals against America and Iraq alike. We completely f*cked up the conduct of the war. If Bremer hadn't disbanded the Iraqi army; if Rumsfeld hadn't insisted on too few troops; if we had actual oversight over our prisons and soldiers; if we had insisted on a federal Iraq of autonomous states sharing oil revenue...well, things might have been better. They might not have. It's not worth considering, either way.

But leaving Iraq now would comprise genocide.

The Sunnis are defenseless against the Shi'a majority. The army is overwhelmingly Shi'a, and the prime minister is reliant on the Badr Brigade (and to a lesser extend, the Mahdi Army) for his grasp on power. The Shi'a militias control the majority of the populace, and the US Army is all that keeps the death squads from operating in broad daylight. Prime Minister al-Malaki blames the Sunnis for the civil war, and has promised that if the Iraqi army were given a free hand, the war would be "over in six months." Ethnic cleansing has already begun; Baghdad, a once-intermixed city, has divided itself along sectarian lines.

If we leave, there will not be a civil war--that's what we have now. There will be a genocide. And it will be wholly our fault.

We can't leave. In my opinion, our only hope is to immediately admit the provisional government has failed, split Iraq into three autonomous states, impose a fair oil-revenue-sharing scheme, comprise a Shi'a army made primarily of the militias, and redeploy the army, keeping 70,000 in border fortresses and Baghdad. Allow Ayatollah al-Sistani to take control of the Shi'a state; he's a moderate but legitimate and respected voice. Hand over the Sunni state to a former Baathist; allow Saddam Hussein to be freed but confined to house arrest in a palace. Inform the Sunni and Shi'a states that they each have one year to form a regular standing army, because we will redeploy entirely out of Iraq by January 01, 2008.

Offer to turn a blind eye to Iran's nuclear program as long as they act as a moderating force in the Shi'a state. Offer to renew support for Palestine in exchange for Arab support of the Sunni state. This sets the stage for a pan-Muslim war, true. Already we're headed towards one. We might as well try to set up stable sides and hope it goes more like the Cold War than like World War I.

[LynnTheDem]

97. FACT; the majority of Iraqis want us OUT of THEIR country.

They are not stupid ignorant little children who require babysitting.

We are there now and CAUSING genocide. We cannot PREVENT genocide.

IRAQ FOR IRAQIS; FOREIGN INVADERS GO HOME.

NOW.

[Kelly Rupert]

99. Oh, sure they do. I know they do.

They are not ignorant children, and we cannot babysit them. But the problem is, "Iraqi" is kind of a meaningless word. There are very few "Iraqis." There are Sunnis and there are Shi'a. And the Shi'a tend to think "Iraq for Shi'a", and the Sunnis tend to think "Iraq for Sunnis." They aren't children, they're mutually-belligerent ethnic groups in the middle of a civil war that, but for the presence of the US Army, would occur in a power vacuum. If we know a genocide will occur, how do we justify standing by and watching it?

I think if we had withdrawn after the elections things would have gone okay. We had a semi-legitimate government supported by the religious leaders. Unfortunately, our presence totally illegitimized the government. We caused this civil war by encouraging (though it was not our intent) a power vacuum. Yeah. But US presence is the only reason why Shi'a militias operate under the table instead of commiting massacres in broad daylight.

[LynnTheDem]

100. We know best, huh?

WE should divide THEIR country up, hell with what THEY want.

WE know best!

WE should STAY, hell with what THEY want.

WE know best!

We caused this shit. We are causing this shit.

The very LEAST we owe Iraq is to do what THEY WANT; get the fuck out and leave them alone.

[Kelly Rupert]

101. The problem is collapsing it to "they."

There is no "they." If there were it would be really easy. We could just apologize and go home.

It's outright false to say that the US is causing the current civil war. That just doesn't make sense. We draw al-Qaida to Iraq and ferment the insurgency, but those are relatively minor problems. The insurgency has already achieved its goal of fermenting civil war. Our continued presence has already done the damage it could do.

Do you really believe that the United States has a moral obligation to endorse a genocide if it's the will of the majority ethnic group?

[H2O Man]

103. While it is

possible that there would be a real risk of genocide, that isn't what appears to be happening now. But there is fighting between the groups, as you mention. Doesn't staying in Iraq translate into the US taking sides in a civil war?

[LynnTheDem]

104. It's the ol'

"white man's burden" bullshit.

[Kelly Rupert]

106. No, no. I'm fully in favor of a complete withdrawal.

I just think it should be done in such a way as not to provoke a genocide.

[Kelly Rupert]

109. As it stands, yes and no.

We're clearly on the side of the Shi'a government, but at the same time are against the Shi'a militias. Both sides resent us for it. What I envision is three states with clear borders. US forces can then act in favor of the states in which they were stationed as we draw down, surpressing militias operating outside their ethnic bases (that is to say, those with clear murderous intent) during the final year of our unfortunate presence in Iraq.

[Ms. Clio]

108. and per Riverbend, they also want an undivided Iraq

It's amazing to me how blithely some people just go around drawing lines on maps.

[Kelly Rupert]

110. Yep. And everybody also wants to control it.

[madokie]

96. With all due respect shouldn't the wish of the Iraqi people trump all

The Iraqi people aren't going to adopt anything American especially our hypocrisy. Get out and let the UN start working with the Iraqi citizens to rebuild our misguided destruction on their persons and land. We personally have to accept the fact that we allowed our government to invade whether we want to or not and the fact remains the perpetrators are still running the show. The first thing that would help the most in the Iraqi's eyes is beginning the process of holding the bush* cabal responsible. imo

All three ethnic groups want our ass out too, methinks

[Kelly Rupert]

98. Well, the Kurds want us there. This worked out great for them.

Kurdistan's actually going very well. And the Kurds are vaguely worried that the Turks might attempt to stifle their state for fear of Turkish Kurds rebelling, but that's a minor concern. Sunni leaders privately are terrified we'll leave, though they won't dare admit it because of the mass Sunni hatred for us. The problem is, the Shi'a and Sunni masses want us to leave in large part so they can go at each other's throats. Do we respect ethnic sovereignty when we know it will create a humanitarian crisis? Tough question, for me at least. But I'm no expert.

[LSK]

102. we need to focus on their economy and listen to Jay Garner

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2703211

[WilliamPitt]

107. Step one: timeline for withdrawal

Step two: organize significant involvement of the Arab Leauge for the purposes of providing security and training Iraqi police and military; get the Americans out of the faces of Iraq.

Step three: stick to the timeline and begin cycling American troops home.

Step four: pray, a lot, because almost nothing can be done to stuff this goddam genie back into the bottle.

[Marnieworld]

113. "coalition" troop withdrawl with international coordination

I think the major problem with what has happened is that it was a unilateral operation and continued to be one after the invasion. At every opportunity that they could include other countries and Iraqis particularly, especially right after the invasion, the "coalition" refused.

I think we should remove our troops who are exhausted with many tours, many of them reservists, and National Guardsmen who shouldn't even be there. I think that troops are needed to control the chaos in the building of the country but I think they should be part of UN peacekeeping mission. I think an Arab coalition of Arab countries should decide Iraq's fate even if it means 3 separate countries for Shia, Sunni, and Kurds. The less it seems as an American operation and more of an international, mainly Arab operation, the quicker peace and infrastructure can take place. Removing our dominance from the region will curtail much of the Arab resentment and motivation for jihadists. As long as we are seen KILLING them on a regular basis, and occupying their land there will be no safety from exacerabated terrorism, and no end to the senseless violence that prevails there.

Of course I'm just a bleeding heart, tree-hugging, give peace a chance, liberal moon-bat so what do I know?

:P

[trumad]

114. OK

We as a country must come to a realization that we cannot force feed democracy on a Theocracy. We fucked up any opportunity for that after the invasion because the Neo-Cons bought into Chalabi rose petal bullshit. Also--- the privatization of the war pretty much put a nail into the coffin of this disaster.

Paul Bremer should be jailed just for pure incompetency. Abu Gharib, etc.... Simply put---there aint nothing we can do to fix this...nothing.

SO--- We need to sit down with the powers to be--er Muqtada al-Sadr and call for a cease fire---AND then get the hell out. NOW some will say if we leave all hell will break loose. OK--- yeah most likely. SO does that we mean we'll be holed up in the Green Zone forever? If we leave in 2 years, same thing will happen. If we leave in 5 years, same thing will happen. The diff is, we'll have another 1000 plus Americans killed by snipers and IEDs. AND another 5000 plus will be recovering in VA hospitals. We can't do it--the Army is teetering on collapse as it it.

Here's the thing... Everybody's thinking that Iraq will become a Terrorist state. OK--- then when we negotiate our departure we add two little kickers in the negotiations.

One: If you fire on us as we depart, we'll fuck you up.

Two: If our satellites or intelligence agencies uncover terrorists camps in Iraq, you can expect some B1's and F-15's to make a visit.

Face it America. We changed Iraq from a country run by a Dictator to a country run by an Religious fanatic.

Great job George!

[H2O Man]

117. Good post.

One of the books that I'm reading is James Carroll's "House of War." In it, he quotes a line of T.S. Eliot, about how one (in this case, a nation) can have an experience, but miss the meaning. The idea that we can impose our values takes for granted that our perception of life is shared by cultures that are very different than our own. Judging the Islamic culture of the Middle East, largely because the shared greed that Chalabi expressed seemed familiar to freaks like Libby and Wolfowitz, was a terrible error .... but one made all too often.

[jpwhite]

115. I liked some of the ideas here

I am currently in Iraq and I liked some of the ideas here. What we need to do is pull out some of the "regular" soldiers and bring in more special forces troops. We need people who can hide out in an abandoned house and watch the streets. When someone is kidnapped or when there is an attack by a militia then the SF guys can move in quickly and put a stop to it.

In the meantime, yes we need to get other countries involved in bringing the sunnis and shias together. I don't know if they want a divided country. I work with locals on a daily basis and none of them want to divide Iraq.

We do need to give the Iraqi government more money. The Iraqi Army and Police are underpaid. That would definetly help out.

I hope that we keep up the discussion here and keep it healthy. I believe that the democratic party is the party of people who encourage others to think for themselves, so let's keep brainstorming and thinking outside of the box.

James
[e-mail]

[trumad]

116. hide out in an abandoned house and watch the streets

are you serious?

[Annces]

118. I hope you stay safe in Iraq

YOu are brave to be there.

[Karenina]

119. What America has done to Iraq

is far beyond forgiveable in the forseeable future. Confine the soldiers to their barracks, tell 'em to pack their stuff and SHIP THEM HOME.

[focusfan]

120. i don't think we should cut and run

but we should leave Iraq in the months ahead and say Mission
Accompolished.

[walldude]

121. The only people who ever spoke about "cut and run"

were the Republicans who needed a talking point about the Dems policy for Iraq. There was never a "cut and run" policy anywhere but in the heads at Fox News.

[Time for change]

122. I don't have answer, but I have some observations

First, I think that a major part of the problem is that Iraqis of all stripes recognize that the people who now head our government do not have their best interests at heart. I don't know the extent to which they recognize that they are war profiteers, but they certainly have a bad opinion of them.

So many things contribute to that bad opinion: Letting the country fall into chaos following our invasion, while we guarded the oil supplies and let everything else go to hell; making it clear that we intended to establish permanent bases there, regardless of what they want; the no bid contracts to cronies of the administration, and letting them get away with billions of dollars worth of fraud, with little or no oversight; the torture of Iraqis, with nobody held accountable except for at the lowest levels of the military; the massacres of civillians.

I believe that there is nothing good that can come of this administration's involvement in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter), and Iraqis must know this. When we first invaded, the relief among many Iraqis at having gotten rid of Saddam was so great that they were willing to give us their support and trust us. But Bush Co. abused their trust, and it is gone forever. And that is why, as long as Bush is president the only solution I see is withdrawal as soon as possible, or perhaps something along the lines of what Kerry and Murtha have recommended.

Peter Galbraith has written a pretty good book on this subject. It is called "The end of Iraq --How American incompetence created a war without end". He notes that there is now a civil war going on, and there is no way in hell that the Bush administration is going to have any effect on ameliorating that civil war.

His recommendation is that we get out of all areas of Iraq where there is fighting going on, and that we withdraw to Kurdistan. One reason why he says we should do that is that the Kurds are now our only friends in Iraq, that they very well may need our protection, and to withdraw completely may leave them open to a very bad fate, as the Sunnis and Shiites may retaliate against them for cooperating with us. Our troops would not be at much risk in Kurdistan because it is stable, and we would be surrounded by a friendly civillian population. That sounds reasonable to me.

But he also maintains that by staying in Kurdistan we can help in maintaining peace in some other areas of the country that are currently not affected by civil war. That's the part I don't understand much at all. Given the incompetence of our administration, how does he think that is going to happen?

[robertpaulsen]

123. The sad fact is we will leave Iraq the same way we left Vietnam.

Flying away in helicopters, leaving devastation behind.

It's tragic, but the biggest problem we face in Iraq is troops facing death every day. Al-Qaeda in Iraq constitutes 7% of the insurgency, I think most people know that "problem" is a strawman in the big picture, if we leave Iraq they will be the ones caught in the crossfire. Our best option morally is to leave ASAP, our best option politically probably lies somewhere between what Murtha and Wes Clark propose as to the best means of gradually extricating ourselves from this catastrophe.

How does this impact the Middle East? I believe that the biggest threat geopolitically is not the Sunni-Shia divide, but Kurdistan. If there ends up being a 3 way division of Iraq, Kurdistan would be the most politically contentious, both because of the significant number of Kurds in Turkey and Iran and also because that's where the bulk of the oil is.

Last year, I attended a conference where an Iraqi labor union leader spoke of the Sunni-Shia divide. He said that before the US invaded, he was unaware of any Sunni-Shia divide, he found out that he was Sunni and his wife was Shia after the invasion. His point being that among more secular Iraqis, this distinction was pretty insignificant until political divisions were made along these lines. If the US left tomorrow, he said that of course the war would still continue, but it would be fighting among "brothers", and eventually they would have to come to the table to resolve their differences. I think he's right to a certain degree; there will be a bloody civil war, but I don't think there will be ethnic cleansing like we saw in the Balkans. But that's bittersweet optimism, to be sure. I would argue that what the BFEE has done already constitutes genocide: 600,000+ dead, all for lies.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

124. Sometimes the answer is just staring you in the face.

In this case, the answer is: 140,000 plane tickets.

Let me explain by using the same analogy I used before we ever got into this horrible mess. Back then, I was telling everyone I could collar that France was acting like the very best friend of the US when Chirac refused to go along with the Bush/Neocon plan for invasion. "France is like a person who trys to take the keys from a drunken friend when they are about to go driving!" I said this over and over, and I am saying it now.

In the same light, if a friend of mine got drunk and went driving, and happened to have an accident that killed, say, a family of three, and a few innocent bystanders, I would tell that person that the only way they can "deal with it" is to walk away, face the court, do their time in jail, and work for the rest of their days to atone for the havoc they wrought on the world.

It is tragic and terrible and could have been prevented but now there is Nothing we can do right now to make things any better. Even to apologize at this point is, well, pointless. Talk is cheap.

What the US needs right now is a "12-step program" for abuse of power.

Cut and Run. Now.

[H2O Man]

126. Good answer.

It's well thought out. And I like the thought that it may be the answer that is staring us in the face .... not just the problem. There is a need to step back, and reassess the situation. Bush likes to say that we need to honor those who have died in Iraq by finishing his "mission." By the process you describe, if I understand it correctly, we respond by saying that we cannot honor the dead by sending more to die for the administrations' lies and errors, and that the mission was finished long ago.

[donheld]

129. Appologize to the UN, and "Old Europe"

Give the perpotraders (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) over to The Hague for trial and ask them to help us.

[trumad]

130. kick

[KoKo]

131. Withdraw according to Murtha Plan with redeployment for six months

and then get the hell out of the region. However, heavy diplomacy must be used in the region so that it doesn't destabilize.

This will be hard to do because the Israeli Lobby wants us permanently stationed in the ME and I really don't know how protecting Israel can be solved in a way that would satisfy the need for American presence to get out. It's possible we would have to stay in Kuwait or Quatar to provide some cover for Israel. But, we need to get out of Iraq ASAP.