Fiasco: we cannot just up and walk out of Iraq

[motocicleta]

I highly recommend everyone read Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. It explains, or in some cases just puts it together for us to conclude, that Iraq is our problem, no matter the political leanings or vendettas. We fucked that shit up, and now we have to live with it. There are clearly smart ways to deal with the problem, and stupid ways, but I hope reading this book will help all of us to comprehend that simply walking out of Iraq is not an option.

[aquart]

1. Try me.

It's the only option.

[flying_monkeys]

98. It is time to say, "My bad, so sorry, leaving now"

and get the hell out of Iraq.


We aren't going to accomplish anything there at this point except use up more body bags so we may as well get out. Then we can spend say a tenth of the daily costs of fighting a war to promote peace and aid instead....


This civil war has been long running - - it was just interrupted briefly under Colonial rule and Saddam. We can't *fix* it - - so lets leave. If we want to help/feel obligated to pay for the country W broke, then lets do so with HELP, not bombs.

[flying_monkeys]

100. Sorry, this posted in the wrong spot... nt

nt

[WinkyDink]

2. Okay. Let's give it 7 more years; 50,000 more dead; and THEN

walk.

[Big Sky Boy]

99. Agreed. We cannot put enough lipstick on this pig

America is eventually going to have to face fact:

Iraq is an irrecoverable disaster.

I haven't read the book, but I've seen interviews with the author and he begins every one of them with "we could have done it better." Which means he believes that a Western power can actually invade a country with no democratic traditions and install a working democracy--so forgive me if I don't buy his justification for staying and fixing it.

All of the things that the neocons warn us will happen if we leave are already happening now.

There is a civil war.
Ethnic cleansing has begun.
The country has disintegrated into chaos.
Al Quaeda is training terrorists there.
Democracy is a pipe dream.
American credibility is shot.
The rest of the world already blames us for this disaster. They warned us about going in there.

If we want stability, our only real alternative is to install a Saddam-like dictator who can rule with an iron-fist and keep a lid on that pressure cooker like he did. We won't do that of course, because that is truly admitting defeat.

All the other attempts to dress this pig up are just desperate ploys to save face.

[baldguy]

3. Reparations.

How does $100 billion per year for the next ten years sound?

[Erika]

4. W, not the American people, fucked it up, understand that.

If there were clearly smart ways to deal with it, why hasn't W used them. We've been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII.

See www.icasualties.org The further spilling of American blood because W broke it, is no longer acceptable.

[motocicleta]

6. well, W hasn't used the smart ways because he isn't smart

Getting out now will not end the spilling of American blood. We absolutely must help bring that country to where W and fools wanted to bring it because otherwise it will end up worse than a Taliban Afghanistan.
My point is: Iraq was under control pre-3/19/03, and we fucked it up. We cannot just act the dilettantes and walk away now. We owe the Iraqis that much.

[Dr.Phool]

11. They don't want us there either.

Our presence is only making the situation worse, and our soldiers targets.

Fuck it, get our troops out of there. Try for a diplomatic solution, and offer carrots, ie. reconstruction money.

[Erika]

13. Getting out now will end the spilling of American blood

W broke their country, we aren't obliged to spill American blood to fix it.

[FogerRox]

23. They want us out, dont you respect a soveriegn nation?

[motocicleta]

54. Whaaa?

Is that English? To what scientific poll are you referring?

[FogerRox]

65. Any one of the polls done in Iraq.

[pberq]

81. The question is: how can we help Iraq?

The first step is to get the U.S. military out of there, and bring in a multinational force. Then turn over reconstruction to the Iraqis instead of Haliburton, then take out U.S. oil companies and let the Iraqis profit from their own oil, etc. etc.

The above will do much more to help Iraq than "stay the course".

[Renew Deal]

5. It's a worthwhile read.

I highly recommend it for people that want to understand how Iraq happened, where it is and where it's going.

[motocicleta]

7. Thank you

I agree.

[Erika]

8. We read while our troops bleed?

Sorry, a little more immediate action is required. Intellectualizing and pondering is a luxury while troops are dying.

[Renew Deal]

18. Ignorance isn't a luxury either.

And it's your choice to make.

[Erika]

24. What an unpleasant remark.

Many of us have been there before. We don't need to read about it.

[azurnoir]

25. catchy phrase, but reading not required

America still without provocation threw Iraq into chaos, we have fucked up their infrastructure, stolen their natural resources and created hell on earth to the point that many Iraqis would prefer Saddam to us. We can not just say "so sorry, our bad" and leave. To suggest that because our soldiers are dying we should leave also could taken as American lives are worth more then Iraqi's. There are other ways al-Maliki suggested that the American military pull back in their camps and not interfere with the fighting unless asked. America like it or not morally owes the Iraqi people, we destroyed their country so that a few of our "leaders" could benefit both politically and financially. To me it is for this reason that the BFEE must be tried as criminals against humanity.

[Erika]

29. It wasn't America, it was W. Please recognize that.

Most of us here found no justification for W attacking Iraq.

[azurnoir]

51. You and I can say W did this

not us, he lied to us too, it really doesn't change anything. After all it was Saddam not the Iraqi people but who is suffering? Add to that there still are some in this country who for whatever reasons still support this war and we still come out looking like the bad guys.
I am not suggesting that our troops continue to in their role posted one way, a better (to me) way would be for us to engage a neutral international force to aid with security in Iraq, while we concentrate on rebuilding, we can draw down troops, while this happening, but to just withdraw is morally reprehensible and would almost certainly result in near genocide for the Sunni's and would most likely have repercussions for the Kurds as well.

This reply was for both E and JD, wishing DU had a way of replying to more then one person at a time.

[Jed Dilligan]

46. That was exactly my response.

We leave while distancing ourselves from the people who started the war--tribunal, strip them of citizenship, execute. It's the only way to send a clear message to the world that this was not OUR doing.

[Porcupine]

71. this is justification to extend the war.

The pretension that ANYTHING US forces will do in Iraq will contribute in some positive way that outweighs the continuing deaths we cause is nuts. You cannot govern or assist in governing a country where you cannot walk around with some degree of safety.

We are churning Iraq into a charnel house. Leave and don't look back.

[azurnoir]

73. See posts 59, 62, 70 n/t

[FogerRox]

66. Its obsolete.

[Renew Deal]

82. OK

How?

[keopeli]

9. You are correct - Iraq will remain our problem for some time to come.

Many options are available and some are very good for a lot of people.

But, to be very real, we must acknowledge that W has no interest in choosing a positive solution or even considering all the options. He has no history of intellectual curiosity and is incapable to understanding nuance. Most of all, he would not still be surrounding himself with war hawks looking to make another move.

So, we can rule out a positive solution for at least two years, during which time many people will die. Given this, I have difficulty endorsing any strategy that does not include withdrawing troops - as many as possible - in the short term.

[motocicleta]

45. I am simply advocating

for making an intelligent strategy for our future in Iraq. I do believe that there is a smart response, and to some degree that response encompasses getting the hell out. Another element of a smart response, though, is staying in country and supporting the fledgling gov't. I guarantee that US troops will be in Iraq for the foreseeable future, and I only hope to have some impact on what they do.

I say: stop the patrols. Develop a strike ability so the troops can respond when an attack from insurgents occurs, but get the troops out of harm's way in general. This way, the Iraqis will be required to push for their own political system, yet our country will still have some responsibility for the damage thet have caused.

I do not disagree with the idea of getting some number of troops withdrawn as soon as possible, but I do think that just becaue the * ADMIN screwed up the reconstruction effort so badly doesn't mean that we have to withdraw completely ASAP. Remember: if we had acted as a constitutional democracy, none of this would have occurred. We cannot pretend that is enough now.

[mike_c]

10. walking out is the only option-- you don't understand...

...that we have already screwed it up completely-- there is NO salvaging it. We destroyed Iraq for wanton greed and a petulant frat boy's self image. There are no options left. There never were any but abject failure.

[motocicleta]

33. BS

We had the option of using more overwhelming force from the beginning, which would have short-circuited the "insurgency", and we have that option now. We can be adults now even though the petulant frat boy got us into this.

I am not advocating doing what we are doing now, but I also don't think the mature response to a D takeover of the US congress will be to just walk away, and I am concerned many of us at DU do think that is the correct response. Mark my words: if we walk away now we will be back in Iraq fighting another, less winnable war within 15 years. Just because dimson fucked this up so badly doesn't mean we have to be done with the country right on the brink of civil war.

[Erika]

38. Most here was against going into Iraq because we felt

it would be a quagmire. Reagan/GHWB set Saddam up in the first place. They apparently set it up for a future war, and were right. Mark my words, we're sick of setting up regimes for future wars.

[AndyTiedye]

44. What Do You Expect "Overwhelming Force" To DO?

We had the option of using more overwhelming force from the beginning, which would have short-circuited the "insurgency", and we have that option now.

Overwheming force to do what? Point guns at everbody in Iraq? For how long?

You cannot make peace when you cannot TALK to people.
Even if you get past the language barrier, the Shiites and the Sunnis hate each other. Now they both hate us. What do you expect our troops to do?

Where are you going to get the troops? I must assume you want to start up the draft.

We can be adults now even though the petulant frat boy got us into this.
I am not advocating doing what we are doing now, but I also don't think the mature response to a D takeover of the US congress will be to just walk away,

MORE of the same is certainly not a mature response.

Mark my words: if we walk away now we will be back in Iraq fighting another, less winnable war within 15 years. Just because dimson fucked this up so badly doesn't mean we have to be done with the country right on the brink of civil war.

If we don't walk away, we will STILL be fighting THIS unwinnable war in 15 years --
Except that it will have expanded to engulf much more of the Middle East.

[mike_c]

83. "the insurgency" is in the right-- they are not our enemy....

The insurgency is the Iraqi people trying to evict a beligerent foreign occupation. I don't want to "short-circuit the insurgency," I want them to succeed and kick the U.S. out of their country. The sooner the U.S. leaves the better it will be for all parties.

[sweetheart]

87. Just walk away

That view is so incredibly arrogant, that the iraqi people, insurgents and all,
are not capable of peaceful self government if left alone. Unless you yourself are
ready to ship off and die on an IED, you're bullshitting to killing somebody today
and tomorrow who needn't die... you go die then.

So what, the whole world is in a civil war, its about civil rights and wealth
distribution, a class war in fact, and its in every street in every town and villiage,
the disenfranchised wanting a fair shake, and the owner class tripping them up...
and here you are, an aristocratic owner class representative apologizing for another
day of slavery, when abolition was in 1863.

[LynnTheDem]

12. Whether we like it or not we MUST do what the IRAQIS want.

Period.

And the Iraqis want the foreign invaders OUT of THEIR country.

Period.

[Erika]

15. What Iraqis want? I can't find a clear opinion.

What about what we want to save our troops lives? Are they all of a sudden worth nothing?

[LynnTheDem]

26. How 'bout the 6 out of 10 who say it's fine to kill US troops?

How 'bout the polls the last 3 years that have shown the Iraqi majority wanting us the fuck out of THEIR country?


IRAQ FOR IRAQIS; INVADERS GO HOME.

[lapfog_1]

14. But staying in Iraq is likely worse. possibly much worse.

There aren't any good choices, only the lesser of evil type choices. I vote for the one that saves the most American lives and takes the chance that it will save Iraqi lives as well. Let get out now.

And, yeah, I'm old enough to remember all the same shit about Vietnam. And when we left, there was some purges, but I'd say that leaving saved lives and we should have left 5 years before we did, when it first became clear that victory was not an option.

[Erika]

19. Agreed 100%

Put it simply, we've heard it all before. If W had some belief in our military actions, he might have served in Vietnam, or the Bush kids in Iraq. They rate zero for zero.

[filer]

21. I remember Vietnam, as well.

We couldn't leave there either. Remember "peace with honor"? Pure crap that was, and finally we left. We'll leave Iraq too. The only question is when.

[azurnoir]

52. Do you remember Cambodia?

I do, they were the "colateral" to peace.

[LibDemAlways]

16. You break uninvited into someone's home,

trash and loot the place, kill and/or maim members of the homeowner's family.....you suppose you're going to be welcome to stay and help the survivors with the clean-up? Hell, no. You're going to be put behind bars, punished, and ordered to make restitution. Hopefully, the warmongers who got us into this mess will be dealt with by the international community. As for restitution - we broke it, we'll have to pay huge sums for many years - to the Iraqis - who will ultimately have to do what they deem necessary to fix it.

[Erika]

32. W broke it

Most here was totally against invading Iraq.

[LibDemAlways]

42. I was certainly totally against it.

However, the government doesn't ask ordinary people for their opinions. The sad fact is no one in power consulted us or cared what we thought. Millions worldwide marched against the invasion in February and early March of 2003. But it didn't matter. The US government screwed up bigtime, and the US government - using our hard-earned tax dollars - will be making amends for many years.

[Javaman]

17. Just like Viet Nam, we fucked that up and just walked away. what makes Iraq different?

Sorry, we get out now. We have destroyed that country long enough. If it becomes a fundamental religious gov't then it's morons* cross to bear not ours.

Bring the soldiers home from the quagmire now. Keeping their only makes more dead for no goddamn good reason.

[motocicleta]

40. If it becomes a safe and comfortable fundamental religious gov't

then I will be reasonably happy. Iran style, great. But all the evidence points towards a decades long civil battle. We, as the instigators, cannot just step away and allow it to become a civil war. That would be insult piled on injury, and unfortunately, we did the injury.

Everyone is so concerned with the troops dying; no one seems to consider that the troops are a reflection of the electorate that got ua into this BS. I'm sorry, but throwing away the Iraqi state because W fucked up seems a tad narcissistic to me. So sue me.

[Lars39]

41. What's narcissistic is thinking that we can make things

right in Iraq by staying there.

[Javaman]

91. It already is a civil war. So instead of the fighting going on behind the scenes...

it will be out in the open.

Moron* shunned the UN. Now that moron* is a lame duck, it's now time for the UN to step up to the plate and take the leading roll.

Troops out now.

[mhatrw]

102. Feel free to go over and clean the place up yourself. Seriously.

[Skittles]

20. bullshit - we WILL eventually WALK OUT

the only question is, do we wait as long as we did for Viet Nam?

[4morewars]

22. That was bullshit for Viet Nam,

and it's still bullshit today.

END THE WAR NOW !

[FogerRox]

27. Funny how Bush is going to Vietnam, tourists can go there

Stable country, good economy. Just think Iraq could be all that. Unless you want to go back to NAM and stay the course.

Get the fuck out NOW

[4morewars]

31. 30 Years too late !

Maybe things would be differant now if he had been there in the 70s.

His poppy got him a cushy stateside gig, and the asshole couldn't even finish that !

[FogerRox]

67. Right you are.

[Graybeard]

28. In a recent interview, Thomas Ricks said...

...that some generals in Iraq have told him that the title of
his book, "Fiasco" , is too optimistic. Each new
solution requiring American troops to stay is more ludicrous
than the last. Soldiers are being killed merely driving
from... here... to... there in unprotected vehicles. This is
madness.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Erika]

39. The poster's logic is clear. What's your problem?

So a DU'r is not worth your time?

[AndyTiedye]

34. What Do You Expect Our Soldiers to DO There? They Can't Even TALK to the People!!

We cannot "secure" or "pacify" Iraq, no matter how many troops we send over there.
Our troops do not speak their language and very few Iraqis speak English.
The only way American troops and Iraqis can communicate is with bullets and IEDs.

It is also likely that all of King George's horses and all of King George's men can't put Iraq back together again.

Iraq was a colonial construct that can only be held together by brute force.

About the only place we can productively mediate in this whole mess is between the Kurds and Turkey.
That will be an issue after Iraq breaks up, as it inevitably will, and the Kurdish parts of Turkey try to join Kurdistan.

WE cannot make peace between the Shia and the Sunni. They have to do that themselves. Or not.

[Erika]

35. W got rid of the brute force

One who was secular and put in by by our government. The picture of Cheney hugging Saddam was so touching.

And why did we remove him?

[unkachuck]

36. 'we can not up and walk out of Iraq'....

....sure we can, declare victory and then throw money at it, neocon money that is....

....we 'up and walked into Iraq' for gain, so let those who gained, pay....an Iraq reparation tax on the oil-industry and Wall Street should do the trick....

Out of Iraq, NOW....if you really want to support the troops, get them out alive....

[Mojorabbit]

43. I remember prewar

when they had a news show with Iraqi teens and american teens. They had a lot in common and seemed to be sweet kids. I hate the idea of leaving them with total chaos. I know it is chaos now but I still see their faces. I have no idea what to do. I am hoping someone can come up with an idea which will decrease the violence so that we can help them rebuild.

I think it is why I favor a pullback so that if necessary we can come be of some aid if things get really really worse than they are now. It is bad now with the assassinations and torture with drills but I think it could be muc worse. I am not blessed with the intelligence to know what is the best thing to do but I wish and hope those children and many like them are ok. I feel like we owe them.

[motocicleta]

47. great post, mojorabbit

Nobody knows what to do, and I agree with your focus on the young. I don't know how to make it right properly, I am simply saying that we broke it, we have to fix it. But my primary motivating factor is the kids having their youth stolen. I agree that I feel like we owe them.

[gulfcoastliberal]

50. FYI, bullets, bombs, tanks aren't known for "fixing things"

Using our armed forces to "fix it" is exactly the same illogical thinking that was used to justify this illegal invasion.

Also FYI: they don't want us there, they say our presence exacerbates the situation. But you read one book, you know best.

[motocicleta]

53. You know what, pal?

We will stay there. You can make as many snarky comments towards me as you like. The US will still be in Iraq, no matter how much I am your straw man. It's a great job your snarky comments are doing. I'll bet we have troops there when both of us are dead.

I simply would like to see use those troops intelligently. If you would prefer to cast aspersions at me than help to determine what should go on, go right ahead. In truth, I wish the war had never occurred. I wish the US electorate had pulled their heads out and avoided war. But we didn't. I am only doing this to prepare for the inevitable future. Anybody wants to slag on me for being able to see the future, go right ahead.

But oh, ps: kiss my ass. We all got us into this mess, and now that I suggest that we have to fix it, I get hammered because I am out of step with the fantasy realm, "we can just leave Iraq and they'll throw flowers at our feet" crowd. Guess what? You sound just like the shitheads that talked us into the problem. I hope you're proud.

[gulfcoastliberal]

60. I'll take that bet: "I'll bet we have troops there when both of us are dead"

If you refuse to acknowledge the history of our military fiascos since 1950, that's your right. Your own little "fantasy reality". I'll bet we're out of there within a few years.

Edit: You're the one sounding like the shitheads that got us in - presuming that we have a moral high ground and that only we can make Iraq right for Iraqis. Nice imperial mentality.

[mhatrw]

103. Please go over to Iraq and fix things up for the both of us.

I hereby bequeath my white man's guilt about our actions in Iraq to you. Make us both proud, motocicleta.

[boolean]

48. It cannot be won and will never be won

Because it's already lost.

[bigtree]

49. bullshit. There's NOTHING our soldiers can do in Iraq but fight and die

there's nothing to be 'won', nothing that will be accomplished by their staying. All of the responsible assessments say our presence there is aggravating and furthering the violence instead of stopping it as the advocates of staying claim. We're just fucking more shit up the longer we stay. How can ANYONE expect our soldiers to solve the political fiasco by fighting and dying there? They're presence hasn't come anywhere near to solving ANYTHING; from reconstruction to nation-building it's been a fiasco.

How can ANYONE look at the three years Bush has tried to 'win' in Iraq and conclude that with more time they will succeed?

[understandinglife]

55. Oh so very incorrect. Read the Nuremberg Charter. Every moment we are in Iraq we are ...

.... committing war crimes. Why is that so hard for folk to get. We wrote the Nuremberg Charter. We prosecuted based on it. Bu$h and his neoconster co-criminals violated it as early as their PNACer meetings in the late 1990's.

IT IS A CRIME FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO HAVE EVEN PLANNED A WAR OF AGGRESSION ON IRAQ.

Do you think it becomes less of a crime the more Iraqi citizens we kill?

Do you think it becomes less of a crime the more days of occupation that elapse?

Why is this so very hard for folk to GET?

[motocicleta]

56. So we just walk away? Consequences be damned?

[understandinglife]

57. Don't you realize that committing more crimes is not exactly a reasonable ...

... response to all the crimes that preceded it?

Exactly what does it take for you to understand that continuing to break the law is not a legitimate course of action to having broken the law and killed countless innocent people and dear American troops in the process.

What part of that don't you get?

What part?

You've just run a red light, traveling at 60 mph in a 25 mph zone, crashed into a school bus, killed a 100 kids, and now you have the option to stop and surrender to the police, or turn around and run over a few of the survivors.

What do you do?

What's your choice of actions?

Get it, yet?

Want to do something other than hide behind your keyboard and type your inanities ... my name is B Robert Franza MD. What's yours?

Go for it.


BE THE BU$H OPPOSITION - 24/7

[motocicleta]

58. go for what?

My name is Matt Ethridge, JP, MA.

Your logic makes no sense. It appears you have no conception of where the US military really is regarding Iraq, or where the US electorate really is. I don't know what you are suggesting with your 'calling me out', but to suggest that keeping the military in Iraq as similar to trying to run over children on a wrecked bus is clearly delusional. Good luck with fixing the problems in our country while maintaining a delusional state.

ciao

[Jeffersons Ghost]

75. Just for the record...

my name is Patrick Thomas Lancaster but I go by Jeffersons Ghost (with no apostrophe) everywhere online except my old MSN hotmail, which looks like a bugler went through it. The dates are hilarious. All out of order. My lawyer thought it was funny too!

Check this out, even right-wing art can be recycled:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2719120&mesg_id=2720183
does that court ruling on the page I just furnished mean that warrantless eavesdropping is now absolutely against the law and those still indulging in the practice will eventually get jail time?

The reason I always use the same name is because I do nothing I'm ashamed of online... who else that lurks just beyond the shadows can say that?

[mike_c]

96. there's nothing delusional about that analogy...

It is spot on. The presence of U.S. soldiers in Iraq is a CRIME. Keeping them there compounds the crime. What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

72. .

.

[autorank]

78. The analogy is apt...

...it also suggests the appalling alternatives we face. It's time to get out and then it will be time
to hold those who did this accountable. This was intentional but without intent, maniacal as it was devised with out the mania to make it work, and evil without the cleverness. We are ruled by fools.

[FogerRox]

64. Thats right , we stand down so they can stand up

I would suggest reading "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. It might increase you understanding of War, and things Non war that might look like war. Lots of Military people have read it.

[azurnoir]

59. I posted this Saturday night

While we can not stay in Iraq as a combat or security force we can not just up and leave either. We should turn over security to a neutral international force-UNFIL? this force should be made up of non-coalition troops with the possibility of other more stable Arab countries participating-Jordan and Egypt are possibilities and our troop are withdrawn gradually as they are replaced, while the remaining troops stop patrols and concentrate on the rebuilding efforts. It has struck me that no one has mentioned that Halli burton and it's cronies even those engaged in rebuilding must also go and even sooner, the first step would be to give the Iraqi people their oil business back. American pockets have to stop being lined with money gained by Iraqi blood.
Do the people advocating that we withdraw immediately understand the consequences of that action? There would be a blood bath that would make the current violence look mild in comparison. First the Sunni's would be massacred and then the Kurds. A Kurdish friend of ours who is no fan of Saddam pointed out that Iraq was ruled by dictators for a reason and that a democratic government could not survive there for long.

[Disturbed]

62. Most Iraqi want the US Occupation to end.

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- 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 State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

[azurnoir]

70. I too have seen this

What is missing from this data is where is it coming from? It would be easy to get data like this doing an across the board poll, the Shia in Iraq are the majority a couple times over when compared to Sunni's. The Shia most likely do want us out immediately, they as a group are in the least danger, the minority Sunni however are likely to want us there they in peril. Yes it could be that some of sectarian violence would subside with immediate withdrawal, but not all or even most a good deal this violence was going on long before we invaded.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Alright how about out within a year maximum

Is that enough to stabilize the place or according to ricks do we have no option but to stay the course?

[FogerRox]

63. Nah, get out, NOW.

There is no sole military mission that can fix shit in Iraq, just get out. If your kid drops & breaks a piece of China from your grand Mom, do you hand the kid the super glue and trust the kid to fix it.

Not me, no way.

[Hippo_Tron]

88. Well I'm certainly leaning your way

But for the sake of argument and in the interest of bringing all ideas to the table I'm asking the OP in what time frame he thinks the military could fix this mess. I should've also asked where the additional troops are going to come from.

[0rganism]

68. ...which is why it was such a moronic play to invade in the first place

All the talk about "now the Democrats have to figure out how to fix it" pisses me off.

There's no way for us to fix Iraq, it's not ours to fix. The only people who can fix Iraq are Iraqis, and they might just decide to deal with things in a way we find disgusting or bizarre or (gasp!) unprofitable. Too bad, we force-fed them a nominal "democracy", now we have to live with the results of their choices. It's useless to pretend that a single strong man or terrorist organization calls the shots there anymore.

What the Democrats' primary concern should be is nailing the bush misadministration to the proverbial wall at every turn for lying their collective asses off to get us into this mess in the first place, then squandering trust and resources of generations to come for the short-term gains of croney profiteers. The Democrats in congress can reasonably be expected to provide one and only one contribution to this topic at this time: accountability from the people who fabricated evidence for a war of choice to the people who suffered ruinous losses as a result.

Accountability comes first, not simply because it's the only thing congressional Democrats can do, but because it must be done to resolve the matter on our part.

[Hubert H. Hubert]

69. This is the same bullshit argument that's been floating around

since the war started going south. Any time anyone suggested that it might be better for all involved for us to leave, people would go ballistic.

"We can't just up and pull out without fixing things!"
"It's our mess; we need to clean it up!"
"What are you, one of those commie pinko cut-and-run libruls?"

Well, we've been 'fixing things' for three years now. Have you seen Iraq lately? Have we not done enough 'fixing' there already? Will you not be happy until Iraq is 'fixed' into oblivion?

In case you have forgotten, WE are the reason Iraq is in the state it's in. We've already clearly demonstrated our ability to 'fix' things.

Get the fuck out NOW. While there are still people left alive over there.

[still_one]

77. For the most part the American people HAVE NOT SACRIFICED for this disaster

if there is truely a consensus that we should stay in Iraq, then I say BRING BACK THE DRAFT, and lets see where the people really stand?

Personally, I think if that happened, you we see people marching in the streets, and on Washington to get us out of there

What were the midterm elections about, if it wasn't for us to GET OUT OF IRAQ?

[Phillycat]

85. Welcome to DU.

And I thoroughly agree.

[still_one]

74. Who is "WE"? This is the same shit they said about Nam

There is NO solution, we are a catalyst for the civil war. Mark my words, in two years if we are still their, there will be at least 6000 American soldiers dead, and who know how many civillians

If the Democrats have NOT significantly tried to reduce our troop levels in the next two years, they deserve to lose in 2008.

One very clear message about the midterm was that the people who voted, want us OUT OF IRAQ

[autorank]

76. The latest in a series of bad excuses.

We can't take the hit to our reputation world wide.

We can't render the sacrifices so far by our men meaningless.

We can't do it to them, leave them in such a mess.


when believed, theses are pure narcissism. When offered cynically, which is not your intent at all, they're pure nonsense.

THEY WANT US TO LEAVE. 53% of them in two polls over there spaced about a year apart endorse the idea of killing our men and women. That's a majority of Iraqis who endorse attacks against our soldiers.

THEY WANT US TO LEAVE.

We've broken our obligation to the military by sending them to this poorly planned, never justified
...FIASCO...

That's it. Time to go.

[elehhhhna]

84. Meanwhile, our troops are standing around hoping not to get sniped.

OUT OF IRAQ NOW.

[GeorgeGist]

79. My reading of the situation...

strongly suggests that the people of Iraq want you to leave.

[mmonk]

80. Heard that before. I believe it was in the 70's.

[Kolesar]

97. "The difference this time, is that the Vietnamese weren't going to follow us to America"

Is what "they" are saying now. What I remember from three decades ago was: "Vietnam will be just one more domino in the Communist conquest of Asia if we leave now".

[grizmaster]

86. It's a problem we created, but it's not a problem we can solve

In the end we must get out of the way and let self-determination decide Iraq's fate.

In that it's just like Vietnam. It will get worse before it gets better, and better will not be very good. And the US will have to carry the shame of responsibility for destroying their country for decades at least.

[jgraz]

89. Under 42? You can help!

http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp

Not interested? Then let's get the fuck outta there. Call it phased redeployment, call it cut-and-run, whatever. This is a complete disaster no matter what we do, and staying is only making it worse. Time for us to go.

[mopinko]

90. we have a peace corps, ya know.

they know what to do. we just leave it starving in a dark corner, instead of giving it half of every tax dollar, like we do the pentagon.

[Subdivisions]

92. "We fucked that shit up"? Who the fuck is WE? I was lied to and

if I had known, hmmmmm...., THE TRUTH, "WE" would not have fucked that shit up.

[rman]

93. yes well, that's not the plan of those who want to get out of there asap

Kucinich 10 point plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2723159

1. The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.
2. The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.
3. The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.
4. The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair elections.
5. The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.
6. The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.
7. The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping mission.
8. The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.
9. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all US troops will come home.
10. The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.

[fishnfla]

94. Many of the issues being discussed here are in the book, I highly recommend it

Iraq as VietNam, what the Iraqis want, what what wrong, some things that went right, etc.

It is a valuable asset to understand the recent history of Iraq and its mistakes. It is written mainly from a military POV, boots on the ground.

Some takeawy points that are germaine to the discussion:
1. the troops were undermanned and underplanned
2. the complete redeployment of US forces after one year caused a further bottom droping-out of the security situation. It was one of the tipping points of the war.
3. the battle of hearts and minds was ignored initially, but now military planners are staring to come around to that way of thinking. Too late? perhaps
4. Rumsfeld was the main cause of most of the problems.
5. The commanders more than anyone know the cost of the war: they have been to more funerals than the chimp

I was as cynical as anyone about the war and its outcome, but the second part of the book led me to believe that some progress could be made. With Rummy out I am more hopeful. A complete pull-out too soon would be a mistake, make a bad situation worse, IMO

[mhatrw]

95. So what's the plan, then? Sending all the king's horses & men? n/t

[Orsino]

101. We could choose how much more harm we do.

Yes, leaving would be a terrible thing, but I'm not convinced that it would be worse than staying. Our decision to invade and conquer doomed Iraq to chaos, misery and death. If America admitted this, apologized and committed to a humanitarian occupation lasting only long enough to turn the country over to the UN, there might be some good to be salvaged.

Continuing the same ol' same ol', without accepting blame and responsibility, isn't going to help Iraq or us. A CiC who isn't willing to take the blame isn't the one to trust with a continued occupation.

[KansDem]

104. Turn over Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest to the Iraqis,

It may not be the best solution, but it's a start...

[novalib]

105. IT WAS A MISTAKE!!!!!

Iraq was, at best, a MISTAKE!!!!!

It was (and is) IMMORAL, ILLEGAL, -- a WAR OF AGRESSION!!!

MISTAKES are rectified by STOPPING THEM!!

NO MORE LIVES SHOULD BE LOST IN PURSUIT OF THIS TERRIBLE MISTAKE!!!

Any soldier who DIES following the election last week will have DIED after the AMERICAN PEOPLE stated CLEARLY that WE WANT THIS MISTAKE ENDED!!!

END THE WAR NOW!!

NO MORE LIVES IN PURSUIT OF AN ILLEGAL WAR OF AGGRESSION!!!

[eridani]

106. What about money instead of military force?

I realize that people who advocate continued presence for some unknown amount of time mean well, but can any of you explain why you think it's possible to fabricate a new set of dishes using only a hammer as your tool, merely because you used that hammer to smash the dishes?

Another option is to turn over the American Embassy to Iraq, cancel all those Bremer orders stripping the country of its assets, and give Iraqis enough money to rebuild their own country. They did it in 1992, and they can do it again, better and cheaper than Halliburton.