My Iraq Solution: Pull Out Our Troops Now But Keep Sending The $ ($2bn p/w)

[stopbush]

Our troops are targets. They are inciting violence. We're spending $2-billion a week in Iraq.

Pull the troops out, out of harms way. Continue to send the $2bn per week, but give it directly to the
Iraqi government. Tell them it's their $ to do what they want. They could buy a lot of peace with that $.

Tell them we'll send them the $ for one year and then re-evaluate.

At least our soldiers wouldn't be caught in a turkey shoot.

BTW - if ever the Powell Doctrine should apply, it is in Iraq ("you broke it, you bought it.") We have ruined their
country. We owe them greatly. We are obliged to put it back together for them. We should probably pay war
reparations to Iraq in the hundreds of billions of dollars once the war ends. It is cowardly and arrogant to
say that we "liberated" them, and that "it's their country and they need to step up and fix it." How would Americans
feel if we were illegally invaded, had our infrastructure destroyed, had our leaders killed and imprisoned,
were living with 60% unemployment and the invaders told us "it's now your problem"?

Our military can only exacerbate the problems in Iraq. Pull them out, but keep funding the reconstruction and their
fledgling democracy.

[chefgirl]

1. Yep

I've been saying that since "Mission Accomplished"

Seems the only fair thing left to do.

-chef-

[cmd]

3. I'm with you

We have to create some sort of secure retribution system that will insure money goes where it is needed, then get out. NOW.

[Erika]

2. Continue the rebuilding of their infrastructure when we destroyed it?

Let Haliburton pay for it. They got the profits.

We have our own infrastructure needs.

[PoiBoy]

4. Why send them money?

why not let them have access to and control of their oil revenues? .. why not employ Iraqis to rebuild their country? that's what I thought was going to happen from the outset, immediately after the overthrow of Saddam... but then all of a sudden U.S. troops are guarding the Oil Ministry and the pipeline, and Haliburton and friends move in and begin to "manage" the assets of that country... the classic "bait and switch" caught all of us off guard, and I believe that was when the Iraqi people began to realize that they were being "occupied" as opposed to "liberated"...

also I agree with your statement...

<snip>
BTW - if ever the Powell Doctrine should apply, it is in Iraq ("you broke it, you bought it.") We have ruined their country. We owe them greatly. We are obliged to put it back together for them. We should probably pay war reparations to Iraq in the hundreds of billions of dollars once the war ends. It is cowardly and arrogant to say that we "liberated" them, and that "it's their country and they need to step up and fix it." How would Americans feel if we were illegally invaded, had our infrastructure destroyed, had our leaders killed and imprisoned, were living with 60% unemployment and the invaders told us "it's now your problem"?
<end>

however, I saw a docu-film last night on local public access TV called "Beyond Treason"... check it out if you can please... what this administration has done to Iraq and our own troops is just incredible... war crime of a scale never before considered in modern history, IMO... it speaks to the irradiation of Iraq and our troops through the use of DU (Depleted Uranium) munitions, wholesale destruction of weapons storage sites in Gulf War 1, MOP suits for our
soldiers that didn't work AT ALL, and the use of experimental vaccinations on our troops...

I agree with your statement.. "We have ruined their country", but it is the understatement of the century IMO...

we should give the Iraqis control over their own sovereign assets and send them the heads of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al...

[Erika]

5. I couldn't agree more

Thanks for the post.

[stopbush]

6. We need to send them $ now. Even if we turned all of the oil resources

and revenues over to them and kicked out Halliburton, the Iraqis would have an impossible task before them. The broken infrastructure
and the raging civil war make the situation untenable. Their civilization has collapsed. Maybe the government would need to hire
mercenaries to keep some semblance of peace. All I know is that anything the USA proposes now will be distrusted by Iraq and, therefore,
nonrealistic (that is to say, anything proposed that puts the USA in the positon of calling the shots/reaping the profits).

[cali]

7. That sounds good, but

there are a couple of things I'd like to point out: 1) Why 2 billion a week? That seems like way too much. 2) Who do we send that money to? Corruption is a real problem. How do we ensure that the money we provide isn't being misappropriated?

[rude boy]

8. I agree, so far the money allocated to the Iraqi government has been grossly squandered.

Throwing more money at the problem willy nilly will likely net the same results. Corruption is on a scale of a magnitude that is mind blowing. They have serious problems with a decaying infrastructure, which collapsed as a result of a decade or so of sanctions further exacerbated by whole scale looting and sabotage. The oil industry, as well as the electric grid and sewage treatment facilities are in a shambles. The electric grid is held together with chewing gum and rubber bands and technicians don't possess the technical skill to run the state of the art generator equipment installed by US contractors. The new generators are virtually useless to them and none of the plants are being maintained properly. The US needs to get out of Dodge and let UN peace keepers take over security along side and in cooperation with the Iraqi government.

[jarab]

12. I agree with you ...

Any "leader" of that "country" - in our absence - would need quite a loot just to assure his normal life expectancy.
...O...

[GOPBasher]

9. That seems like a good idea to me. Good thinking! n/t

[shaniqua6392]

10. We are spending a lot more than $2 billion a month in Iraq.

I am not sure how we will ever get out of there. It seems impossible now. Thanks a lot George. You have spilled our blood and wasted our treasure for nothing.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of prosecuting a war against Iraq at up to $9 billion per month.

[cali]

11. I think you misread the OP

which says 2 billion per week.

[patricia92243]

13. Believe it or not, this is the first time that I have ever heard this suggested - here at DU or anyw

anywhere else. It is an EXCELLENT idea. Like most ideas, it would be have to be tweaked a little bit to get everything like we want it - but the original premise is the only sensible one I have heard in over three years.

I'm curious. Did you think of this yourself, or did you hear about it somewhere. It is such a brilliant idea that I am astounded that a regular citizen could think of it and our fearless leader and his advisers have never considered it.

Bravo to you!!!

[stopbush]

14. Thanks for the kudo.

AFAIK, I thought of this myself. The idea occurred to me when listening to the typical talking heads on TV. They all talk of
an all-or-nothing scenario where we pull the troops out and immediately abandon Iraq to a civil war. I figure that there has to
be a middle ground.

To address a few other posts: we know that much of the corruption in Iraq - including stolen billions - has been done by Americans.
Not the troops, but the contractors who are cozy with Cheney et al. How much worse could it be for Iraq to do it on their own? Sure,
there will be corruption and money stolen, there always is. But at some point, the Iraqis would need to find solutions - THEIR solutions -
to fix their country. Unlike politicians in the USA, politicians in Iraq are not necessarily safe from the angry mob. I am certain that
the fear of Saddam would be replaced by the fear of the mob (or, the electorate, if you want to look at it that way). The Iraqi people would keep their
leaders on the up-and-up. I bet that many of them would act differently if they knew the US Army wasn't there to protect them. Who knows? Many of the
current members of the Iraqi government might resign out of fear for their lives. Into that void will step real leaders. They may not be leaders that
the USA approves of, but they will be Iraqi leaders, not our stooges. We have lost the power and the right to have a say in who is running Iraq, now
or in the future. In fact, we never had the right to dictate the make up of their government as we missed just about every benchmark that
an occupying force must meet (under the Geneva Conventions) to be considered a legitimate force for good.

One thing I would imagine the Iraq government could do immediately would be to cancel all of the sweetheart contracts bushco gave
to their friends. They would then invite outside countries - Europeans, Russia, China - to step in to help. There could be a REAL international
effort to rebuild Iraq, not the charade bushco put together and paraded before the world.

The basis of my plan is simple and two-pronged. Get the USA out of directing any political/military solution BUT insist that the USA fund the
reconstruction effort. Hell, we're going to be paying for it anyway. And, we set a timetable of one year. If the program is rife with corruption, we appeal to the Iraqis
to replace their shitty leaders while asking Iraqi's new-found allies to help as well, politically and economically. Maybe the UN acts as the conduit through which the money
passes. Maybe Jimmy Carter or a non-American of his stature is sent over to monitor and report on the progress or lack thereof during the first year.

How much worse could it be? I leave it to Russ Feingold and a few other intelligent and honest members of Congress to work out the details and the process.