We can't pull out of Iraq now.

[rpannier]

Like it or not, we cannot just unilaterally pull out of Iraq, to do so would cause greater harm, than we've already seen. From the moment that we moved into Baghdad and Sadaam fled we had "crossed the Rubicon." We had to stay and make the situation workable. To pull out at this stage would be 100x worse for the region than it is now. You have too high a risk that a civil war would pull the Turks in to squash the Kurds. You run the risk that the Shia majority would turn to Iran for aid. The possibilty of another Iran-like state would become very real. There is even the possibility (albiet remote) that Iran would take as much of souther Iraq as possible and make it part of Iran. You also run the risk, that the Syrians could get militarily involved. And God forbid, the Israeli's.
There's too much at stake to pull out now. The problem now rests in our mishandling of the whole Iraq situation. The Bush-blair (yes small b for blair, he's been the lapdog partner) tactic of ignoring the rest of the world is part of the problem. The Bush-blair decision to prevent Iraqi's from bidding on their own companies is the problem. The Bush-blair refusal to admit they are FAILING is the problem. They need to admit they screwed this up and ask for help.

[thebigidea]

1. We must destroy Iraq in order to save it!

[eridani]

2. We can't stop spraying water on electrical fires either

If we did, how would we ever put them out?

[IndianaGreen]

3. Get out now, or stay in Iraq for a decade with no end to the war

The choice is yours, and the blood that will be spilled will be someone else's.

[rpannier]

7. Possibly

It is possible. But, the situation needs to be stabalized. A protracted conflict in the middle east that draws not only minor countries, but could spill into involving regional nuclear powers Pakistan, India and Israel could have devastating effects. Effects that could pull us back into the Middle East and cause more deaths. We caused most of this mess, it is our responsibility to help clean it up.

[IndianaGreen]

11. We are the reason the situation is unstable

as to Pakistan, India and Israel, they are on their own. It is not for us to wage war to further their interests.

Stop the war on the Iraqi people
By the Editorial Board
7 April 2004

The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, giving full-throated support to the US colonial enterprise in Iraq, has criticized the Bush administration for seeking to cede authority to the Iraqis too soon. “I think they wanted to get the troops out and get the transfer out of the way as fast as possible without regard to the stability of Iraq,” Kerry declared.

How is that “stability” to be achieved? It requires the ruthless repression of all those who oppose the US domination of Iraq and believe that the country should be run by the Iraqi people themselves, rather than US proconsuls, generals and corporate profiteers.

The Democratic program amounts to a protracted bloodbath to secure the control of US corporations and banks over the oil wealth of Iraq and the entire region. To prosecute this policy, Kerry and others in the Democratic leadership have repeatedly demanded that the number of US occupation troops be increased, ensuring that US casualties—already reaching nearly 625 dead and many thousands wounded—likewise mount.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/iraq-a07.shtml

[FARAFIELD]

4. I have conflicting views myself

On the one hand i would like to see terrorist of global reach obliterated. On the other hand i think we play into their hand when we attck Iraq. I cant stand to see pictures of dead kids, on the other hand terrorist kill our kids. I hate to think of us beseiging a mosque, on the other hand I think (blow it to smithereens) simply because fighting for it isnt worth one of our guys. Im fairly progressive and liberal, but ive also spent eight years in the military and the rest of my adult life working for the government, so I support my country. I think Bush took advantage of these conflicting views, helped along by the "UNPATRIOTIC" cry of anyone who was opposed and now that split has opened up the country. Sorry if this doesnt make any sense. BUt war doesnt.

[rpannier]

5. Makes Sense

Let's be fair. Hard decisions are never easy to answer. The long term ramifications have to be assessed. I also served in the military and everyone who pays attention knows that terrorists can never be appeased. My feeling is we're in Iraq, we have to make it work and I think we need the United Nations to do it. Countries like Pakistan, Jordan and others have said they would provide military aid, soldiers and Arabic language experts (God, knows we are disgustingly short of those)if there was a UN mandate. But, the shrubber won't do it.

[dpibel]

14. Just out of curiosity

What in the world do you think the invasion of Iraq had/has to do with appeasing or not appeasing terrorists?

[rpannier]

17. Absolutely Nothing

See above

[dpibel]

20. Which above?

In your post #5 you said:

"I also served in the military and everyone who pays attention knows that terrorists can never be appeased."

This being a thread about Iraq and all, I guess I just mistakenly thought that sentence had something to do with Iraq. May bad.

What does that sentence mean?

[yorgatron]

6. if we took HALF the halliburton $ and

gave it to some halfway HONEST contracters and brought in some U.N. support we could get the bulk of our guys out of there in 2 months tops IMHO.

[Quetzal]

8. some things to consider

From the moment that we moved into Baghdad and Sadaam fled we had "crossed the Rubicon." We had to stay and make the situation workable.

Do you have a workable plan? Are there any more options? Because I don't want to have 120,000 American troops come home in body bags. Bringing the UN in won't be the magical key either.

You cite reasons to stay in, but there little options that the US has left.

To pull out at this stage would be 100x worse for the region than it is now. You have too high a risk that a civil war would pull the Turks in to squash the Kurds.

Yes. They are already doing that with the Blackhawks we sold them. Syria is also oppressing the Kurds.

You run the risk that the Shia majority would turn to Iran for aid. The possibilty of another Iran-like state would become very real.

Ayatollah Sitani and Ayatollah Khomeni have totally different perspectives regarding the role of Islam in Government. Khomeni believes that his decrees should be followed by all Shiites and that the Clerics should have considerable influence over the political life in the country (like Iran). Sistani does not adhere to this school of thought.

On top of that, Iranian reformers have been sending Sistani monies because they feel he is a much more positive leader then Khomeni.

Would the Iranian population, who is already disenchanted with the Khomeni government, join in the fight against the Shiites in the South of Iraq?

(Source: Juan Cole

Now if Muqtada Al-Sadr came to power in the Shiite south, that would be a different story.

On Edit: There is no doubt in my mind that bad things will happen if the US pulls out of Iraq. However, there is little the US can do now to salvage the mission.

There are two things the US can do.

1) Pull out of Iraq
2) Ask Sistani to be more vehement in his calls for Peace. Peace must come from both the Al-Sadr army and the US military.

[rpannier]

13. You make a strong case

You make a strong case. It is well thought out and very articulate. My major point on this is that we need to bring in the United Nations, countries like Pakistan, Jordan and others have expressed a willingness to take on more of the burden, as has France and Russia, if there is a UN mandate. A conflict in that region would have devastating effects on the rest of the world. Even you admit that Al-Sadr is a potential for problems.
I just think, we started this fiasco and if we would use the UN, we have a better chance of containing it with less loss of American lives.

[Quetzal]

15. I understand where you are coming from

You probably don't want to leave the place in rubble, death, and destruction. That is the nightmare scenario.

If the Bush administration really wanted to bring France, Russia, and other countries that opposed the war in, they would have to make one of the biggest apoligies ever. They received undeserved abuse by primarily the US Government.

How shameful it is for the Bush administration to beg on their knees to countries such France, Germany, and other NATO allies.

From the article:

Washington has approached France, which led opposition to the war in Iraq, as well as India, Pakistan and other nations that were reluctant to join the U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq, U.S. and European officials said. The list includes "a good global mix," said a State Department official familiar with the proposed force. But no Arab countries or neighbors of Iraq are on the list, with Turkey notably absent.

Indian and Pakistani troops serving side by side? Yeah right. They are fighting right now in Kashmir. Musharaff has already said that the War in Iraq has undermined the 'War on Terra', and he is already under enough pressure already. He has to deal with people who are trying to assasinate him and the IAEA. His forces are also on the Pakistani-Afghan border.

France is overextended by the way.

[FlemingsGhost]

9. Civil war in Iraq, or civil war in the U.S.

Your choice.

[The Traveler]

10. Nonsense

We must admit we made a bad situation (the rule of Sadaam Hussein) worse. We must throw Iraq at the mercy of the UN and the international community and place ourselves at their service. We must reduce troop levels while international forces come in.

Bush will never be able to negotiate this. That is only one of the many reasons we must replace him.

[necso]

12. Until recently,

I would have agreed.

The results of pulling out without achieving a stable state there will be very, very grim. But I see no winning solution, it is just too damn late. We have had a year to vest the Iraqis in some jointly derived future but we have failed and failed miserably.

There may be a large part of the population in Iraq that wishes for the sort of future that we have promised and would be willing to fight for it, but we have failed to mobilize them. I see no way to do so now. You just can't turn back the clock.

The bushiviks will never pull out, but Kerry if elected must do so promptly. We won the "war" but have lost the "peace". The aftermath will be a mess no matter when we leave, time to minimize our losses and get the hell out. Perhaps the UN, with our help, can then provide enough humanitarian aid to undo some of the damage... but I am not hopeful.

Mind you it is not the recent "uptick" that drives me to this conclusion, but the grim reality that we have found no real partners there.

It's over. Pull the troops out and return our focus to the terrorists who threaten us directly.

[rpannier]

16. At this point...

At this point I have to go. I wish to thank everyone who responded. Many of you had very intelligent, insightful, thought-provoking ideas. I want to thank you all for your responses. You showed why DUers are the best people. Thank you.

[FlemingsGhost]

18. You can't pull out of DU now.

Like it or not, you must see the thread through to completion.

There's too much at stake to pull out now...

;-)

[Lexingtonian]

19. You make all that sound like it's bad

But, really, all we have is scenarios we don't like.

The Bushies have already talked about June 30 meaning 'wheels up', iow getting out to a large extent and offloading all the problems onto the bunch of green UN troops that will evidently get called/let in.

There is no acceptable leadership for Iraq as a whole. That was the paramount fact in discussions about knocking off Hussein in the Nineties, and after all is said and done with this war and Occupation it will still be the paramount fact.

Iraq is, therefore, now going to get partitioned de facto, whether Iraqis do it themselves via civil war or occupiers set some arrangement of mutually autonomous mini-states up to preempt full scale warfare and minimize bloodshed. The Iranians will be the indirect rulers of the southern Shia region, it seems pretty inevitable. Americans are going to get stuck with the Kurdish region- not that they mind the oil fields there, mind you- because no one else in the regions is sufficiently trustworthy in Kurdish eyes (even if Americans aren't highly rated by Kurds, either). The Sunni region is necessarily going be controlled by some kind of Saudi and American and pan-Arabic forces.

And that, boys and girls, is the realistic outcome of Bush's War- the political partition and economic dismemberment of Iraq. Iraqis throwing flowers at Americans in gratitude for this new Freedom To Be Hegemonized And Exploited will be lining streets near yours shortly.

[Old and In the Way]

22. I pretty much agree.

Ironically, we have removed the glue the kept Iraq together. The Bush family, in their defense of the Saudi/Kuwaiti Royal families, have done a marvelous job painting SH as the devil incarnate. But they really don't want you to see the Iraq of the 80's when they had the most progressive society in the ME. Was Hussein a ruthless thug? Yes. Are the Iraqi's better off without him? Only time will tell, but if the state survives, I think it's going to be a lot more regressive than it was under Hussein.

[democracyindanger]

21. Simple historical analogy

Afghanistan's power vacuum after the Soviets pulled out and the US dropped its proxies.