Pulling Out Of Iraq

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is an example of how opinions should evolve.

i had been uncertain as to whether we should pull out of iraq. there's uncertainty as to whether iraq would crumble if we did and whether us staying would do anything. naturally to me, i wanted to rest on what the authorities there said and thought, if substantial consensus. i considered myself as not knowing the facts, and so did not make a concrete opinion. i had feared that the officials didn't really know either and my opinion was just as informed and as good as theirs. so, i thought if i had to choose side... i thought it was a quaqmire that would not be helped by us being there.

then i realized something with the new report out. tey said if anyting good can happen, it'd be within a year. how oculd it? i don'tk now what they meant examctly but it could be something i realized.
while stability might not be atainable, training iraqis to do what americans are doing, including training others, is or should be possible.

i was going to say i am for staying until that's done, but while typing this, i realized that it might not be possible that they would be tainable, or they simply lack the fortitude. the question here might even be obscure as to an answer. but, i'd think it'd be possible as a matter of common sense, so i now err on the side of staying.

[knightec]

Unfortunately, we will never be out of Iraq. Our forces will always be needed to maintain what symblance of peace that there is. Also, there is too much oil there for us to just pack up and walk away.

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='knightec' post='1379694' date='Sep 6 2007, 12:53 PM']Unfortunately, we will never be out of Iraq. Our forces will always be needed to maintain what symblance of peace that there is. Also, there is too much oil there for us to just pack up and walk away.[/quote]

Well, if WWII is any indication of how long we'll have troops stationed, it's going to be at least 50 years...

[dairygirl4u2c]

and the problem is people's views.
one takes dupe A position, and the other takes dupe B. stay v go. when it's not that simple at all. they tell themselves things like "if we're to have success, we stay" "things haven't change yet, and vietnam's a good example to leave". each being true on abstract levels. the best response is.... it depends on things we don't know, things they talk about in the report and in congress. just taht it looks bad in generalities that the media tells us isn't specific. what factors exactly will the troops accomplish, at least what are some examples? it seems like common sense that we should be able to teach them to fight their own war, but also that it takes time given the langauge and culture barrier. is this an issue.

the real positions are reserved and sophisticated. anything other positions are jokes. that's my position

Edited September 13, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[journeyman]

Dairygirl - keep ruminating on the topic. Your dialog is more honest than what I hear in the public (mainstream) venues. This is an "onion" topic, layers upon layers. Historically Americans are non-intervenors (there is still a little of the "we didn't like when the Europeans treated us like 2nd class citizens, so why would anyone else like it if we do that?") . . . but are also . . . for lack of a better word . . . charitable. We'll go out of our way to help someone when we think they need it . . .

Were we entirely honest with ourselves when this started? I have my doubts, but I don't know the facts . . . and I don't know who does. Is there any other country in the world that could be trusted to go into another country, serve as a buffer while it regains its equilibrium, help it rebuild its infrastructure, and be expected to leave again . . . historically, I can't think of many. Maybe the word I was groping for above was altruistic.

Has our conduct been above reproach? Not always, but we're embarrassed (ashamed) by that. Our response is to do better, not to shut down those who exposed our human condition. Again, I think that is a character trait unique to our country.

I think we can walk away from the oil (sooner or later someone will invent a replacement for the internal combustion engine) although the temptation is powerful. I don't think we can walk away from a society with a chance to develop self sufficient stability if only the "bullies" in the neighborhood would leave it alone.

There is an old saying . . . something along the lines of "I only trust two people in the world, you and me, and lately I've been wondering about you." I have a hard time imagining any country other than ours serving as it does, year in and year out, without establishing an (actual or de facto) empire. There may be some out there who want us to do that . . . I'd like to think there are enough others that it won't happen.

If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

[XIX]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1384656' date='Sep 13 2007, 12:14 AM']and the problem is people's views.
one takes dupe A position, and the other takes dupe B. stay v go.[/quote]
That is probably the smartest opinion I have heard regarding the war in a long time. Punctuation aside, you hit the nail on the head, bigtime.

Edited September 13, 2007 by XIX

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah at a certain point you have to say "given that we can't know it all, and that we're only human, what should we do given the situation".

the limits and frailty of human understanding will cause mistakes. but, the process of digesting and deciding shouldn't be flawed to begin with. we have to optimize our decision making. there's always another questions to be asked.

[CatherineM]

I truthfully believe that whether we stay 10 more months, or 10 more years, that the second we leave, there will be all out civil war. Oil at this point shouldn't be a determining factor because Iraq is actually having to import oil. When it dissolves into chaos, the UN will have to go in like they did in Bosnia. The UN won't be happy about it, but the problems of Iraq need to be handled by the world at this point, not one country unilaterally. We robbed them of their George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's. We "saved" them from their tyrant, instead of allowing them to come to the point where they decided to risk everything to overthrow him. That coming together might have allowed them to unite for something bigger than old tribal disputes that go back to before the Ottoman Empire.

[Winchester]

It was never about oil. It is still not about oil. There are certainly several reasons why we are in Iraq, but the most obvious is Iraq's location. It is a strategically desirable location to deal with a searious and credible threat, namely islamofascists like Laden and AlQaeda. Our country cannot state this as a reason for the same reason we could not publicly support the Mujahideen during their war with Russia in Afghanistan: Plausible Deniability.

Those who believe Iraq didn't have WMDs (an empty media buzzword unfortunately gaining popularity and wildly misused) are foolish.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1384700' date='Sep 12 2007, 11:40 PM']I truthfully believe that whether we stay 10 more months, or 10 more years, that the second we leave, there will be all out civil war. Oil at this point shouldn't be a determining factor because Iraq is actually having to import oil. When it dissolves into chaos, the UN will have to go in like they did in Bosnia. The UN won't be happy about it, but the problems of Iraq need to be handled by the world at this point, not one country unilaterally. We robbed them of their George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's. We "saved" them from their tyrant, instead of allowing them to come to the point where they decided to risk everything to overthrow him. That coming together might have allowed them to unite for something bigger than old tribal disputes that go back to before the Ottoman Empire.[/quote]
There's already a civil war. Should we be in the middle of it?

[quote name='Winchester' post='1384777' date='Sep 13 2007, 07:54 AM']It was never about oil. It is still not about oil. There are certainly several reasons why we are in Iraq, but the most obvious is Iraq's location. It is a strategically desirable location to deal with a searious and credible threat, namely islamofascists like Laden and AlQaeda. Our country cannot state this as a reason for the same reason we could not publicly support the Mujahideen during their war with Russia in Afghanistan: Plausible Deniability.

Those who believe Iraq didn't have WMDs (an empty media buzzword unfortunately gaining popularity and wildly misused) are foolish.[/quote]
With respect, Winchester, I disagree both with your assertion that it was never about oil, and that there were WMD. Indeed, I believe that the latter was used as an excuse to get at the former. Given the dearth of evidence for WMD both [i]before[/i] and of course after the invasion, it's foolish to believe that there ever were WMD. At this point, however, that's neither here nor there. As for having a base to strike at "islamofascists," I might point out that a) Afghanistan is a very convenient location given the presence of the Taliban and that country's proximity to Pakistan, and b) there were no terrorists in those areas of Iraq [i]under Saddam Hussein's control[/i] before we got there.

To paraphrase The Clash, should we stay or should we go? The president's latest strategy, the "Surge," was designed to provide an environment from a security perspective that would create "breathing space" to enable the political process. That process has gone nowhere.

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin"]
Compromise on Oil Law in Iraq Seems to Be Collapsing
[/url]

The question therefore is to what end are we staying?

[Sojourner]

A friend of mine wrote a spoof piece on pulling out of Iraq back in May ... I think of it every time I see the title of this thread:

[quote]With his veto, President Bush intended to send a message to Congress: pulling out doesn't work.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow summed up the President's view in a press conference early this afternoon. "If there's one thing years of study has taught us, it's that you can't be safe just pulling out. If you want to be really safe, you need a layer of protection around you. That, or just abstain altogether."

Six years into the Bush administration, however, abstinence seems unlikely. President Bush has penetrated at least two countries, with more on the horizon. While the administration has repeatedly stated that it wants to be friends with Syria and Iran, some people aren't buying.

"Bush has said his intentions for us are friendly," Iranian President Machmoud Amidenajad was quoted as saying earlier this week. "But we know he just wants to get into our plans."

While Iran's plan to develop nuclear weapons has led to tensions with many world leaders, many Arab states have speculated that America is trying to take on both Iraq and Iran at once. This unlikely threesome, however, might require more resources than America's military can handle.

"We are worried about the dangers of premature evacuation," admitted Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "But we're also worried about the dangers involved with staying in. Two at once might be more than we can handle, until we know what kind of protection our forces will have. We don't want to end up giving birth to something we'll have to support later."

While the dangers of creating a Middle East-spanning terrorist organization are real, the White House downplays the suggestion. "We may end up married to a Middle East we didn't -- we don't entirely want," President Bush told reporters at a press conference. "But we hope that's not what will happen. There's always Plan B."

Congress, however, seems unwilling to proscribe Plan B, seemingly willing to just see where things go, without wanting any long-term commitments. "If something goes wrong, we can always abort it later," said presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. "Let's not try to make this something it's not."[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

good rebut ken.
you haven't made the claim well enough that it was about oil, but it definitely makes sense for the reasons we went to war in the first place. see, it made little sense that we went, arguably, so it's natural for some to find that as the reason, even if it's not.
i could see us going in because of the scanty evidence that did exist, with good intentinos. didn't like the strained tie that was made between iraq and al quida, but there may have been reasons and not oil.

[Winchester]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1384796' date='Sep 13 2007, 09:32 AM']There's already a civil war. Should we be in the middle of it?
With respect, Winchester, I disagree both with your assertion that it was never about oil, and that there were WMD. Indeed, I believe that the latter was used as an excuse to get at the former. Given the dearth of evidence for WMD both [i]before[/i] and of course after the invasion, it's foolish to believe that there ever were WMD. At this point, however, that's neither here nor there. As for having a base to strike at "islamofascists," I might point out that a) Afghanistan is a very convenient location given the presence of the Taliban and that country's proximity to Pakistan, and b) there were no terrorists in those areas of Iraq [i]under Saddam Hussein's control[/i] before we got there.

To paraphrase The Clash, should we stay or should we go? The president's latest strategy, the "Surge," was designed to provide an environment from a security perspective that would create "breathing space" to enable the political process. That process has gone nowhere.

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin"]
Compromise on Oil Law in Iraq Seems to Be Collapsing
[/url]

The question therefore is to what end are we staying?[/quote]
We have our oil sources and had them prior to the war. People cite oil as the reason for the war and I reply war is too costly for us to attack for a single reason. This is true, save in very small scale attacks.

Dearth of evidence as presented by the media. A grenade is a "WMD." To say that in all of Iraq there were no chemical weapons and that Saddam was not attempting to develop nuclear weapons is a huge stretch of credibility. UN weapons inspectors were repeatedly turned away, and the time elapsed between knowing what was coming and our invasion was sufficient to move weapons. And if weapons were discovered, it's not neccesarily going to be released. Were WMDs the reason for the invasion? Not really.

Iraq is a key country to the Middle East. Afghanistan doesn't have the same strategic advantage.

If there were no terrorists in Iraq, that would be the only country without terrorists on the entire globe. I think you have confused the semi-credible assertion that there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. I'm sorry to say that even if Saddam had been opposed to Western World hating terrorists, he probably did not have the capability to eliminate terrorists from his lands. No one else can do it, including Israel, so a psychotic autocrat more interested in putting his picture in every home than in keeping his country functioning probably didn't have the capability, either.

[RandomProddy]

Britain's pulling out, though that's probably to release pressure on the army and to plug holes in Afghanistan. Could always follow our lead eventually....

[Anomaly]

[quote name='RandomProddy' post='1385809' date='Sep 15 2007, 07:27 AM']Britain's pulling out, though that's probably to release pressure on the army and to plug holes in Afghanistan. Could always follow our lead eventually....[/quote]Britan's pulling out purely for UK political reasons. It's not about military capacity or ability.

Why is it such an argument about WHY the US entered Iraq. That's over and done and irrelevant at this point.
The question is, what are the likely results of US withdrawl? Dairy pointed out that we don't/can't know for sure, so that needs to be discussed and the best we can do is come up with the most reasonable and likely understanding.

Will Iraq really dissolve into civil war if the US pulls out in 10 days or 10 years?
Is it really a civil war, or is it a proxy-war, waged by other nations and political groups such as Syria, Iran, Al-Quida, Taliban, and Islamic fundamentalists?