Reply #14: I go back & forth on this.Yes it'd be chaos. But US troops impede stabilty [View All]

[Bucky]

On the one hand an immediate withdrawal, or even one carried out over the next 3-6 month period, will lead to bloodshed. The resulting chaos would mean more fighting among factions, like the violent Sadrists who murdered that conservative blogger last week, that right now are sort of waiting for the yankees to go home. Once US troops pull out, some real fighting will begin--and yes, it would be worse than what's going on there now, hard as that is to imagine.

Another think to consider is national honor. As Colin Powell said, "you break it, you own it." We broke it. If we just declared victory now and skeedaddled, the US would be disabled and discredited in all future international security dealings for decades to come. It would be worse than the Vietnam legacy. As much as I opposed us picking this optional fight, just up and leaving it is something that I can't condone. Flaking out now would hamper future presidents, even the sane ones.

On the other hand, the presense of US troops right now is the greatest irritant to the body politic in Iraq. Our troops being there is what is motivating the foreign nationals to come in and train themselves on how to kill troops that are better armed than themselves--a training I'd rather not see paid for with American tax dollars and American blood. The number of Iraqis fighting against Americans is, of course, far greater than the number of non-Iraqis, however. And there, too, it is fact of American occupation that moves them to kill. Still, if we left, I don't think the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq would cease. Most would simply go there for different reasons. And perhaps a few would start moving toward Lebanon or Israel to start some mischief. Among the Iraqis (mostly the Baathists, but others too) who now kill Americans and fellow Iraqis for cooperating with the US backed regime, the senseless violence would continue.

Of course I don't buy into the "flypaper theory" in any way. If you haven't heard, the flypaper theory is that as long we're fighting Islamic extremists over there, then they'll go to the closer theatre of Iraq to do their mischief rather than come over here. The problem is that most of the leaders and backers of those foreign fighters are sending them to Iraq so that they'll be better trained once they do come over here.

On the third hand, the last remaining justification for us being in Iraq is to stablize the country. All other rationales have fallen by the wayside. Unfortunately, as long as the US is in Iraq Iraq won't stablize. It's simply not going to happen. The senseless bloodshed makes too much sense in the brutal calculations of the Baathists, Wahhabists, and Sadrists doing the killing for them to stop. Once we leave, Iran will probably muscle in, pacify the place on their own terms, and become "big brother" to whoever it is we leave in charge when we leave (or whoever kills off and replaces whoever we leave in charge). In that case, it's really only a matter of asking how many American troops do we need to send to their deaths before we've had enough and concede the inevitable.

The biggest problem is that there's nothing you can do in Iraq that won't lead to further bloodshed. This is exactly why it was wrong to start this war in the first place. But that's spilt milk. Red milk. We're now, as a nation, mired in a crisis with no solutions. Each day I look at the death rates I renew my admiration for the geowisdom of President Bush (the elected one) for chosing not to go into Iraq despite the temptations to "take out Saddam."

Oh, George, why can't you be more like your father?