What should the U.S. gov't do about Iraq?

[worldgonekrazy]

It seems pretty clear that the situation is escalating quickly. We aren't talking one isolated incident here either. Fallujah is probably the worst situation (at the moment), but it seems as though much of Central Iraq is falling into chaos as we speak. Anti-American sentiment has been inflamed, and I just don't see how military action by the U.S. is going to quell it.

Furthermore, we have outright acknowledgement from the military that the situation is escalating. How? According to press reports, they are now holding back some troops who were scheduled to leave soon (after more than a year in Iraq). Why? Because they need more troops to counter the growing insurgency.

So what should the United States do at this point? I have tried to include all the options I can think of, but please feel free to post a response with an unlisted option you think is viable. Also, keep in mind that these options are necessarily simplistic, but the situation itself is extremely complex. So if you want to expand on anything, please post a reply.

Also, please note I have included the option of trying to hand the bag to the U.N., but I for one think that this is much easier said than done. Personally, I don't even consider it a viable option because:

a) the U.N. may not want to clean up our mess. Remember, the Bush Administration made it clear they didn't give a damn whether they got U.N. approval or not. In fact, it might have been part of their plan to undermine the U.N. entirely.

b) even if they U.N. were willing to take control, they might not have any better chances of success than the U.S. In the Middle East, the U.N. is widely seen as a figurehead for Western supremacy. That is to say that U.N. control would not bring instant legitimacy to the occupation in the mind of the Iraqi people.

c) the U.N. has never attempted anything near the scale of occupying an entire nation. Yes, there are examples of limited success in another MUCH smaller, MUCH more stable nations. But something of this magnitude has never been attempted by the U.N., much less actually pulled off.


Okay, enough caveats. Here are the choices:


edited for spelling and grammatical errors

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. We should've never gone into Iraq

but now that we have, it's our shithole to clean. We have a responsibility to stay there, or get the UN to stay there, until they are fully stable.

[worldgonekrazy]

5. I concur, but then it becomes a quagmire

Because I for one believe the U.N. answer is a total cop out. I just don't think they can or would take responsibility for Iraq. I almost didn't even include it because I knew everyone would choose it.

So the only REAL option to me, if you accept that the United States has a RESPONSIBILITY to stay in Iraq until the country is secure, is a mass escalation of the conflict by doubling the troops. The ironic thing is that I am fully aware this hasn't worked in the past (Vietnam) and almost certainly would not work in this case. Yet, I see it as the only option.

[Aidoneus]

21. Coupled with your Palestine avatar..

that's ironic. :eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. I fail to see your irony.

Perhaps you can elaborate instead of making witless quips?

[Aidoneus]

28. some occupations are better than others?

personally I draw little, if any, distinction between them.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. I seem to indicate I was against the war to begin with

And I also advocate giving total control to the UN to avoid any "occupation" misunderstandings. I understand where you can't see the distinction, and I fought ardently against us going to war to begin with, but now that we have, I feel like it's our responsibility to clean up our mess. You can't just walk into someone's country, destroy everything, and then tell them "have fun fixing everything! Oh, and sorry about killing all your husbands/wives/sisters/brothers and destroying your homes! Our bad!"

[Toronto Ron]

2. I voted "crawl to the U.N.", but

the current misadminitration won't do it, and even if they did, they lack any credibility with the rest of the world. The Kerry administration (which will have the international credibility-oozing Wes Clark as either VP or Sec'y of State) WILL be able to do this, and will send Halliburton et al home if that's what's required.

[worldgonekrazy]

4. What could the U.N. really do though?

They aren't a military operation. To any extent that they pull off military operations, they are for "peacekeeping" purposes. I know that definition has been spread pretty thin in the past (particularly by NATO), but what we have going on in Iraq is unmistakably an attempt by the U.S. to quell a mass uprising. Thats not "peacekeeping." That is all out war.

[leftofthedial]

3. civil war is almost certainly inevitable

but we should at least try to get the UN to take over.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Vietnam is still a vivid memory, so I voted for immediate withdrawal

Anything else will merely prolong the suffering and increase the death toll.

[worldgonekrazy]

10. In the end, I am sure you will be proven correct

Unfortunately, I think the U.S. is still going to go through all the familiar motions before acknowledging the writing on the wall.

[Walt Starr]

7. Immediate and complete unilateral withdrawal

Let the chips fall where they may.

[Mari333]

8. agree and bring the troops home now

http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[meow mix]

14. out please..

just walk away.. give the iraqis a chance.

[BiggJawn]

9. Put Saddam back and get the hell out.

speed up the inevitable.Iraq's gonna explode into civil war anyway, let's get our kids out before it does.

I used to think that we would have to SLOWLY disengage from that tar baby, but it just keeps getting bigger and stickier.

Boy, did those Brainiacs Perle, Wolfie and Rumsferatu really totally fuck this one up! They ought to be shipped in IRONS to The Hague!

[BradCKY]

13. What?

Put Saddam back? I disagreed with the war, but Saddam is obviously a dictator as well as a threat to the Iraqi people. Then we REALLY we have lost all those soldiers for NOTHING. I say get NATO to help us out in there.

[BiggJawn]

26. NATO and the UN both. But WILL they?

I couldn't blame them if they told bush "you broke it, you fix it."

NATO could say "Uh, George, it says 'NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organization' on the building, not 'Persian Gulf'...".

Saddam's a 24-karat asshole, but what else you gonna do? The situation pretty much NEEDS an asshole to straighten it out. Chalabi's a real good choice to head things up (he'll agree, just ask him) I think NOT.

Iraq is Lost. does anyone really think that all we have to do is load up the planes and leave, then Democracy will spring up all over the place like dandelions?

I don't think so. Kurds in the North, Sharia Law being ennacted elsewhere, Iraqi Christians being burnt at the stake, or forced to ride "The Mare of Steel" or whatever, and a bunch of dusty guys who look vaguely familiar coming in saying (in Pashtun) "This place needs a little shaping up..."

PNAC sure made a mess out of it, didn't they?

[Mattforclark]

11. I voted UN, but

It probably wouldn't work & we also need basic elections/whatever ASAP, to get a basically, generally legitimate government in place, (of course there will be irregularities, but such a government with general, basic legitimacy is a vast improvement over Generallisimo Bremer & the governing council) to be replaced later by a more fully legitimate government when things calm down. We then need to take orders from such an Iraqi government. Drop all the self-aggrandizement and become humble as we do as we are told.

[tom_paine]

12. Voted for "crawl to the UN", but ugh! unpalatble choice!

Particularly since unAmerican Imperial Tyrants have done all of this AGAINST the will of the American People.

Of course, I suppose if Gorbachev can apologize for the crimes of Stalin, then Free Americans can apologize for the crimes of the Busheviks.

[terisel]

15. 4 Part Emergency Plan

Aim: Defuse the Bush/US vs Iraq situation and set up a platform for rebuilding Iraq and dealing with terrorism threats in the US and world:

1. Bush and Cheney must step down well before next January-they must acknowledge that their administration is standing in the way of rebuilding a secure Iraq and willingly give up power for the general good. Use Nixon/Agnew/Ford leadership change as a model).

2. Senate and House will have to be prepared to pre-select the replacements and give unanimous agreement to the new leadership:New president to finish the Bush term must be someone who will be able to take charge immediately, project an immediate true image of strength/justice to world and especially to Iraq and the Middle East, must have had no part in covering for Bush and no close relationship to the Bush family, must not be closely related to energy interests, and must be prepared to work with a new cabinet and new top administrative people.

If this person is a Republican he or she must agree to not run for office in November or retain office after January in any other way.
Almost all of the Bush cabinet and appointees will have to leave. Neocons out. Replacements will have to draw heavily from the Clinton administration for the sake of recent experience and familiarity with issues and actors.

3.Corporations caught trying to subvert emergency plans will be subject to nationalization.

4. New American leadership brokers agreement with Security Council of UN to intervene in a massive way in Iraq.

[worldgonekrazy]

19. Great plan, but neocons will NEVER give up power willingly

And I just don't see a way for the Democrats to force them to. You can forget about the Republicans helping at all, because even those that don't like the neocons will still march lock-step right over the cliff with them. As for the Dems, we all know they are simply much too timid to do something radical like this.

[terisel]

22. Sure some of them will be clutching their desks in the Pentagon

as the armed guards drag them out....Wolfowitz for sure.

Have you noticed how quiet so many of the Republicans in the Senate and House are right now. They know they are perched on the edge of a cliff. Lugar has just about said Bush is clueless about the Iraq situation and distanced himself from Bush.

They have known for awhile that the situation in Iraq was worse than we were being told but they went along with the administration instead of standing up for our soldiers because they believed they could con us through to November and their re-election. Now they are scared.

When they looked at those the bodies of the contractors being brutalized by the mob and the smiling faces of the youths in the mob, they were thinking about themselves...

Suddenly April-to November seems like a lot longer than 7 months to them.

[jobycom]

20. Well, as long as we're fantasizing

We make Cheney resign first, and Bush is forced to appoint Gore as VP (in exchange for escaping capital treason and war crimes charges, maybe). Then, Bush resigns, leaving Gore as president. Gore appoints Kerry VP, thus assuring a smooth transition in January.

Sigh.

You know we'll just have to defeat them in November, right?

[terisel]

25. Sounds like a plan.

I don't think we should underestimate the fear of Republicans--remember how many of them ducked Vietnam?

The war is blowing up in their faces; they know the deficit is ticking...they know Bush can't fix the war and can't fix the economy.

They were planning to be safely re-elected in November and then tell us the bad news about the draft and about how we all have to settle for low wages. But the bad news is running ahead of them.

If they think Bush's leaving gives them a better chance to stay in office and pretend to be Mr. Fix-it Patriots rallying behind a strong leader for the good of the country, they will choose the latter.

[0007]

16. Bring the troops home

1. Negotiate peace between Israel & Palestine

2. Get Halliburton & all American contractors out of Iraq

3. Help Iraq by funding and with brain power only when needed

4. Apologize to the World

[jobycom]

17. Pulling out might be a worse atrocity than going in

Bush wanted this. Now he needs to stick to it, and make the sacrifices, and that means our troops need to stick to it even if that means they are human targets. We can't just slaughter 100K people then waltz away.

Better than leaving us as human targets, though, would be to de-escalate the tensions, fire all the dumbass generals who spout nonsense about retribution (against people who are defending their homes, no less), bring in international negotiators, and create diplomatic efforts like those in the former Yugoslavia, listening to all sides and using our military only as guarantor of good faith negotiations. That means no retaliatory actions, and we lose a few soldiers. Eventually, if we stop being tyrants no better than Hussein, all sides will see use in us, and the attacks on us would stop, as long as negotiations were fair. That would be the first step to the understanding of mutual benefit all sides need to work out a peaceful ending.

If we continue to play their game, we will continue to get kicked around until we chicken out and flee. That may be a Bush tradition, but it is not generally an American one.

[ACK]

18. Here is my plan

1. Get the infrastructure -- electricity, water and such in order.

2. Ask the UN for support -- reduce US troops by the exact amount of contributions.

3. As soon as the infrastructure is up -- call elections quick.

4. As soon as elections happen -- then get the hell out of dodge.

_

[camero]

23. Phased out withdrawal

With UN and Arab League cooperation as to the diplomatic mediator for the various tribes in Iraq. IIRC, Iraq was recently reinstated in the Arab League. Can't quite remember the name but Jimmy Carter's Organization could help out with democratic elections.

[corporatewhore]

24. Take up the White Man's Burden!!!