Why we should get out now

[TimMooring]

The popular view - even with kerry - is that we "owe it to the Iraqi people to not let them descend into chaos". I think thats a load of crap. I'm glad Saddam is gone. I didn't like him even when he worked for the CIA - my suspicion is that he still does. But the theory that iraq would "descend into chaos" should be taken with a big grain of salt. We have already seen Sunni's and Shiites cooperating together in opposition to the U.S. occupation. It seems entirely a patrician view that the country wouldn't be able to find there own way to self-government. I don't doubt that there'd be some violence. But just as with nearly every other country in the region they have a structured religion - that most people respect - that could and would step in to prevent complete chaos. Iraq is not Afghanistan. The country has wealth and the populace is reasonably well educated. They've been telling us what they want since the fall of Saddam. Iran is struggling towards a real democracy. Our activity in Iraq doesn't help Iranians or Iraqis. Iraq will descend into chaos (deeper into chaos that is) if the U.S. persists in occupying the country, i.e. the bush plan. Saddam opposed religious authority for his entire tenure as U.S. puppet dictator. That's why there used to be no Al Quaeda there. bin Ladin hated Saddam and Saddam hated bin Ladin. We are advancing the cause of the terrorists by remaining in Iraq.

Bring the troops home NOW!

[cheezus]

1. we can lose now or lose ten years from now

ack!

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Right, only i would replace the word "lose"

with "run home with our tail between our legs."

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Hmmm.. I take that back.

We can do what we did in 'Nam.

Declare victory and leave. After all, we got Saddam (Victory!)....

[el_gato]

2. I wholeheartedly agree

The west has been trying to destroy islam for a thousand years now.
It's time to give it up.

[Dark]

5. Reactionaries and Radicals,

Violent antithesises of each other located at polar ends of the political gamut, would cooperate if America were to be invaded. They would work together, or at least stop fighting one another, to remove the invaders who were slaughtering Americans. But after they liberated America, they would not join up and sing Coombaya, they'd fight each other to instill a regime of their own agenda.

Likewise, Iraqis will cooperate to remove the invaders, but if we were to abscond, then they would certainly begin to create violent altercations against one another. Tribes would begin to feud agian, Sunnis and Shiites would attack one another in an attempt to instill a regime of their choosing.

The Feuds haven't been settled, just put on hold.

[TimMooring]

6. What tribes - what fueds?

We are talking about different sects of a single religion. The Kurds in the north might be considered tribal, but they too are muslims. Are you sure of what you're saying?

[sangh0]

8. What tribes? Don't you know anything about Iraq?

And if you don't, how can you decide that there wouldnt be a civil war should the US pull out?

Iraq is very tribal. And the "different sects of a single religion" have a history of fighting each other.

[rinsd]

9. What tribes?

Some reading material

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/09/1068329422566.html

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_riverbendblog_archive.html

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/26/tribes/index_np.html

[TimMooring]

10. Tribal Culture in Iraq

I read these articles.. but even the blogger makes the point that tribal families are not what we would imagine them to be. By this standard many cohesive countries are tribal. Iraq is a fairly modern secular society. Most of the violence that I know about was perpetrated by Saddam and his henchmen. i.e. the gassings etc. To dismiss the country as a primitive tribal culture is inaccurate. For instance is it more "tribal" than Iran or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait? It seems a pejorative term being used to paint scary pictures of what might happen. The 85% number at least to some extent reflects the lineage of various families. they may not even live in proximity to each other. My point is that Iraq is not a primitive country. it's conceited of us to believe that they cannot find their own way to self-government. We know that they can defend their country. The surest path to degeneration is for us to continue occupying their land. It's really part of bushes "brown-people" conceit. They really haven't had an opportunity to practice self government w/o unwonted western intervention. It's my view that we could promote democracy more effectively through normal relations and trade than an open-ended occupation. Our country could be viewed as tribal. Our cities are filled with enclaves of different origin and cultures. We don't label ourselves as tribal. I think that at least to some degree the tribal issue is a western conceit. Our country lost over 500,000 of its own people in a bitter civil war in the mid 19th century. Was that tribal?

[Ripley]

11. I agree.

Especially the part about Civil War. Our country has had to go through a few wars within our borders in order to reach our current state of democracy. And we didn't do it with a mother-hen European country stationing troops in every city to "protect" us.

I guess people who think we need to stay are well prepared for the huge economic burden and loss of life that will come with this occupation with no end.

Tell me, how would one know when Iraq is "safe" to leave? Anyway, the reason the troops are staying is to expand the military bases where some of them will remain on permanently, not to make sure they're a democracy.

[rinsd]

12. I never said they were a primitive country.....

Just the fact that tribes & clans are indeed a big part of Iraq. Afganistan as well.

[TimMooring]

13. Afghanistan *is* a tribal culture and very primitive

There really is no parallel between the two. There are tribes in Iraq, especially in the kurdish region to the north and other isolated parts of the country. You can persist in your "clan of the cave bear" view - but I don't think it's an accurate representation of their culture or their country. Afghanistan has very little in terms of natural resources - unless you consider opium poppies a natural resource - no smart remarks please :-)

[jimshoes]

7. Disbanding their army and leaving them

defenseless to invaders (US Army notwithstanding) had to be one of the most ill thought out strategems ever in the history of the quest for global domination. Our intention has always been to remain in Iraq indefinitely. That seems clear by virtue of the fact that no alternate scenarios had even been considered, i.e. a country-wide "insurrection" in the post "Mission Accomplished" Iraq which is apparently what has taken place. Should the US pull stumps and run now, and I'm not saying they shouldn't, it would leave the Iraqi's open to an invasion from virtually any country with an army large enough to attempt it. But judging from the success (or lack of it) that the US has had, I wonder if anyone else would even bother.