Somalia as an example of "cut and run"

[bluestateguy]

I become tired of hearing neo-con columnists and Republican politicians argue that we can't "cut and run" from Iraq like we supposedly did in Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident when 18 Marines were killed. They suggest that our withdrawal from Somalia somehow suggested to the terrorists that the US lacked resolve and was weak.

The problem is that this critique from the Right lacks credibility. In 1993, it was the people on the Right who pissed and moaned and demanded that we get out of Somalia, arguing that the humanitarian mission over there had become a hopeless enterprise in "nation-building" that served no US national security interest. Never big fans of humanitarian missions to nations of predominantly black persons, the Republicans and neo-con keyboard peckers squawked that the Somalia mission was a mission of fuzzy-headed left-wing internationalism. They were the ones who bitched and moaned that we should leave Somalia. They made no arguments at that time that we had to show resolve, "lest the terrorists win." Bill Clinton got weak-knees and gave in to the Right wing whiners and pulled us out of Somalia.

[not systems]

1. Brave men run.

The idea the sacrifice of blood is noble in it's self
is a primitive idea.

Clinton made the correct call then but Bush and my man Kerry
are making the wrong call now.

US out of Iraq!!!

[Indiana_Dem]

2. I agree.

There is no good ending here. If we stay, we stay for a long time and lose many people and never win. If we pull out we will lose face and never hear the end of it or "how it could've been". The only upside to pulling out is that not as many lives will have been sacrificed for nothing vs. many,many lives sacrificed for nothing.

Heck, even today the media was saying that companies are pulling out. When they are even leaving, that's not a good sign.

It's bad any way you look at it. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Why did Bush ever do a thing like this? Where was the administrations thinking? HOW how how could they not have thought of this? I'm not even in the circle and I saw it before the war started. How stupid.

One thing we CAN do is give our troops the upmost respect for all they've been told to do and doing it the best they can. They need special care once they return. More than anything else.

[necso]

3. Minor correction.

Rangers and Delta Force ("D-boys") comprised the US forces involved in the incident.

The wrong wing uses whatever bullshit comes to hand. Consistency, integrity, honesty and the like never trouble them.

Leaving Iraq before a stable government is in place will be a disaster. Staying would, however, be an even greater one. It is simply no longer possible to create a secular, pro-west, democratic state in Iraq ... if it ever was. Time to move on, with some BS about handing responsibility over to the UN and the Iraqis themselves.

It is tough to admit that you are defeated, especially when you are a macho-posturing idiot. (Of course our defeat is political, not military, but no amount of military action can accomplish the impossible. But just try explaining this to a moron.)

[Katie]

5. bluestateguy remind them of Reagan and Beirut 1983

Close to 270 marines died in a terrorist attack there. What did reagan do? Got us out of Beirut. Ever notice they never talk about that? Just the 18 that died in Somalia. And of course that was all Clinton's fault, even though daddy bush was the one that put us there. Bush never following up on the USS Cole and the Hart/Rudman report are also topics you never hear discussed. And probably never will. Cut and run? Nobody did it better than bush during vietnam and on 9/11.

[leftyandproud]

4. hate to do this..

"They suggest that our withdrawal from Somalia somehow suggested to the terrorists that the 'US lacked resolve and was weak'."

Last half of that sentence is an almost verbatim Osama quote. Said US was a "paper tiger"...that Americans were weak and didn't have the resolve to take casualties.

[AZCat]

6. I don't understand this

Why is a reluctance to throw away lives (ours and theirs) in an illegal, immoral conflict interpreted as 'weak' and as lacking resolve?

Now- show me a conflict that is just, and I'll show you strength.

[not systems]

7. So we should take casualties to prove him wrong?

I don't follow the logic.

Iraq is ungovernable by white Christian Zionists English speakers.

Pounding it into the ground and burning piles of cash will never change that fact.

We will leave the only question is how many will we kill
and how many will die before we do.

[pa28]

8. I wish we could.

From what I see a U.S. evacuation would lead to civil war, anarchy, genocide or any of the above. I know our nation building in Iraq is laden with hypocrisy and contradiction from the right (what else comes from that side?) and it's tempting to let them twist in the wind. But, as usual, the Democrats are left to pick up the pieces. As a matter of conscience we have to make sure Iraq is restored to something resembling a real society. At this point it's the only positive legacy that can come from this war.

[not systems]

10. We will probably fail to prevent...

civil war, anarchy, genocide or any of the above.

That is why destroying a state via war of aggression is
the ultimate war crime because all other war crimes follow.

Starting the war was a big mistake not ending it will
be a bigger one still.

The last hundred years have been full of failed attempts
to rule others through force sold as being for the benefit
of the ruled. Yet colonial do gooders have fell one by
one world wide to nationalist resistance.

Iraq will be no different.

[FDRrocks]

9. They are just wrong...

It is sad b/c there is a very valid reason we cannot just cut and run from Iraq, yet they bring this stupid example up.

We need to get the UN in there, b/c we need to win the hearts of that Iraqis, we need to bring out the compassion in the Iraqis, the nature of humanity, and America cannot do that.

If we left them off today the Shiites and Kurds would take brutal vengeance on the Sunnis, to a point where the world will marvel, ala the Congo, at the lack of humanity.

But this whole idea seems to be a straw man argument in and of itself, what politician is advocating that Iraq be left to its own devices? Kerry certainly isn't, Kucinich isn't even, for crissakes.

Many governments should be overthrown by the UN, but never by unilateral action. I am not a hawk at all. In fact, I think that no killing is justified... but to achieve that end conflict must be started... but never unilaterally.

[not systems]

11. Many governments should be overthrown by the UN?

Why?

Intervention to prevent Genocide is the only case that
I can see this being justified at all.

What countries are on your hit list?