US troops can't help bring "stability" to Iraq...

[IrateCitizen]

At least not when they are the primary cause for the INSTABILITY that is currently in Iraq.

So long as our troops remain as an occupying force, in a country that is growing to increasingly hate that occupation with every day that passes by, there will NEVER be stability in Iraq.

As a progressive, I am all in favor of an Iraq of self-determination, an Iraq in which people of all ethnic groupings and both genders enjoy human rights. But I have become convinced that this will never happen until our troops are withdrawn. It is only THEN, along with the US financing the Iraqis in rebuilding their own country, that any kind of stability will be achieved.

Discuss....

[IrateCitizen]

1. Anyone . . . Bueller . . . anyone? (nt)

[mmonk]

2. You are correct in a sense

Only if they thought the troops would leave would they tolerate an occupation and there would be stability. The Iraqis have caught wind of the permanent bases idea.

[el_gato]

3. Independence is the unspoken option

There was a debate between Chomsky and Perle from about 10 years ago
that I listened to recently. It was interesting because towards the end the idea of "okay what are the alternatives" in relation to mainly Latin America at the time. Perle immediately tried to smear the alternatives as some kind of socialism or some other typical derrogatory terms.
Chomsky immediately shut him down with the word idependence and Perle had nothing to say.

A Korean friend of mine recently said something to this same effect.
She was talking to a bush apologist and he kept saying stuff like "Well we saved you from the Russians" etc. and her reply was something along the line of "We don't want you or the Russians telling us what to do. We want to be independent from outside manipulation."

It is this mindset that colonial forces have some kind of right to do what they do that makes it all possible.

[bryant69]

4. It's tricky

But you are right in one sense; we don't really know what the Iraqis want. Everybody asking the question has their own agenda; and so that always skews the results. Bush apoligists have had little trouble finding Iraqis who think we are doing a good thing by being there; and the opposite is true as well.

The question then becomes what is the most effective way to promote a stable Iraq that respects the civil rights for all of its peoples. Is it for the United States to withdraw its troops or for us to stay? I don't know for certain, but the best option still seems to be the program of our next President, John Kerry.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[IrateCitizen]

5. The "best" option, or the lesser of two evils?

I would hardly call Kerry's plan for "doing it right" and "staying until we 'win'" the "best" option. In fact, I would say the basic choice comes down to deciding whether you want to be pissed on, or shit on. Just because you choose not to be shit upon doesn't necessarily mean that you think that piss is a great thing.

In fact, having just finished Secrets by Daniel Ellsberg, it sounds frighteningly similar to the public pronouncements of the LBJ administration officials while they were saying it was a complete "no-win" behind the scenes. Seriously -- if our military presence there is causing the upsurge in the resistance, then how exactly do we get things to settle out so long as US troops are in the country?

Simple. We can't.

[bryant69]

6. Well nothing about this is simple, is it?

It's a bad situation, no doubt about it. But is the presense of the American Troops 100% a bad thing? Or if they left would the country settle down? Well, they wouldn't be killing American troops anymore, so that would be good. But they might turn to killing each other.

[IrateCitizen]

7. If the only thing stopping them from killing each other is...

... the presence of American troops, then it seems to me to be pretty much an inevitability, does it not? If it is such, then as much as I hate to say something like this, the bloodshed might as well be put toward a future destiny that at least has some hope in genuine self-governance -- and that is a future devoid of US military presence, IMHO.

Or, perhaps the reality in most areas would be similar to what popped up in the Shia areas immediately following the overthrow of Saddam -- local, popularly-elected leaders following elections overseen by the clergy and the beginnings of grassroots democracy. It is important to remember two things WRT the current situation. First, al-Sistani advocates a secular government within a largely Muslim state. Second, al-Sadr's followers were many of the local leaders who helped maintain order in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, but were largely spurned by the occupation authorities in favor of more "pro-US" (meaning "puppet") leaders.

The Kurds have been running their own affairs for the past 12 years.

The whole idea of "WE have to fix it" just reeks too much of Kipling's bullshit regarding the "white man's burden". The people of Iraq had civilization when most Americans' ancestors were still wearing animal hides and living in caves. To believe that it is up to us to stabilize their country FOR them and somehow show them "the right way" to do things stinks of arrogance and hubris -- regardless of whether or not it comes from Republicans or Democrats.

[bryant69]

12. White Man's Burdan doesn't fit

We don't have to fix it because we're white and they aren't. We have to fix it because that idiot President Bush invaded, making it the United States Responsibility. In other words we created this mess, and its in our best interests to fix it; because we caused it.

Secondly, what is the difference between these two statements?

Iraqis are naturally going to kill each other, so there's no point trying to prevent it.

Criminals are naturally going to commit crimes, so looking at possible economic and environmental causes of crime is a waste of time.

I don't see much difference myself; Iraqis are subject to the same passions and emotions that animate you and I.

A stronger argument might be that we Americans are so screwed up that we really don't have much hope of helping them. Not a pleasent thing to contemplate, but it might be true. Certainly President Bush's record has been the opposite of encouraging.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Mandate My Ass]

8. "It's politically impossible to withdraw...

and militarily impossible to 'win.'"

I disagree with the logic of the first statement and agree wholeheartedly with the second, but as long as it remains framed that way, there'll be more and more violence and instabililty.

I believe I read this statement in a recent Stan Goff article but the memory is the first thing to go. x(

[IrateCitizen]

9. That could either be Stan Goff speaking about Iraq...

... or Robert McNamara speaking privately about Vietnam.

I just finished Secrets by Daniel Ellsberg, and it is simply amazing how many high-level Johnson officials (including McNamara himself) knew that the situation there was unwinnable, and would say it in private. Yet, they kept sending more and more troops while telling the public we were "making progress"....

Given the leaked Rumsfeld memo about "metrics" some while back, this surely couldn't be a case of history repeating, could it?

Nah, nothing to see here... move along. :grr:

[Mandate My Ass]

10. Bingo, thanks for the reminder

Goff was referencing the conventional wisdom of the Vietnam hawks when he wrote that statement and how it's currently being recycled, despite having been debunked, for Iraqnam.

[catmandu57]

11. No, no they can't

As long as there is American military presense in a country that doesn't want us there, we'll be a thorn in their side.
There were different ways to bring about change in Iraq, gw* and co. decided to hit the hornets nest with a stick, and now we must suffer the consequences.

[robertpaulsen]

13. We cannot win hearts and minds, we'll settle for picking their pockets.

The longer we stay and fight, the greater the opposition we face. Bush is LBJ and if Kerry wins, he needs to be careful or he might end up looking like Richard Nixon searching for "peace with honor". If Sistani goes through with his threat of intifada if the U.S. doesn't withdraw by June 30, then there will be a unified front as strong as anything we faced in Vietnam from the Vietcong and NVA.

But to continue the Vietnam analogy, I believe what will happen is that just as the U.S. exploits Vietnam economically today, we will do the same to Iraq. This time the sweatshops won't be financed by Nike, it will be Halliburton and Bechtel. The future is set, it's just a matter of how many people have to be killed before we withdraw militarily. Economically though, we've established a toehold that won't be released. Grab 'em by the wallet and their hearts and minds will follow.