My Opinion: US out of Iraq now!

[norml]

Because only 5% of the insurgency are "foreign fighters" the faster we get out, the faster the locals can throw out the "foreign fighters" and stop "terrorism".

And the faster they will get the oil flowing again.

And the better it will be for everyone's business,

Except for the oil and defense industries.

US out of Iraq now!

It's the only sensible position to take.

Hand it over to the UN.

Let the locals rebuild their own country.

US out of Iraq now!

[enigma000]

1. What do the Iraqis want?

What does the elected Iraqi government want?

What did President Talabani ask of Bush during his visit earlier this month?

What did President Talabani urge world leaders to do while addressing the UN General Assembly earlier this month?

[Toots]

3. I believe they want world recognition and that is not going to happen

as long as the US is occupying Iraq. Pull all US troops out now and turn the rebuilding process over to the Arab nations and the UN. It is a matter for the people who really do have an interest in the region.

[norml]

7. Well, I'd say the elected Iraqi government and President Talabani want

whatever the Bush Administration wants.

Am I right?

Everything is run by the 200 Bremmer rules anyway.

Iraqis have no rights.

Iraq is now a right wing wonderland.

They can't try us.

They can't sue us.

They can only tax our companies at a flat tax rate.

Have Gallup do a survey.

Ask the people if they want us out, rather than having them vote for representatives who have no real power other than to approve whatever we were going to do anyway.

[norml]

11. My source for that 5% figure is Anthony Cordesman. DOD says the same.

It is unlikely that al-Qaeda makes up more than 10% of the total insurgency, with some estimates placing it as low as 5%. While the number of foreign jihadis have increased over time, it is also important to note that as of June 2005 there were only 600 foreign fighters being held prisoner out of more than 14,000 detainees, a possible indication that foreign jihadis are more likely to fight to the death than their Iraqi counterparts. All the same, they remain the most dangerous element of the insurgency because they have increasingly sought to provoke a civil war between Iraqi Sunni and their Shi'ite and Kurdish counterparts.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007132.php

[Corgigal]

12. fuck the Iraqi government

who was installed by us.

What do the people of Iraq want?

[leftchick]

21. oh pulease

The Iraqi on the street sees the "government" as US puppets. Which they are. So it does not matter one shit what Talabani(who was an exile living out of Iraq over 20 years) wants.

Give Iraq back to REAL Iraqis and bring the troops HOME!

[enigma000]

23. I think you are thinking of Jaffari

PM Jaffari spent 20 years in Iran and Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_Talabani

No matter. Who should "we" be turning Iraq back over to?

[leftchick]

25. the majority of the Iraqi Governing council is comprised of exiles

oopsies I missed one. We should turn Iraq over to Iraqis and let them sort it out. Did you read Juan Cole's link? He explains much better then I how the US is fomenting the rebels to attack. It is not just pointless but deadly for everyone for the USA to stay.

Let me ask you. What is the US accomplishing besides being moving targets for Iraqi rebels? The only secure area in all of Iraq is the Green Zone, where the puppets hide with the americans. It won't be long before that security is breeched as well.

[enigma000]

29. What is the US accomplishing ?

It's keeping the Iraqis on a political timetable: elections last Jan., constitution written, referendum next month, new elections (either way) in December. This way Iraq can be turned "over to Iraqis and let them sort it out".

It allows for the training of Iraqi security forces. As well, it prevents, for now, the Shiite and Kurdish militias from staging their own military operations in the Sunni Triangle, causing a slide Iraq into full scale civil war.

[leftchick]

31. That constitution is a sham...

I will post this but I am sure you won't read it as you obviously did not read Juan Cole's link. Who I might add may know just a little bit more about what is really happening in Iraq than you...

<snip>


Think this is an exaggeration? Consider that arguably the most powerful Shiite political party and militia in today's Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and its affiliated paramilitary force, the Badr Brigade, was not only based in Iran but was set up by Washington's old arch-foe, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It also fought on the side of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and was recognized by Tehran as the government in exile of Iraq.

Or that former exile Ahmad Chalabi is now one of Iraq's deputy prime ministers. The consummate political operator managed to maintain ties to Iran while gaining the devoted support of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, charming and manipulating Beltway policymakers and leading U.S. journalists into believing that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Chalabi is thrilled with the draft constitution, which, if passed, will probably exponentially increase tension and violence between Sunnis and Shiites. "It is an excellent document," said Chalabi, who has been accused by U.S. intelligence of being a spy for Iran, where he keeps a vacation home.

What an absurd outcome for a war designed to create a compliant, unified and stable client state that would be pro-American, laissez-faire capitalist and unallied with the hated Iran. Of course, Bush tells us again, this is "progress" and "an inspiration." Yet his relentless spinning of manure into silk has worn thin on the American public and sent his approval ratings tumbling.

Even supporters of the war are starting to realize that rather than strengthening the United States' position in the world, the invasion and occupation have led to abject humiliation: from the Abu Ghraib scandal, to the guerrilla insurgency exposing the limits of military power, to an election in which "our guy" -- Iyad Allawi -- was defeated by radicals and religious extremists.

<snip>

"This is a document of which the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can be proud," he said Sunday, through what must have been gritted teeth. After all, this document includes such democratic gems as "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation," and, "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam," as well as socialist-style pronouncements that work and a decent standard of living are rights guaranteed by the state. But the fact is, it could establish Khomeini's ghost as the patron saint of Iraq and Bush would have little choice but to endorse it.


http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19551

[enigma000]

32. Then they can vote it down

An event I wouldn't lose too much sleep over, myself. Iraqis will be able to read this draft constitution, discuss it among themselves and freely vote for or against it (even under an American occupation). If it is as bad as Robert Scheer and Juan Cole indicate it is, odds are women and the majority of Sunni will vote against it, and it will fail.

In fairness, if they reject the constitution in October, that's not a disaster because then they have the opportunity to try again, this time with elected Sunni officials. Perhaps a more secular version could be drafted.

[norml]

33. Reuters: The map to Iraq's constitution vote

The map to Iraq's constitution vote
27 Aug 2005 11:54:20 GMT

Source: Reuters

BAGHDAD, Aug 27 (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders must complete a final version of the country's new constitution and present it to the public for a referendum which must be held by Oct. 15.

Shi'ite Arabs and Kurds prepared a draft which was presented to parliament on Monday, but it has not yet been finalised because of objections by Sunni Arabs who have already begun mobilising their community against it.

Sunnis are a 20 percent minority, but they are the majority in central Iraq where the insurgency is strongest.

Here is a rough timetable of events. * On Sunday, Sunni politicians deliver their verdict on a modified draft document prepared by Shi'ites in an effort to assuage Sunni anger over provisions creating a decentralised, federal political system that would exclude members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party from public life. Sunnis dominated his regime.

* Later on Sunday, parliament will convene for a report on the final wording of the document, which may or may not include the changes proposed by Shi'ites to please the Sunnis.


snip


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/GEO741611.htm

[goodhue]

2. Hear, hear!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. "Hand it over to the UN."

The UN has already signalled it wants no part of that tarbaby....


The UN blue helmets only go into an area after it has been pacified...

[goodhue]

5. The UN has said it won't go in as long as US military remains in control

They have never suggested they would not provide peacekeepers upon US withdrawal.

[enigma000]

6. Who's they? n/t

[goodhue]

8. Annan speaking for the UN

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1028056,00.html

However, Mr Annan made plain yesterday that, even after the attack on Baghdad, there was little appetite in the international community for sending troops to Iraq - especially under US command. In his comments on Thursday, Mr Powell gave no indication that the Pentagon would be willing to share authority.

The UN was not considering sending its own peacekeepers to Iraq, Mr Annan told a joint press conference with Mr Straw. But "it is not excluded that the council may decide to transform the operation into a UN-mandated, multinational force operating on the ground, with other governments coming in."

However, "it would imply not just burden-sharing but also sharing decisions and responsibility with the others. If that doesn't happen, I think it is going to be very difficult to get a second resolution that will satisfy everybody."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Upon Our Withdrawal Iraq Likely Will Descend Into Civil War

If there are academics who say that is not the case I will be happy to read their work...

No way does the UN have the troops or the inclination to get involved in a civil war...

Maybe a civil war is inevitable and I am not endorsing any specific course of action but to expect anything less than continued chaos is utopian....

[norml]

15. Like Yugoslavia it's a country that was put together after WWI.

How much more difficult our task would've been in the former Yugoslavia had we been trying to put that country back together again.

Maybe Iraq should split up.

Why should we stop them?

One figure I like to mention whenever the subject of our military involvement in the former nation of Yugoslavia comes up is the ZERO COMBAT FATALITIES we suffered in that conflict.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Yes- It Was The Sykes-Picot Agreement Of 1916

I'm just saying that this is complex....

We are talking about an area that is of vital importance to the world... An area that supplies neatly half the world's oil...


They have the ability to turn off the lights for everybody...

[wuushew]

30. We could survive easily with ME oil

conservation, synthetic fuel production and large levels of wealth redistribution would allow everyone America to live "well" by global standards. However such choices are politically unpalatable.

The Carter Doctrine is bunk. No strategic asset other than direct American lives is a legitimate use of force or imperial aims against others. I tire of your constant defense of traditional Democratic "virtues" of interventionism.

[goodhue]

17. But it has already descended into civil war

[welshTerrier2]

9. immediate or near-term withdrawal is the only path ...

i just posted this in another thread but wanted to support your call for immediate withdrawal so i'm reposting it here as well ...

the arguments made against immediate withdrawal are flawed ...

first, take a read on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

it cites a study done by the Center for Strategic International Studies that concluded that as little as 4% of the "insurgents" fighting in Iraq are foreign fighters ... most of those fighting against the US occupation and the imposition of a democratically empowered tyranny of the Shia majority are native Iraqis ... the point is that those fighting are not international terrorists who want to provide oil and funding to al Qaeda and other global terrorist organizations ... the point is that the entire premise of the argument you presented against immediate withdrawal is based on a myth ...

given the miniscule composition of foreign fighters in Iraq, what exactly would Clark's call for regional negotiations accomplish while American occupying forces remain in Iraq ... you're presenting an argument to sit down with Syria and Iran and others to have them intervene in an internal political struggle inside Iraq?? what would be the objective of those negotiations? it seems there could only be two possible objectives ...

first, you could ask these countries (or pressure them) to shut-off the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq ... one of the articles in the thread i referenced concluded that Syria does not have the capability to do this ... and again, foreign fighters in Iraq may represent as little as 4% of those fighting ... this approach is a drop in the bucket at best and probably not workable anyway ...

or second, you're talking about some kind of regional peacekeeping force to suppress the insurgency ... Syria, Egypt, Iran, Jordan and other countries from the region could send troops into Iraq to suppress the Sunni insurgency ... one, it seems inconceivable they would agree to this and two, the Sunnis are fighting for their survival ... why is forcing them to submit to the will of the Shia majority a desirable objective?

so again, what would be the objective of regional negotiations while the US remains in occupation?

another major point, perhaps the most devastating of all, is the reality that the world's most potent fighting force has been totally unable, after two and half years, to quell the violence inside Iraq ... regardless of what mechanisms for peace and stability you advocate, the bottom line is that continued US occupation will not achieve anything ... it doesn't matter what negotiating process you initiate at this point; the occupation itself is the major cause of the violence ...

civil war and post-withdrawal consequences are very real concerns ... but all the US occupation is doing is blocking a road to the inevitable while Iraq remains a cauldron of suffering ... while the US continues its occupation, Iraq is fighting both internal and external enemies not to mention the devastating costs in terms of people, dollars and international prestige to the US ...

the US needs to get the hell out of Iraq either immediately or within a very short timeframe, say less than three months ... at that point, a massive infusion of humanitarian assistance coupled with a regional negotiating process to support that assistance makes sense ... as long as US troops are fighting inside Iraq against those fighting for their own liberation, nothing will change ...

and finally, keep in mind that the US is in Iraq for imperialistic reasons ... bush and his friends are after oil and regional control ... they are not seeking peace, stability and democracy ... they are seeking oil, power and a puppet government ... calling for anything beyond immediate or near-term withdrawal will do nothing but further enable their agenda ...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Hmmm

second, you're talking about some kind of regional peacekeeping force to suppress the insurgency ... Syria, Egypt, Iran, Jordan and other countries from the region could send troops into Iraq to suppress the Sunni insurgency ... one, it seems inconceivable they would agree to this and two, the Sunnis are fighting for their survival ... why is forcing them to submit to the will of the Shia majority a desirable objective?


Why would nations such as Syria, Egypt, and Jordann that have Sunni majorities want to destroy a Sunni uprising?

And why would they collaborate with Iran which is a Shia nation in this endeavor?

Not you but some folks here need to read some books or take some courses on the ME....

There are no good options...

[welshTerrier2]

18. "There are no good options..."

i couldn't agree more ... there are no good options ... some of us understood the US invasion would create a devastating power vacuum ... what we have now was the only logical outcome ...

so what's your view? does Clark's call for regional negotiations make any sense? i just can't see how that will help until AFTER the US occupation ends ...

and when you say there are no good options, and i totally agree, i conclude that we should therefore leave ... the US is nothing more than an unproductive target in Iraq ... what's our mission there? bush's mission is a puppet state ...

if we can't achieve anything with our military, and how much more evidence of that reality does anyone need, what exactly are we doing by remaining? listing a bunch of noble goals, like peace, stability and democracy is fine but the military mission is clearly failing ... and if all we would achieve, assuming we could actually achieve something by continuing the occupation, is giving bush his puppet state and forcing the Sunnis to live under the tyranny of Shia law, why exactly would anyone continue to support the occupation??

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I Don't Know What The Answer Is...

I respect Wes Clark but the sides have such disparate positions that talking away their disputes is not realistic...Let's see. We have been trying to get a diplomatic solution for the Israel-Palestine dispute for nearly sixty years...


Saddam ruled with an iron fist... He was to Iraq what Tito was to Yugoslavia but Tito wasn't a sociopath...


Leaving Iraq will result in a vaccum....I don't see any side strong enough to fill it.... Do you think Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are going to sit idly by and watch their Sunni brothers and sisters crushed and become part of a larger Iranian Shia republic...


The Middle East is a dangerous place... It was a dangerous place prior to Bush* and it's a more dangerous place now....

[welshTerrier2]

24. here's the best i have ...

and i'm afraid to say it ain't much ...

there was a great line in an old Firesign Theatre album where a judge asks a witness: "are you trying to buy your way out of these proceedings?"

well, that's the best i have ... i think we need to pour in more carrots and take away the sticks ... i think that instead of spending another $200 billion on slaughter and oppression, we should offer those who cooperate with a more peaceful process some serious money, opportunities and humanitarian aid ... oil revenues need to be divided in a reasonable manner ... infrastructure funding will only occur where local governance can get a buy-in for peace ...

some argue that we have to have a powerful central government in Iraq ... others argue that each major culture, Shia, Sunni and Kurds should have their own government ... it need not be that black or white ... something like the US model, balancing between national governments and state governments, seems like the only workable approach ... going to either extreme will fail ...

so, that's my stupid solution ... end the occupation and throw money and humanitarian aid at the problem ... as you correctly pointed out, there are no good answers ... if only more of us had understood this before we went in ...

[Beam Me Up]

16. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[JaneGat]

13. OUT OF IRAQ NOW

Better for Iraqi citizens, too.

Undeclared Civil War In Iraq

One woman said as her husband was marched away she sent her son after him with his slippers, but his abductor sent the child back with a chilling message: No need for slippers — he will come back dead.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/26/eveningnews/main886305.shtml

[Wind Dancer]

20. I like Stan Goff's exit plan!

"The Plan: The National Command Authority orders all US forces redeployed out of Iraq within one month and out of the theater in two months. Any commander that fails to meet the deadline will be summarily relieved, and replaced with a commander that will thereby be placed on a shorter timeline. I can promise anyone who has no experience of the military that this is perfectly feasible, and that with that kind of command emphasis, the mission can and will be accomplished." Stan Goff

I heard him speak at the "Bring Them Home Now" tour with Cindy Sheehan in Raleigh. We need to provide the funds so the Iraqi people can rebuild their own country without no bid contracts from Halliburton and the like. We need to get out of Iraq now before more American soldiers and innocent Iraqis are killed.

In Vietnam, we lost 55,000 soldiers during the war and later 110,000 committed suicide. The same will happen in Iraq if this madness continues.

[leftchick]

26. sounds good to me

:applause:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Obvious defeat is hard to swallow for polticians and generals.

So, they'll keep pumping money and lives into a lost war in a vain attempt to cover their sorry asses. Then, when they're finally kicked out, they'll blame the left for the "stab in the back".

Worked for Hitler after WWI. And, there are many who believe the "we coulda' won if it wasn't for the traitors" crappola about Vietnam.

[0rganism]

28. Iraq is a lose-lose situation

Everything about it now is damned if we do, damned if we don't.

To be fair, this is not unlike the dilemma faced by previous administrations with respect to Saddam Hussein (and every other totalitarian dictator on the planet) except in its massive scope, fiscal insanity, and the involvment of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. Saddam was a brutal tyrant, to be sure, but perhaps he understood something about his country that we are only now learning.

For the bushistas to insist that, "if we leave now the country will collapse into a civil war/fall to terrorists/be overrun by locusts/whatever," is only to admit how much better Saddam was able to govern Iraq than our patchwork attempt at nationbuilding. By itself, such an assertion implicitly condemns the choice to invade in the first place. Even if Saddam had WMDs as hypothesized, it would have been preferable to constrain them through oversight of his bureaucracy than allow them to become a part of the burgeoning chaos and impending civil war that we now face by way of occupation.