If we pull out of Iraq now, won't it rapidly devolve into a failed state

[smoogatz]

and a breeding ground for all kinds of crazy Islamist terrorists who want to kill us?

I heard this argument tonight on NPR from some guy at the Hoover Institute (presumably a right-wing think tank), and I had to admit he had a point. On the othe rhand, the same thing could happend if we stay--just slower, and with more casualties to U.S. troops. The Hoover guy's point was that we should negotiate a political settlement with the insurgents. I thought he had a reasonable point there, too. Anyone elese have thoughts on what our exit strategy should be?

[flyingfysh]

1. it has already become a failed state

The only thing to do is pull out, and let the UN take care of the mess as best it can. The US has no credibility there.

[ClassWarrior]

6. That was the point all along. Then the corporatists can sweep in...

...and collect the spoils.

NGU.

[niceypoo]

44. Its the US fault

It boils down to "How many US kids die before we leave"

[uppityperson]

2. what flyingfysh said. It already is as you say.

It is a failed state and a breeding ground already. It is there. Give it to the UN. The USA has no credibility.

[More Than A Feeling]

3. That will happen anyway

The only question is how many of our sons and daughters have to die first.

[Disturbed]

7. An illegal Invasion and Occupation of Iraq...

is not a secret to most people outside of Amerika.

What we have in Amerika is a Govt. that is Fascist and a nuetered, so called oppostion party.

[More Than A Feeling]

24. For quite a few foreign policy folks, the concept of illegal doesn't exist

internationally, because they believe that the international system is anarchy, and that relationships between nations are characterized by power. This is the foreign policy tradition of realism, and after WWI and WWII, it became the dominate foreign policy perspective, particularly in the writings of Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz. More recently, John Mearsheimer's The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is an excellent explanation of this worldview.

Anyway, according to them, Laws only work when you have someone to enforce them, and since the international bodies that you might expect to enforce them include the most powerful nations, their ability to enforce the law justly is compromised.

Therefore, international law is just a cover for the most powerful nation(s) to do what is in their national interest.

I only mention this as a reason why your argument that the invasion of Iraq is illegal might be less than convincing to some. Perhaps you already knew all this, and if so, I apologize for wasting your time.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. No of course you are right to a certain extent.

Once a great power has decided to act unilaterally 'illegal' here only has meaning after that power has been defeated. However war for the purpose of regime change has been, by mutual agreement, out of bounds since the Treaty of Westphalia. We have signed treaties that forbid this sort of war. We knew that when we went into Iraq. We knew that our treaty obligations forbid what we were about to do. We acted deliberately to create false justifications for our little war. In doing so we admitted that our real reasons were 'illegal', were violations of treaties that under our own constitution we are legally bound to obey. The international system may be an anarchy, but our constitutional republic is not.

[shraby]

4. Since Iraq is supposed to be a sovereign nation

now, we have no business negotiating with insurgents, that's the business for the Iraqi government.

[ClassWarrior]

5. So what is it now? A tea party?

NGU.

[tmooses]

8. Iraq was a failed state when it was artificially created by the British in

total disregard for ethnic or religious groups.

[Pepperbelly]

9. it has already done those things and more.

95% of the violence is directed at us. Wouldn't that mean that if we left, there would be a significant corresponding drop in violence?

Now, that would be success.

[hadrons]

10. "...negotiate a political settlement with the insurgents"???

and who exactly represents the "insurgents"

[BillZBubb]

11. As pointed out, since the Bush criminal invasion, Iraq is a failed state

Furthermore, our being there only postpones the inevitable, bloody civil war. Meanwhile we take casualties and waste $billions.

We can't negotiate with anyone, because the issues that will be fought over once we leave have nothing to do with the occupation. They are long simmering issues. Saddam kept them under control with tyranny. Now, since Bush and his incompetent stooges removed Saddam, there is no power left to keep the lid on.

The Kurds want independence and will fight for it the minute they see an opportunity. The Sunnis believe they are the historical rightful rulers of Iraq and will fight to regain that power. The Shiites are the majority in the country and have always been treated like a minority. They will fight to get control of the country. It is going to be a bloody mess. There is nothing we can do to stop it now that the Boy who would be King has opened Pandora's box.

[Lasher]

12. This reminds me of Vietnam

Did we pull out of Vietnam at a good time? Looking at all the chaos from those days, it sure didn't look like it. Would there have been a better time to pull out? Sooner would have been better, but I don't think there was a better time, other than for that reason. Am I starting to sound like Rummy? Yes, I'm answering my own questions. Oooo, I feel unclean!

Anyway, my point is, there's probably no such thing as an ideal time to pull out. The longer we're there, the worse things get. The sooner we get out, the more lives and money we save. Don't worry about leaving Iraq in a civil war. They're in one now.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. It reminds me of a bad poker player

We have a losing hand but we've convinced ourselves that there is too much in the pot to pull out and that we can just bluff it out or draw a really lucky card. Everyone else at the table knows where we are at and they are just sucking all the chips out of us.

[rocktivity]

33. As a casino employee said of virtue czar/degenerate gambler Bill Bennett

"We have a special name for gamblers like him--losers."

And as this article explains so beautifully, the only thing left for President Mightymouse to fight for is his narcissicsm.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Cascadian]

31. A Vietnam vet co-worker said it best.

Iraq is Vietnam with sand!


John

[Massacure]

14. The only way to secure Iraq is to increase the troop levels.

We also need to stop agitating the civilians.

[leesa]

20. This is stupid. The only thing more troops will do is escalate the

violence and chaos. Did you learn NOTHING from Vietnam?

[Massacure]

21. LBJ made the generals fight Vietnam in a half assed way.

Bush is doing the same thing making the generals fight Iraq in a half assed way. Going in with half a million troops to seal the borders, capture the ammunition depots, and protect the infrastructure would have made the whole thing a lot easier than going in with 150,000 and just taking the major cities.

Don't get me wrong, Iraq is doomed to fail they way Bush is going. He is arrogant and any change in troop strength will be purely political. But the military did and may possibly still have a way to win Iraq.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. LBJ did not do that at all.

That is a right wing myth used to explain our humiliating defeat in vietnam - and like the myth of the pow/mia it has become, unchallenged, part of our disinformed history of the last military debacle. It is part of the reason why we are in this one: we are delusional about what happened the last time 'round.

[bemildred]

23. You are wrong about LBJ.

And in any case Nixon overcame any issues with not having the stomach for mass killing and terror against civilian populations.
But you are right about the military incompetence of the NeoCons, especially Dumbsfeldt.

[Jacobin]

35. Um, we had 550,000 troops in Viet Nam

We have no right to be there. There is no moral high ground for us. None. Iraq has the moral high ground as an illegally occupied country. Iraqis will fight and die to eject foreign occupying troops. That will not stop. Crusaders have tried conquering the M.E. for thousands of years. It has never worked for long.

Leave these poor folks to sort it out themselves. Will it be dangerous for the U.S., either way? Yep. We forked it up and now we have to live with the consequences

[Massacure]

39. Deserts are easier to protect than jungles.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. The only thing that was off limits in vietnam

was an outright invasion of the north and the use of nukes. The reasons why those were off limits - with Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford are rather obvious. Other than that the military got everything it wanted. You asserted that the military had its hands tied by LBJ - back it up.

[leftchick]

41. there aren't enough troops to Pacify Iraq

The US troops are the cause of the resistance attacks. The US troops shoot up Iraqi civilians daily, that will never stop until they are gone.

We need to bring the troops home and give reparations and Iraq back to the Iraqis. NATO coming in would be a great help.

[tabasco]

15. And if we stay there?

We continue to prop up an illegitimate puppet government. The Iraqi forces will never be ready to take over. Corporations will continue to pillage Iraqi natural resources, and our troops will continue to get killed. It will never end and it will never get better.

We should get out now and beg the UN to send peace keepers.

No government installed under the eye of the US military will ever be considered legitimate by the Iraqi people. We will do them a favor to get out and let them determine their own future.

We should provide massive recontruction money through UN channels. This is the price we should be paying for Bush's colossal mistake, not BLOOD.

[Old_Fart]

16. "We lost"

n/t

[Alkene]

17. We're the ones who've devolved into a failed state.

U.S. occupation and torture forces must withdraw from Iraq immediately.

Our presence makes no one safer- not us, not the Iraqi people, not the world.

It not our right to negotiate anything, except reparations.

Those concerned that external policing assistance is, or would become, a moral imperative should remember the U.N.

[Contrary1]

Now, later, no difference

Iraq will "rapidly devolve into a failed state". No money in that. Hence, the permanent US bases being built.
Shrub/Halliburton & Co. hope we never leave.

[Pepperbelly]

18. Our guys do not even control Baghdad.

You can't get from the Green Zone to the airport without a helicopter.

[leesa]

19. It IS a failed state. Where've ya been?

WE are the enemy in Iraq WE are the bad guys. There is absolutely NOTHING good that a US presence will produce.

Bring in the UN to assist them and get every troop out now and EVERY US business.

Send in the transport planes today and bring them home.

[Cascadian]

29. The "we broke it, we must fix it." excuse does not wash!

Just get our people home and let the Iraqis sort themselves out. If they need help, I am sure they will ask.


John

[ngGale]

25. It is a failed state and adding more troops will not help ...

it's a losing situation. You know, the women in Iraq wore western clothes in the 60's? What the hell happened, could it be all the outside forces wanting their oil. Seems they did better on their own and they will again when we leave. It's their only hope, for us to get out so they can rebuild their lives. Read a post on Riverbend or one of those blogs, she said they could solve this themselves. We make more trouble for them, they prefer in fighting - it's their culture, they are use to that.

[Cascadian]

27. It's already a failed state!

And it's our fault that it is that way. Wake up! Iraqis do not want us there and it's time to get our men and women home. This has been a disaster when it started and it is still a disaster. What do we have to gain in staying?


John

[deutsey]

32. Bingo. And our presence there only continues to inflame the region

[jonnyblitz]

28. you are describing what it is with us there. nt

[Cascadian]

30. These crazy Islamic terrorists would not want to kill us if...

we just got our asses out of the Middle East!


John

[rman]

34. So it's not a breeding ground for terrorists now?

Could have fooled me.

[smoogatz]

40. Well, of course it is.

But our national security may hinge on whether or not it remains one. Wouldn't allowing Iraq to devolve into pre-9/11 Afghanistan x 10 be a bad thing? Regardless of how or why we got into Iraq, and the mess we've made there since the invasion, doesn't the security nightmare we've created in Iraq narrow our options considerably? Our security aside, couldn't an all-out Iraqi civil war turn into a blood-bath of Cambodian/Rwandan proportions? Do we really want to stand by and let a humanitarian disaster (of our making) unfold completely unchecked? What happened to our DU concern for innocent Iraqi civilians? I'm just not convinced that getting out now--as attractive as it sounds in many regards--is the responsible course of action.

[rman]

42. The nightmare was created by going there,

it is the 'liberation' that created more terrorism.

How is more liberation going to reduce the terrorism?

I bet the neocons do want to keep a check on the further unfolding of the humanitarian disaster in the ME.

[confludemocrat]

36. novel concept: Iraqis need to solve this problem we created, not us

We are incapable, it has been shown repeatedly. They know better how to run their country. They will eventually sort it out by popular sovereignty We could say we did our part in getting Saddam out (even though he was no threat anyway) and get out and leave them alone and await their rightful call for reparations later.

We still owe Vietnam alot of bucks. They will soon prefer it in Euros.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Iraq is a failed state TODAY, all thanks to us!

The US has bombed Iraq into the stone age. There are no jobs, no running water, and electricity is sporadic at best.

Think of America as a rapist that keeps insisting that the best thing we can do for the rape victim is to allow the rapist to continue his sexual assault in order to help the victim get over it.

The Hoover Institute is a rightwing think tank.

[TheFarseer]

38. At worst it will be a failed state

at best it will be a secular dictatorship. Wow, that sounds alot like something. Oh yeah, that's what it was before we got there! Most likely it will be a theocratic dictatorship, which is somewhat worse than we found it, about 2000 dead and 15,000 disabled Americans ago. Gee, invading Iraq was sure a great idea.

[chaumont58]

45. Hoover Institute (presumably a right-wing think tank)

The Hoover Institute is definitely a right wing think tank, and has been for years.
Iraq was a cobbled together nation in the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire. Shias, Sunnis, Kurds have more loyalty to their own brand of religion or ethnic identity than the 'nation of Iraq.' chimpie was definitely a fool to go in. I think Ahmed Chalabai sold Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et al, a bill of goods. It didn't cost Chalabai a thing and he could have gotten a nation. Of course, he would have to suppress just like Saddam, but, hey, can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
A question is who pays for chimpie's mistake. He doesn't. Our young men and women do. The ones that survive unwounded will be mentally traumatized for years to come.
If the US Army stays for two years, or more, would it reverse feelings that are centuries old? The animosity or antipathy between the Sunnis, Kurds, Shias wasn't created during Saddam's reign. So another question is: Is it worth getting more American soldiers killed for something that in all likelihood won't work anyway? For a GI, the stakes couldn't be higher. For the fake ass Metternichs inside the beltway, it will be: Oh well, next question!