How to "fix" Iraq? Is it even possible?

[Roland99]

http://www.conjur.com/blog/2005/09/27/how-to-fix-iraq-is-it-even-possible/



As for what I would do in Iraq, cutting and running is a BS term. We are currently in a no-win situation. We don't have enough combat troops in Iraq to properly secure the cities, much less the borders. Our own military commanders have said their missions are futile as the insurgents vacate the area and then come right back. Our presence in Iraq is one hellaciously costly game of Whack-a-Mole. And, there are a helluva lot more of them than there are of us.

Sending over more American troops or other "coalition" troops isn't an answer either. We'd have to send over at least triple what's there now and engage in very heavy-handed tactics that will result in massive casualties on each side. We'd have to be Katrina to Iraq. Not only will it be expensive in lives, but in dollars, as well. Dollars we no longer have to spend.


"Staying the course" isn't accomplishing us anything right now. The insurgents and the foreign fighters move about at will, jumping from city to city. Various cities within Iraq have also regressed to Taliban-like rule with very little freedom for the citizens of those cities (at least those that aren't killed for looking at someone wrong or not wearing a burqa or seen leaving a liquor store or....). We don't have enough troops in Iraq to maintain security and properly train the Iraqi security forces.

One thing not talked about much is the infiltration of the Iraqi government and the security forces by insurgents or people supportive of them. The CPA's disbanding of the entire Iraqi Army has come back to bite the provisional gov't in the ass...hard. And, treating the Sunnis and all Ba'athists as the enemy has been another mistake. These people held power for decades and were not going to run away and hide and take the new government lying down.

A second thing that doesn't get mentioned much is the billions of dollars that just up and disappeared. You can bank on a lot of that money going into the hands of the insurgency and elsewhere in addition to corrupt politicians and businessmen. The insurgency isn't hurting for cash.

Neither are they hurting for explosives and weaponry as the ammo dumps that went unguarded, like al Qaaqa, at the beginning of the invasion were looted of their wares and are now being used to kill our men and women in addition to innocent Iraqi civilians.

So, "staying the course" will not accomplish anything but increasing the body count of "coalition" troops as well as push us further into deficit spending.


No, the only option is a full withdrawal from Iraq. And I mean leaving behind the plans for permanent military bases, too. No Western military presence in Iraq. BUT, before we do that, it would be helpful if we could get *some* assurances from other Arab nations to help Iraq secure itself and to remove incentives for terrorists to flourish. It's time the Middle East began taking care of itself. They can't live in their own little world. They are part of global trade and need to step up their standing to be worthwhile global citizens. It's something this administration should have been pressing for from the outset instead of stupidly going to war based on trumped up and falsified intelligence.


Will there be a continued danger of terrorists flourishing for a while? Sure. But staying isn't going to change that either. Bush screwed the pooch...and he screwed it hard. It's time to set things on the best long-term approach and our military presence in the Mideast is not part of that solution.

[mike_c]

1. kicked and recommended....

I agree-- a full and immediate withdrawal is the only rational solution. I would only add that the MORAL solution would include following that withdrawal by reparations paid through the U.N. (or some other third party), and WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS at the ICC in The Hague for all the U.S. leaders responsible for the invasion, and all the war profiteers who've made off with billions.

[Roland99]

2. Can the ICC try the U.S. despite * withdrawing from it?

[mike_c]

7. only if the U.S. agrees....

That's why the moral response would be for the next American president to round up the current admin and a bunch of high ranking military and ship them in irons to The Hague. They simply cannot be tried here, where war criminals are routinely let off with slaps on the wrist or no punishment whatsoever.

[Roland99]

11. IANAL but we brought Germans before trial, couldn't the same be done now?

but for bringing the U.S. before trial without using the ICC?

[mike_c]

18. sure, but someone would have to vonvene a court...

...that Americans could be "brought" to. That's what the ICC already exists for.

[Roland99]

19. I don't care what court they're brought to. As long as they stand trial!

:evilgrin:

[maxsolomon]

3. i don't see the word 'OIL' in your analysis

we are there for 1 reason: to secure that oil for OUR EXCLUSIVE USE. without access to iraq's reserves now or in the near future, our economy is F'd. this administration will never withdraw. bush will not be impeached, and if he is, its not like Kucinic takes over. if withdrawal happens, it will be at least 2009.

[Roland99]

8. I purposely left out discussion of oil for a reason...

I'll start a new thread on it....


Here it is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2117941&mesg_id=2117941

[saigon68]

4. SHIT LIKE THIS LASTS A LONG TIME in the minds of the Natives

[calimary]

5. There is no way to "fix" Iraq. Throwing more money, which we don't

have in the first place, as you pointed out here) and troops (yeah, you betcha - be the first one on YOUR block to have your boy come home in a box) as the war grows more unpopular with the voters and some pandering politicians start paying attention to poll results on this issue - are just NOT available options.

It's a black hole with meatgrinders lining the sides. All we're doing over there is keeping a scab picked so it keeps oozing and spreading and growing more and more infected. The only way to let Iraq even START to heal is by pulling out that element which is picking the scab. ONLY THEN can it start to heal. And unfortunately, what we've set it up to heal into is an Islamic republic with ties to Iran - something our government has allegedly tried to prevent.

Just a complete pigfuck. This is one of the results you get when the let's-play-dress-up chickenhawks who wanna look like tough-guys to the world set this up and run it - those who never went to war, never enlisted, never submitted to the draft, never wore their country's uniform, never saw combat, never performed a single drill exercise, never schlepped their families around from base to base and forced them to do all their shopping at some PX, never experienced the battlefield close-up, never knew what it was to make that kind of sacrifice to their country, never studied "the operational art" - as Norman Schwarzkopf put it in assessing Saddam Hussein as a warrior.

If there was any justice, in the next life, they'd all get to learn about life as "collateral damage" in some other monster's war.

[hlthe2b]

6. Here's a start: 1. Impeach Bush* and all his crony cabinet...

to show the world we no longer accept the lies nor condone the actions
2. Put someone in with diplomatic skills, intelligence, sincerity, and understanding of the complexities.

Along with this convene a very large independent investigative pannel to complete investigations over the next years of ALL the major scandals of this administration, in order to ensure the truth gets out to our own people and to show the world we are taking responsibility for rebuilding our own democracy.

3. Convene a strong diplomatic corp to bring the Arab countries to the table to develop a pan-Arab solution, which would include Arab nations across the region immediately coming into provide security/financial support, coincident with US withdrawal.

4. Pour that $$ we are sending to Iraq into Katrina recovery AND an alternate energy source imperative.

5. Require employers to develop comprehensive plans to reduce energy consumption,through structured carpooling, encouragement of telecommuting, subsidized mass transit, etc....

6. COmprehensive energy plan, ah lah Jimmy Carter. Had we followed his intiatives, we would have (at a minimum) have reduced 20% of fossil fuel consumption with solar initiatives by 2000...

[barbaraann]

9. Some Karbala pilgrims:

This is not just the usual Civil War.

[GayCanuck]

10. Get out now!

For a lot of reasons. That culture seems so warped around religion and as we've seen in the US, bush is warped around religion; no hope there either.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Considering the leadership

I agree, that there is no "saving" Iraq nor is there a "victory" in the hallways of the non strategies offered by this administration.

That being said, I do believe that it is in Dems' best interest to offer up plans.....no matter that they will not be implemented. In this way, Dems will be able to repel the "Cut and Run" label...that although is bullshit in itself, could stick to Dems running for congress in 2006, as the media is not on our side in this. Remember that they have awsome power, no matter whether we think so or not. They would only have to substain certain perceptions until after the election....and then they can tell us to kiss their asses, e.g., Election 2004.

It's not about facts with this administration and this media...its about perception and how "they" will propagandize the stance of Democrats no matter how untrue, slanted, biased, or otherwise. Unfortunately we cannot underestimate their power.

In a world of "fair" media, Dem leaders could demand that we leave immediately considering that there are excellent reasons to do this....but considering that our calls will only be answered by political manipulation, we would be fools to step into the trap set for us..... we cannot lose sight of an appropriate political strategy to regain power in 2006...which is when we will be able to demand what we want, and actually see it happen.

Possible scenarios that we should not want to see:
1. Bush hears the call for "Immediate Withdrawals" and heeds the public outcry and starts to "withdraw" some troops just prior to the 2006 election (say Sept...which is when the GOP new election product line seem to appear)....using twisted rational and some PR media fanfare- This leaves congressional Dem candidates who could use this issue running on empty. After the election, Bush re-introduces troups and claims that we need them there...and goes about his business once again.
2. Bush ignores the public call for immediate withdrawal, and the media continues to state that Democrats have no alternative plan beyond cutting and running, which then Democrats are forced to explain...but with slanted news coverage that will make them look bad in the end. Don't think the media will not work overtime creating this image.
3. Bush says F*ck the clamor and initiates another crisis elsewhere to distract from Iraq concerns....like Syria or Iran.


Scenario that would work to our advantage:
1. Democrats offer up various plans on strategies that sound plausible, but offer the caveat that if the administration does not change it's course, then Dems are justified in demanding a way out as immediately as possible.
2. Democrats demand that American Bases in Iraq be turned over to the Iraqis, and that we either turn to a diplomatic solution, or get the F*ck out.
3. "Do this or get out" will work better than the simpler "out".


Whatever happens, we must not lose sight that we only have the power of the people's voices...which can be shut down fairly easily by the media. We must gain power back in order to call the shots. At this point in time attempting to demand "immediate" withdrawal may hurt us more than we have actually determined....and considering that none of what we want will happen in the way that we want it too, wanting to do the "right" thing may become a dangerous political exercise, no matter how "correct" it might seem.

This is Big Boy Time.....as far as I can tell. Political shrewness is definitely required for Dems to come out as the winners in this all around losing scenario.

[Roland99]

13. I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

The Dems need to be more than a party of opposition. They need to be a party of solutions to fix the problems of the GOP.

Trouble is, we don't have a strong Dem leader to be the best candidate in '08. Although, Gov. Warner is making waves but his Bilderberg association rubs me the wrong way.

I guess the focus should be on '06 and then, after that and hopefully after the Dems regain one of the Houses, they step up the diplomacy with other Arab nations and push harder and harder on the WH to withdraw and give up the permanent military bases in Iraq.


It was, after all, our military presence in Saudi Arabia that swing bin Laden toward attacking us.

[welshTerrier2]

15. "political shrewdness"

a recent NY Time/CBS poll showed that 52% of the American people want "immediate withdrawal" from Iraq ... that percentage is likely to grow; not shrink as the dying and suffering just drags on and on and on and on ...

you're absolutely right that republicans will try to paint Democrats in a negative light ... but does that mean it would NOT be "politically shrewd" to push a position that the majority of Americans support ??

in fact, I think that's exactly how the Democrats should announce their calls for withdrawal ... they should point to public opinion polls and state that the American people are wise and they understand that no progress is being made in Iraq after 30 months of war and occupation .... i'm no politician but representing the majority view sounds like pretty good politics to me ...

and Democrats should call for far more than just withdrawal ... we need a post-withdrawal plan that makes sense to Americans and focusses on making Americans safer by doing the right thing in the Middle East ... here I support Clark's call for regional diplomacy ... by building a post-withdrawal regional infrastructure and getting our troops off "sacred Muslim lands", perhaps we can begin to rebuild the damage bush's imperialistic policies have caused ... the "cut and run" label is bullshit ...

finally, i wanted to comment on your statement that "We must gain power back in order to call the shots." ... while there is obviously an element of truth there, i think it's important not to minimize the power of building our case against the occupation ... i've seen numerous articles talking about how the republicans are getting nervous and how they are discussing possible alternatives to the current approach ... and i'm aware that intensive talks about Iraq are going on among Democrats as well ...

this is a very welcome and important change ... the will of the people, the 52% who support immediate withdrawal, is a very real force ... it's causing changes ... no one in Washington is going to want the Iraq albatross around their necks going into 2006 ... and all of this change is happening with the same republican majority in power ... you're right to point out that we don't have the votes to force a change in policy but we sure as hell have plenty of power if we continuue to organize and fight to stop the war ...

[FrenchieCat]

17. I respectfully think that your "blinders" are showing.....

in the type of sway via manipulation the Republicans have going for them. It ain't called "corporate" media for nothin'. As I sit and watch the "rehabilitation" of George Bush's handling of Katrina via my Teevee...and watching the media use Trina to do this....I know better than to trust that the media will not silence our voice when we most need for them to be heard.

So in restating my case.....

"change or out" is better than "out" by its lonesome self...cause it achieves two purposes instead of one....and it allows concensus on a solid Dem position that the just "out" doesn't. Having more than one dimension cannot hurt....and in fact can only assist us in uniting for a message that could possibly get through and be a difficult one to criticize.

Also note that 52% is not a big majority....and that the voting public and those who take these polls are not in the same numbers.

I just think that caution is required here...because I see more accomplished with a strategy that incorporates covering all of the bases as opposed to going for broke.

I can no longer be an optimist when it comes to American politics. If something wrong can happen it will. I see a two prong plan as a safer road to travel to victory for the Dems than advocating a position that will only bring a certain portion of the dems on board.

[Roland99]

20. There are too many Dems that won't go back on their Yes vote on Iraq.

We need to handhold them a bit.

[gratuitous]

14. It's possible, just not bloody likely

For one, as mentioned before, it would first take the U.S. ceding control over Iraq and what Iraq is to become. In addition, under the "you broke it, you bought it" school of thought, the U.S. and its coalition allies would have to commit to the interim funding of a lot of what Iraq is to become.

Handing over money without getting to dictate where and how it's used is anathema to our country, and to the Republican mindset in particular -- it's why Republicans hate funding social programs that they don't receive the benefit from. Further, they whip up general resentment against such programs, even among its direct and secondary beneficiaries (social security, aid to families, food stamps, etc.) while making people think ludicrous things like the estate tax directly affects them.

The original poster mentioned that it's time the Middle East "began taking care of itself." That's pretty hard to do for countries that were drawn up by the whim of an Englishman's pen and in whose internal affairs the West has meddled for the better part of the last 100 years. The United States' recent work in arming equally both sides of the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s is bearing the bitter fruit of today's situation. But you're right: Our military presence is not part of the solution.

Some years ago, United States foreign policy made big use of treaty organizations. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was one of the most prominent, but we also participated in the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Organization of American States (OAS). Perhaps it's time to consider a Middle East Treaty Organization in which the various nations in the Middle East negotiate and conduct their regional affairs with some advice and assistance from the United Nations.

If the peoples of the area were brought into the negotiating room and the monied interests sequestered outside to cool their heels, we might see the formation of a new Middle East take shape. Unfortunately, there are big money arms dealers, oil companies and other robbers and thugs for whom continued conflict represents big profits, and they contribute heavily to corrupt governments (including the United States) to make sure that the pot remains stirred with resentment and plans for revenge.

Who will be brave enough and principled enough to allow the people of the region order their own affairs? There's only one political entity strong enough to do such a thing. Unfortunately, George W. Bush's dedication to freedom and democracy goes only as far as mouthing platitudes about those words. He has no desire to actually bring them about or to trust the people of the region to work it out for themselves.

[Roland99]

16. The Middle East has had an identity for going on a half-century, at least.

The rise in importance of OPEC and as Coastie for Truth has mentioned in my other thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2117941
there are other modern industries thriving in parts of the Middle East.

You bring up a good point of a SEATO/OAS style organization. That would seem to be a logical next step in the progression of moving the Middle Eastern nations to democracy. It sure as hell is a far better solution than bombing into democracy.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Kurdistan. Sunnistan. Shiastan.

[Cosmocat]

22. The truth will set you free ...

The whole thing is built on a lie ... And, NO resolution that does not start with clearing it up can be successful ... You cannot even BEGIN to think about what else to do until that lie is cleared ...

While 40% of america remains in this bizarre fog that leads them to believe that "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here ..." The entire rest of the world, and more importantly the IRAQI PEOPLE know that there were no WMD and no ties to terror aimed the US ... We are fooling NO ONE outside of the american nazi party ...

EVERYTHING is geared around avoiding the BIG FAT TRUTH that lies right in front of everyone's faces ... NOTHING can progress until our country fesses up ... Iraq was invaded because it was part of the PNAC agenda, and secondarily for war profiteering ...

Call it for what it is, and only THEN can we know what to do over there ...

[Roland99]

23. And this country will never "fess up".