The Only Reasonable Solution to the Iraq Debacle Is...

[smoogatz]

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Rush Holt plan: Start widthdrawal on 10/16

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/7/141011/9208

[trotsky]

2. When G.W. Dipshit leaves office,

dump him in Iraq and let him figure it out. Hell, give him Cheney to help.

[HereSince1628]

3. The US has soured on the war, the plan is to end it as an issue

by 2006 and if not then for God's sake by 2008.

It can go away as a political issue if some other news story overtakes it (US invades Iran?).

It can go away as a political issue if the Iraq civil war ends (not likely by 2006 or 2008)

It can go away as an issue in American politics if the US departs.

Possibly other scenarios as well, but which of these look like something that Cheney and the Neocons would accept?

[LynnTheDem]

4. I call it DOING WHAT THE IRAQIS WANT plan;

US the fuck out. NOW.

And then a worldwide public apology and financial reparations made to Iraq.

This "civil war if we leave" crap is just that. Crap.

[smoogatz]

5. Civil war regardless/already.

The question is, does it shift gears from a low-intensity (relatively speaking) conflict to a full-on bloodbath if we leave, with Iranian and Syrian proxy armies (and maybe Iranian and Syrian troops) fighting for control of the oilfields. Worst case, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other neighboring states are also drawn into the conflict, which could literally start WWIII. Now that we've opened Pandora's box, don't we have any responsibility to clean up the mess?

[LynnTheDem]

6. I disagree with you.

1. It's not a civil war. Yet.

2. Our being there will cause a civil war.

3. If a civil war does break out when (if) we leave, that's the business of the Iraqi people, not ours.

4. We can't prevent any civil war anyways. Especially when we are the problem.

5. Bottom line; the vast majority of Iraqis want us OUT as of 2.5 years ago.

The biggest responsibility we have is to JUST FOR ONCE do what the majority of Iraqis want; STOP THE OCCUPATION and get the hell out of THEIR country.

We CAN'T "clean up the mess"...we ARE the mess. Everything else is just "white man's burden" bullshit.

I'll remain with the Iraqi majority; GET OUT.

[LynnTheDem]

7. He says it much better..."Why Immediate Withdrawal Makes Sense"

Why Immediate Withdrawal Makes Sense

1.The U.S. military is already killing more civilian Iraqis than would likely die in any threatened civil war; (Nb: Iraqis themselves say the same thing)

2.The U.S. presence is actually aggravating terrorist (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, not suppressing it; (Nb: even the US Generals on the ground recently admitted this to be true; Iraqis agree)

3.Much of the current terrorist violence would be likely to subside if the U.S. left; (yeppers)

4.The longer the U.S. stays, the more likely that scenarios involving an authentic civil war will prove accurate. (duh no kidding)

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0922-32.htm

[barb162]

15. point 1 is incorrect; the insurgents are actually killing more Iraqis

now than we are and on point 3...I suspect the terrorist violence wouldn't subside if we left. I think it will get much, much worse.

I think there's a good chance of a civil war whether we stay or go. Our presence there is so slight, we really don't control anything but the green zone and not even a lot of that. There is no way we can effectively control that country, we'd need a fe million troops and I wonder if even that would do the job.

[LynnTheDem]

17. Read WHY.

We're the reason Iraqis are killing Iraqis.

[smoogatz]

18. I think that's only partly true.

There's a lot of sectarian division along religious lines, and a lot of animosity left over from Saddam's rule. The Shi'a have good reason to hate the Ba'athists; the Ba'athists have good reason to fear the Shi'a. We certainly didn't create those issues--we just created the power vacuum that's allowing them to surface in violent ways.

[LynnTheDem]

21. that's not quite true; that's what the US M$M has been saying for years

but it's not the case.

Many SHIA were Ba'athists, and the one thing Hussein worked hard on was integrating Sunni, Shia and Kurds.

Iraqis are TRIBAL and almost every tribe has Shia AND Sunni branches. Sunni & Shia in Iraq have inter-married etc together for centuries.

They divide along tribal lines, not along sectarian lines.

I can pull out a bunch of links for you on this topic if you'd like.

[barb162]

23. Not just US sources; many Mideast links too

THIS STUFF IS TERRORISM PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Who gets control of the country? Who gets to put in the Great Caliphate? Who has an interest in seeing Iraq go down the tubes? Who is doing suicide bombing? Not secular baathists or other secularists.

[LynnTheDem]

25. Sorry but I disagree with you.

It's nothing to do with seeing "Iraq go down the tubes".

Have a good day. :)

[barb162]

22. way way too simple

it's tribal, clans, religious differences, who gets ultimate control, etc. Would you explain why they killed the teacher today? Because we're there? How does killing a teacher help the country? Killing MDs?

When we occupied Japan, did they kill their own teachers?

[LynnTheDem]

24. Japan is nothing whatsoever like Iraq. There is absolutely no

way to compare the two in any way, shape or form.

Because we're there, you bet. That is the #1 reason for the carnage. And anyone collaborating with us will be a target.

Other reasons are the same as here; criminals, revenge, etc.

We are the problem. We will always be the problem as long as we're there. We will never be the solution.

It is that simple.

[barb162]

26. There's a power vacuum there now and the US doesn't fill it.

The terrorists are taking advantage of that. It has less and less to do with the US being there and more and more to do with who gets control of the country and/ or how it is split up in the end. You are oversimplifying that it's only the US that's causing this. The divisions in that country go way, way back before the British were ever there. Goodbye

[barb162]

27. "Because we're there, you bet.

That is the #1 reason for the carnage." If OCCUPATION is the answer, the number 1 reason, then occupation in Japan (Germany, etc) should have caused the same result. It didn't! Compare the countries that were occupied...what's the differences? How did Japan go on to become an economic powerhouse? Why didn't Japan suicide bomb our occupation? What's the diff with Iraq society and foreign terrorists these days? Don't fixate on the occupation, because then all occupations should have the same result. They don't. Look for answers elsewhere.

[smoogatz]

10. I'm honestly not sure what I think.

I don't think this is a case of "white man's burden"--we did invade, disband the Iraqi army and create a gaping power vacuum, after all. And there's no question that Iraq's ba'athist remnant has allied itself with Syria, while the Shi'a militias are getting support from Iran. When Bush says "we don't want the terrorists to get the oil," he means, "we don't want Iran to get the oil." They'll try, which could create a free-for-all oil grab scenario that draws in Turkey and everybody else in the region with an army. I wish we could turn back the clock and have the 2000 election over again, knowing what we know now. But that's not an option. I don't know--maybe you're right and buggering off is the best of a number of bad options.

[LynnTheDem]

11. Isn't what the IRAQIS want the most important thing?

Your guilt, or my guilt over what we've done...THEY DON'T CARE. Why should they?

They want us GONE. Period.

What we do or don't want or think or feel is of no importance whatsoever. We forfeited any such right the day we did what the Nuremburg Tribunal called "the supreme crime".

[smoogatz]

12. I'm talking about the possibility of WWIII

You're talking about guilt. Why do I feel that we're not communicating?

[LynnTheDem]

13. WWIII?

Bullshit.

The longer we stay, the more possible that becomes.

[smoogatz]

14. I hope you're right, Lynn.

But Iraq's sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves. If we leave now, it will have no government and no army, for all intents and purposes. Turkey, Syria and Iran all have their eye on that gigantic pool of black gold--not to mention Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi Ba'athists and the Shi'a militias are itching for a fight--they are proxy armies for Syria and Iran, respectively. When the fur begins to fly in earnest, how long before Iraq's neighbors begin to annex a little bit of territory here and a little bit there? You think it's bullshit? I hope you're right, but I don't have any reason to think you are.

[LynnTheDem]

16. WE are the problem. We will never be the solution.

It's that simple.

We cannot prevent a civil war in Iraq.

We cannot prevent any "WWIII".

We can't even keep the most highly fortified "Green" zone in the world safe.

We give OBL street cred by our being in Iraq.

We give "Zarqawi" street cred by our being in Iraq.

Every imperialist invader has used the "we can't leave, it'll be war and chaos" excuse. I kid you not. Including Britain when they tried their first occupation of Iraq. Including Germany during WWII.

[smoogatz]

19. All true.

And you're right--there's probably next to nothing we can do to prevent all hell from breaking loose in Iraq. What a colossal clusterfuck.

[LynnTheDem]

20. "What a colossal clusterfuck."

Oh yeah, I hear ya there. God help us all.

[barb162]

28. I don't think we can possibly clean it up anymore.

We don't have the money or the manpower to keep fixing things and having them blown up the next night. And then the next night....

Also we have no capability to clean out the factions who are fighting for control. Like Nam in that respect

[Mabus]

8. Until we actually have an administration that is truthful....

The ones in the best position to know what the truth is - what's going on, who's an insurgent who isn't, where the money is going, etc, etc. - aren't sharing the information with the rest of us. Hell, I think they're lying to each other.

Until we have an administration that can honestly make an assessment of what is going on - without being waylaid by clinking coins in their own coffers - I don't think we can make correct decisions.

Personally, I want the troops out but at the same time I recognize that we have fucked the country up and we owe the Iraqi people more than just cutting and running.

[bunkerbuster1]

9. Whatever course makes the Reeps look like crap, and us look good.

yes, I am that cynical.

The Reeps are happy to put innocent lives at risk for political gain. Why should they have all the fun?

[Jai4WKC08]

29. Why didn't you include the Clark plan?

Since he's the only one who really has one.

It's "change the course," not "stay the course." You can read the basic premise in Clark's WaPo editorial, "Before It's Too Late In Iraq" at:
http://securingamerica.com/node/253

Nothing against Feingold, but setting a time-line with no milestones or method of how to get out may be a great policy objective, but it's not much of a plan.

In any case, what's more important about Clark's plan is that it has as much to do with taking back Congress as it does salvaging Iraq, since he knows there's ZERO chance of BushCo taking his advice. And winning Congress is the only way we're gonna have any say at all about what happens in Iraq or anywhere else.

Thankfully, at least some people are listening to what Clark has to say. The following is an excerpt from Roll Call:

September 22, 2005

After hearing a presentation from retired Gen. Wesley Clark on Tuesday night, a bloc of House Democrats who have been calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq admitted Clark’s comments are prompting them to take a new look at the issue.

Clark met privately with the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus to give them his perspective on the ongoing conflict and offer advice on how Democrats should frame their arguments for bringing troops home. His call: Avoid specific timelines for withdrawal and focus instead on calling for and developing strategies for success that rely not on the military, but on diplomacy.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who formed the Out of Iraq Caucus, said Clark gave the group “good recommendations” about how to move forward in talking about bringing an end to the war and developing a strategy to bring home U.S. forces. The Out of Iraq Caucus is developing a strategic plan on the matter to be released in the coming months.

“I think he gave us some more to think about, and more to think about in this whole area of diplomacy,” she said. “He gave us good recommendations that we can form a consensus around.”

“What he did was refocus me, and all of us, in coming up with a plan for diplomacy,” Waters added. “We decided we would get together and talk about and formulate a plan based on what he told us to lead this country and pressure this administration on the diplomatic issues that it hasn’t been involved in.”

More at:
http://securingamerica.com/node/260

[TrogL]

30. Divide it up

One chunk for each of the three ethnic groups. Granted this puts the Sunnis in a bad position so maybe there will have to be an international cartel controlled by all three to market the oil.

[barb162]

31. That sounds like the only logical solution

although every time one brings it up all you hear about is Turkey will screw the Kurds, Iran will take over the Shiite partition, the Sunnis will be pissed becaue they have no oil, blah, blah. I think that's what will happen anyway. There may be war for the next 50 years there between the Sunnis and Shiites.

[LynnTheDem]

32. Even though the majority of Iraqis oppose dividing their country up.

Well hell, not like we give a fuck what the Iraqis want, and God knows only we know what's best for them.

[Fire Walk With Me]

33. Do Iraq without using US taxpayer dollars. We'll see just how humanitarian

BushCo are in a real hurry, if the money dries up.