Juan Cole; "The ground troops must come out. Now."

[LynnTheDem]

The first reason to get the ground troops out now is that they are being fatally brutalized by their own treatment of Iraqi prisoners.

The second reason is that the ground troops are not accomplishing the mission given them, and are making things worse rather than better.

I conclude that the presence of the US ground troops is making things worse, not better.

Let's get them out, now, before they destroy any more cities, create any more hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, provoke any more ethnic hatreds by installing Shiite police in Fallujah or Kurdish troops in Turkmen Tal Afar. They are sowing a vast whirlwind, a desert sandstorm of Martian proportions, which future generations of Americans and Iraqis will reap.

The ground troops must come out. Now. For the good of Iraq. For the good of America.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/09/why-we-have-to-get-troops-out-of-iraq.html

Juan Cole, ya finally awoke. Good for you.

Thanks to eridani;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2159971&mesg_id=2160746

[oblivious]

1. Of course I agree with him,but there's the matter of who controls the oil.

And that, after all, is the whole point, not whether things are getting better or worse. Sad to say, as many peopel have pointed out here, the US military will never leave. Never. They will only retreat to their bases.

[Donna Zen]

2. Juan Cole: Two days after your example:

I should clarify that as several diarists noted, I do believe that the US has a duty to manage the withdrawal so as not to provoke a massive civil war. I suspect that can be done with a combination of continued training and arming of the new Iraqi army and air power. For those who say there is no way to prevent massive civil war and a million dead, I'd just suggest that that level of fatalism is not helpful or necessary or even perhaps moral. American liberals tend to believe that no form of military force is ever useful, which is rather an odd belief for non-pacifists and in light of the obvious usefulness it has had on a number of occasions in dealing with fascists, thugs and other people who use force and need to be opposed with force.

posted by Juan @ 9/27/2005 06:11:00 AM

I want out, you want out, and Juan Cole wants out. Of course, I believe that all of us would have stayed out in the first place. Nevertheless, Cole believes that the "civil war" and/or continuing violence can be controlled with air strikes, I am not in favor of that position. I also have come to believe that we are training and equiping the future perpetrators of genocide in Iraq along with the enforcers of subjection of women. But hell, he's the expert right?

[oblivious]

3. He's sort of setting up a strawman there, isn't he?

For those who say there is no way to prevent massive civil war and a million dead, I'd just suggest that that level of fatalism is not helpful or necessary or even perhaps moral. American liberals tend to believe that no form of military force is ever useful, which is rather an odd belief for non-pacifists

He presents a massive civil war and a million dead as a certainty if the US withdraws. There is absolutely no reason to believe that is so. He has pointed out in his earlier ramblings that there is nothing in Iraq's history to indicate this would happen. And if the feelings were that strong, why would they be any less strong five years later were the US to leave then.

I say someone got to Juan Cole this week. He was making sense earlier, but has bought the apologist line today.

[Boo Boo]

4. I don't think it's unfair to say that Cole has no expertise in the use

of air strikes, and it strikes me as a mighty big over reach to make a statement like that. Besides, what's he advocating? Who gets hammered? Which side are we on? For instance, would we be willing to bomb the Kurds? In Kosovo we had somebody/something to bomb; apparently Cole hasn't noticed that we ran of things to bomb in Iraq a long time ago.

Also, isn't he talking out both sides of his mouth on this? Side one: Get out now. Side two: train security forces before leaving. Those two seem in conflict with each other to me; and the second one is basically the Bush position, which is that "we'll stand down as the Iraqis stand up."

Clark stated that if we were not prepared to change course in Iraq immediately we would have no choice but to leave, because the American public would demand it, and deservedly so. Cole's basic position seems more or less equivalent to Clark's: the troops mission is untenable, they are making the situation worse, ergo we have to leave.

It would probably be better to try to save the situation, as Clark suggests, since the United States stands to pay dearly for Bushes strategic blunder for years to come, and there's always the chance a civil war might draw in other countries in the region... but I doubt that's going to happen, and I think we'll probably be leaving before too long.

Maybe Cole's point is that we can keep other countries out of an Iraqi civil war with air strikes? Or the threat of them? That might make some sort of sense, I guess, but the idea that we can control an Iraqi civil war with air strikes sounds bizarre.

[Donna Zen]

5. To posts 3 & 4

Cole may have talked to someone who knows "airstrikes" or maybe he is an expert; I don't know. I just remembered that two days after the article (I think it was from a kos interview) cited in OP, Cole came back and ammended his position to include airstrikes.

I have a problem with the concept, but then, targeting bombs is not my vocation or my advocation. So what do I know?

This entire discussion is weighing heavily on my mind, and Cole is someone I consult, among others, not for ready answers, but for information which might afford some understanding of bush's war.

Lynne posted an interesting piece about Cole yesterday providing information about his initial posturing.

I think Cole is trying to be careful, and thus, he has been digging deeply into what is going on.

Look, noone but this corrupt administration has control over the situation in Iraq etc. But it is up to all of us in the opposition to stay informed and to use our best judgement.

[Boo Boo]

6. "noone but this corrupt administration has control

over the situation in Iraq..."

Yup. Major problem. In my previous post, my comment "I don't think that's going to happen..." was in reference to the likelihood of us changing direction in the way that Clark has been calling for. A number of folks on DU seem to think Clark's view of Iraq is unrealistic; I'm not smart enough to make that sort of judgment, but, since his prescriptions are predicated on the people who made this mess, through insanely poor judgment, suddenly changing course and showing good judgment, I don't think we'll ever find out one way or the other.