Can we stabilize Iraq?

[Bushknew]

Going to war with Iraq will go down as one of the worst decisions in American History, a decision many Democrats supported.

How is it possible to consider any of those Democrats for the Presidency?

For me, it’s an automatic disqualification.

Yet, many Democrats still support the war on the basis that we have an
obligation to the people of Iraq to stabilize their country.

I disagree with them.

We can not stabilize THEIR country.

[Monkeyman]

1. Hell we can't stabilize our own Country with the divider

[Poll_Blind]

2. The ones who publicly state that they were wrong I hold little against.

The ones who still support it should be publicly shamed. I have a suspicion that those Democrats who do still publicly support the war will have a speedy change of heart (if they intend on running for Democratic presidential nominee) between now and the elections.

PB

[Bushknew]

3. I think it’s going to get worse before it gets better ....

I think it’s going to get worse before it gets better, regardless if we’re there or not.

Iran and Syria will always have influence on this new Iraq.

Our occupation can only inflame tension in the region.

What a mess.

[AJ9000]

4. No. We don't have the troop strength, nor the political will at this point.

The US is now part of the problem as the insurgency, and the attacks by outside jihadists, are fueled by our presence.

When the US finally leaves, the citizens of Iraq will kick the jihadists out, and the insurgency will die of natural causes.

It will then be up to the people Iraq to settle their own affairs.

[Bushknew]

7. Well, Bush is sending more troops so ...

we have 2 more years of this experiment, unless we cut the funds.

[Kiouni]

5. We can't give up on them

entirely though, I don't support a military present but we cannot just leave them to die. Like it are not we are now responsible for these people.

[Bushknew]

8. What do we do then?

More of stay the course? Bush is pleading for both sides to end the violence.

They have issues I don’t think WE can resolve, plus our occupation in the region
doesn’t help either.

I don’t see an out.

[izzie]

6. I think the people of Iraq will have to want to do that.

I am willing to bet Bush will say they want our help but the big problem seems to be who are the ones to help? We can see a force of our culture at them has not worked at all.

[LanternWaste]

9. We=U.S.? No. We= U.N.? Maybe.

My opinion is this...

As long as the ME (and the vast majority of the world) perceives this conflict to be primarily nothing more than a U.S. war of cultural/petro-imperialism, there is absolutely zero hope that the region can become stable within the next 35-50 years (all other things being equal). It appears to me that we have done nothing but deepen the pre-established regional and religious divides. To put it another way, we've made an already bad situation much, much worse.

My armchair hypothesis to resolve the issue (or, at least to reduce the violence to its pre-U.S. invasion levels) is to ask the U.N. to assume military and political authority. This will...

a) Give legitimacy to a (mostly) world-wide mandate for the cessation of violence.
b) Reduce the appearance of a U.S.-only/U.S.-lead petro-political agenda.
c) Allow more voices into the debate of what the ultimate goal is and how to achieve it, thereby allowing more ideas and more choices.

d) Not specifically relevant, but still an advantage is that it may also engender the good-will of many of our allies that we've pissed off to one degree or another.


There seems to me to be no easy way out anymore. If American forces stays, the violence will only increase; if outside forces leave, the violence will only increase. If I take those two as posits, then the only other choice I see is to replace (or, replace to a great degree) the current (American) occupation force with an operational force which attracts much less hostility.