Peace will come if we leave Iraq

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060712/OPINIONS03/607120313/1006/OPINIONS

<snip>I am firmly convinced that if all the American troops and those of our allies were to leave Iraq, the senseless killing of Shiite and Sunni civilians would cease and that nation would regain a sense of quiet peacefulness. When we went to war with Iraq the killing began and will not cease until we leave. Do not blame this war on Saddam. He didn't start it!

Remember when we left Vietnam, peace came to that country and still exists there. Let's do it again, for the sake of our military personnel and for those of our families who will follow us for years to come. It's what is best for us and Iraq.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Since we are the Occupying Power

If we can't provide law and order for 25 million people, then we need to get the hell out of their country.

Yes, I think things would settle down alot, if we got out of there and stopped Negroponte's goons.

[meisje]

2. There's no money in peace

[lonestarnot]

24. exactly! No money in peace!

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. THerefore peace will never come, because we aren't going anywhere.

We're in Iraq for keeps, at least in some shape or form.

[Mnemosyne]

4. K and R n/t

[adwon]

5. Doubtful

Once a wave of killing like this starts, the only thing that ends it is either utter victory or exhaustion.

Peace did not come to Vietnam after the US left. South Vietnam was conquered forcibly by the totalitarian North. I consider that stretching the definition of peace rather thin.

[Mr_Spock]

9. But the peace that eventually comes will be their own

...and that's the part the Bushco does not get about democracy. It. Can. NOT. Be. Imposed!

[adwon]

10. Still a stretch

As a hypothetical, let's imagine the US pulls out by January 1, 2007. What happens then? The killing goes on and the Iraqi government becomes weaker. As it becomes weaker, a power vacuum is created. Who fills that vacuum?

I am seriously beginning to wonder whether the US has a choice in leaving. I suspect we've got our hand too far in the cookie jar and now we're stuck. Pulling out seems likely to encourage more instability due to the likely intervention of Iraq's neighbors (covert or overt). Greater instability in that particular region is not what we need at this point. To my mind, it's quickly becoming a choice between two really big evils.

Oh, democracy can be imposed. Germany and Japan are two examples. The argument, to me, is not can it be, but should it be. My answer is no, as I do not recall ever voting for anyone who promised to bring good government to foreigners.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Iraqi government (puppets) and collaborators will have to leave when we do

Just like in Vietnam. And yes someone will fill the vacuum that we leave. And yes that someone probably will not be Americas best friend. But everything will work itself out over time. Just like Vietnam.

And Germany and Japan are not very good examples of us imposing democracy either. We still have tens of thousands of soldiers occupying those two countries. None in Vietnam though.

And it wouldn't feel much like living in a democracy if we had tens of thousands of foreign troops positioned here in America.

Don

[adwon]

16. So wish for the best?

Vietnam has not worked itself out. It's still a terribly repressive government that allows some economic freedom. That government still has the blood of thousands, if not millions, on its hands.

We do not have soldiers 'occupying' Germany and Japan. If we did, Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik and Japan's threats to join the Communist bloc never would have occurred. The fact those countries felt quite free to disagree with the US then, and still do, tends to refute the occupation argument.

What happens if a hostile power fills that vacuum? What if, for fun, they decide to ratchet up the price of oil? What effect would that have on Americans? Not the Hummer-driving idiots, but the ordinary folks just trying to make a living and keep out of trouble? Those consequences are a hell of a lot more important to me than whether things 'work themselves out over time.'

We do have foreign soldiers positioned in America. They're called Republicans.

"The mode by which the inevitable comes to pass is effort." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[NNN0LHI]

17. You asked: What if, for fun, they decide to ratchet up the price of oil?

Isn't it their oil? Aren't they allowed to charge what they want for their oil? Or do you prefer Bush selling their oil for them at his price? For all we know the Iraqis might charge less for oil than Bush is. Have you ever considered that?

Don

[adwon]

18. Their oil?

I was using the hypothetical of a neighboring country either taking Iraq by force or by means of puppets. In either case, they'd be thieves in regards to the oil. Cute way of asking me if I still beat my wife.

The fact that our economy is ridiculously dependent upon a single commodity is sad, but true. That dependence, in the short term, is not likely to be reduced. Preventing a hostile power, or concerted action by a group, from taking control of the oil is a legitimate goal. The fact that such a power or group would have the ability to charge extortionate prices would weigh heavily upon our own people. Stability in that region, until the current administration, was chased after for decades, by hook or by crook. It was simply irrational to leave it swinging in the breeze.

My single point is that simply pulling out will not magically solve the current problems. Instability is likely to grow as potential targets have progressed beyond only American soldiers.

[NNN0LHI]

22. It sure as hell isn't our oil. Is it?

I may be concerned someone may come and steal my neighbors car. That doesn't give me the right to go over and steal it first. Does it?

Don

[adwon]

27. That's absurd

I'm sorry I brought up the hypo because I think you missed it. The question is no longer whether we should have gone into Iraq, but what to do now.

[Mr_Spock]

19. Welcome the 51st state then.

This is an utterly ridiculous situation. We better NEVER occupy another nation as long as I'm alive - this is fucking insanity. I could argue about pulling out and why we should, but it's pointless if this is your tact. It's time to bring our failed leaders before a court for crimes against humanity.

[adwon]

28. Um, ok

Argue away. My post clearly shows my own lack of decision on the issue.

[MadHound]

23. It matters not when we leave, nor what we do

Any government or institution set up under the auspices of the US will be considered illegal and illegit by the Iraqi people, and as soon as we leave it will be torn down, violently, and another government and set of institutions will be erected in its place. Yes, it will probably be more totalitarian than what we set up, but the key here is that it will be set up by the Iraqis, not an outside, imperial force.

This is a pattern repeated throughout history, and it will be repeated again whenever we leave Iraq. It is a certainty, thus why not leave now and minimize the killing and destruction? Seems to make sense to me:shrug:

[adwon]

29. This avoids one question

What if the killing and mayhem lead to regional instability? What then?

I am not arguing that pulling out of Iraq is necessarily a bad thing. I asking whether anyone has considered a Plan B. If you pull out and the region catches fire, what to do then?

A new government may not come so quickly. Consider Somalia.

[MadHound]

33. Well, look at the news

Look around the ME. It is starting to catch fire because of our very presence there. Iraq was not a terrorist state before we went in, but has turned into one as a direct result of our ongoing presence. Iran was actually making progress away from being a state sponsorer of terrorism, and was also making progress towards being a secular, or at least much less religiously controlled country. But when Bushco rattled the saber and included Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" the Iranian people responded by becoming less secular, less pro-Western, much more militant and nationalistic.

And let's not even get into the Israel, Palestine, Lebanon mess. The actions of the US has indirectly led to more instablity and violence there.

So if ongoing US presence isn't bringing a cessation of violence, and is in fact increasing instability and violence in the region, perhaps we should try another tact, like pulling out now:shrug:

[rockymountaindem]

26. Japan and Germany are poor examples

of the "imposition" of democracy because both had been democratic countries within the living memory of most of the voting population. Germany had the Weimar Republic during the 1920s, which despite its many many flaws did feature an inclusive multi-party democratic system. Japan, similarly, also had a vibrant democracy during the "Taisho" period of the 1920s, which was a democratic regime by any standard and did not feature the out-and-out political streetfighting of the Weimar regime. Although both were overcome by authoritarian regimes, when the Allies resurrected democracy in Germany and Japan, the notion of democracy was not an alien one. It merely represented reverting to the old, pre-dictatorship ways.

Iraq, on the contrary, has been a colony or a dictatorship for the last 100 years. The soil for a new democracy there is much less fertile than in the postwar axis states.

[adwon]

30. Poor examples, yes

I cited them only as evidence to contradict the assertion that 'democracy cannot be imposed.' You're right when, in essence, you point out that it's a case by case situation.

[HereSince1628]

6. IIRC, Vietnam wasn't so peaceful after the US pulled out of the war

The civil war went on for almost 2 years and after that Vietnam engaged in battles with several of its neighbors. I'm not saying Iraq would do the same, rather pointing out what would be missing history that somewhat changes the calculus of your comment.

Peace within Vietnam was established after Saigon fell and the south surrendered. If I remember that correctly, the US ceasefire and US demilitarization began February of 1973 and the fall of Saigon was in April of 1975.

[NNN0LHI]

25. 1975: Saigon surrenders

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/30/newsid_2498000/2498441.stm

The war in Vietnam ended today as the government in Saigon announced its unconditional surrender to North Vietnamese forces.

The President, Duong Van Minh, who has been in office for just three days, made the announcement in a radio broadcast to the nation early this morning. He asked his forces to lay down their arms and called on the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong to halt all hostilities.

In a direct appeal to the Communist forces, he said: "We are here to hand over to you the power in order to avoid bloodshed."

The announcement was followed swiftly by the arrival of North Vietnamese troops. Their entrance was virtually unopposed, confounding predictions of a bloody and protracted last-ditch battle for the city.

War ends

The front line of tanks smashed through the gates of the presidential palace within minutes, and at 1130 local time (0330 GMT), decades of war came to an end.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. At least our part of the killing will cease if we leave.

As utterly inept as our military is in dealing with an insurgency, it is even more inept at stopping the civil war it started and enables.

[Warpy]

8. I disagree with the article

in that IMO the violence will escalate sharply as we leave and for some time thereafter. We've left that country with a power vacuum and filled it with puppets. Likely the civil war will continue until the strongest strongman wins.

If they are very lucky, he will be a Baathist who will unite the country. If they are very unlucky, they will break down into a country of fiefdoms, some headed by criminals and some by criminally insane religious thugs. If they are even less lucky than that, they'll be broken into 3 small, weak countries, perpetually at war with each other over borders and all cursed with strongmen.

The worst news of all is that we can't control the process. Yes, we broke it but we can no longer pretend we bought it or even to help them fix it.

Iraq is not Vietnam. The only thing we can count on when we either leave or are kicked out in ignominy is that we have made a terrible enemy, one an oil hungry country can't afford to have made.

[genie_weenie]

11. Iraq 2000s = Iran 1950s

A pull out will not stop the killing because some members of the Shia have been waiting for an opportunity to pay Sunnis back for Saddam's rule. Iran will have good reason to want Shia to be armed and powerful eyeing the chance to control the Iraqi ports to the Gulf and the entire South as well as Baghdad.

Then add in the Kurds who have been very good at staying out of the internecine warfare. They will push for expanded power (control of Baghdad?) and perhaps a more loosely based Confederation of Iraqis States. Turkey will not want that to occur.

Saudi Arabia is worried many of the toughened fighters are going to flow across the border and start disrupting the Saud Regime.

What I think we have accomplished is setting Iraq to be taken over by a strong man (perhaps a cadre) ala the Shah of Iran. The next generation will be raised on stories of Hadithah and the Rape/Murder and apply that to all American Servicemen and perhaps an Iraqi Revolution (ala Iran 1979) will occur in 25 years.

Great.

[slackmaster]

13. Article is horseshit - Iraq is NOT Viet Nam

The author is smoking crack.

Peace will come to Iraq only after the brave freedom fighters of the Iraqi Resistance kill enough of each other off.

[Jim__]

14. Why is the letter writer "firmly convinced"?

He offers 2 possible reasons.

First, When we went to war with Iraq the killing began .... That's true enough. However, conditions in Iraq have radically changed since we went to war - we overthrew the government that prevented these killings. The enmity between the various ethnic and religious groups is real and exacerbated by the recent fighting. Why would anyone be convinced that our leaving would stop the killing?

Second, when we left Vietnam, peace came to that country and still exists there. Even accepting his claims about Vietnam, his argument amounts to generalizing from an example of 1, without any analysis to show that these are identical, or even similar, cases. Not a very convincing argument.

I'm not sure what will stop the killing in Iraq. I don't believe that our just leaving will do it. I do think that getting neighboring countries involved in a peace-keeping process is a possibility. I think we should try to achieve some type of stability before we leave Iraq, and I believe we need a lot of help in establishing this stability. The UN and the neighboring countries seem to offer the best hope. Unfortunately, I don't see bush getting that help.

[kentuck]

15. It's time to get out...

Declare victory and get the hell out. Democrats, present that option to Mr Bush. Let him take the credit if he wishes...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Peace will come to Iraq eventually.

But never while we're still there.

[Avalux]

21. I think they will still fight if we leave, BUT

it is vital to the survival of Iraq that we go and allow them to figure it out for themselves; they have to do it on their own.

[theboss]

31. Depends on your definition of peace

A totalitarian Islamic state will likely emerge where all dissent will be crushed. That would be peaceful, I suppose.

At this point, our best bet is honestly to find a puppet dictator of some kind to fill the void. Someone who will sell us oil and not fund terrorists while keeping everyone in the country in line. Basically, we need the Shah.

Sure, in 20 or 25 years, there will be a revolution of some kind but leave that to the next generation.

How cynical have I become?

[Robbien]

32. Peace will never come to Iraq if we don't leave

I am not sure what will happen in Iraq if we leave, but am sure that as long as we are there Iraq is doomed.