I favor a strategic pullback from Iraq rather than a timetable

[Armstead]

IMO Murtha had the right idea back when he frst came out against the war. That is, remove most (or all) troops from Iraq quickly, but keep a force ready to intervene on a very targeted and limited basis to deal with critical situations when our interests are actually threatened.

I would also favor giving the Iraqis as much help in other non-military ways to start out on as stable a footing as possible and rebuild their economy. We turned their country into chaos, and we owe them at least that much.

I would not, however, favor a timetable that says we will pull out 10,000 troops next month, etc. and have all troops out by some pre-determined date. That's tipping our hand too much, and it would be very hard to stick to if things get worse in the meantime. It'd be too easy for the administration to alter that if things deteriorate. It would be too much of a potential for a quagmire.

Does this sound reasonable to you?

[jwirr]

1. It would if *ss wasn't the leader. To him strategic sites would be

oil wells.

[Jacobin]

2. Its an enormous mess created by Bush

Whether we stay or go, its going to be a bloodbath.

I'd trust Murtha's instincts on this since he seems to be in a position to know a lot about the situation.

IMHO, the puppet government we installed will be knocked off and a military or islamic coup will gain power once we are out of the equation. They are likely to be hostile to U.S. interests, but they will eventually be able to bring stability to Iraq although enormous loss of life will result and repression will be required to have stability. The government will eventually probably look like a cross between Iran and the Taliban, and that's if we are lucky.

Bush's War.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. "But, By God, we got rid of Sodomy Insane!"

[Armstead]

10. Scary but possible

So far, civil democracy hasn'lt had a very good track record in that part of the world. Maybe Iraq can break the mold, maybe not.

In any case, the worst thing that could happen for the US would be to get bogged down in the middle of a a situation like Lebanon in the 70's, with a convoluted civil war that seemed like it would go on forever.

[endarkenment]

3. Pack em up and get em out of there.

Screw that. This idiot war has gone on long enough and is not getting better, it is getting worse. We need to pack up and get out.

[Armstead]

17. Yes....to a point

We f'd up big time by starting it.

But however evil this war was from the start, IMO it would be worse to just wash our hands of the mess we made with no concern for the consequences.

[endarkenment]

21. Concern for the consequences can be addressed in two ways.

1) reparations.
2) criminal prosecution of the people responsible for starting this war.

Our remaining in Iraq as an army of occupation will simply continue the current unacceptable situation. We need to get out first, and then we need to turn to the international community and primarily to the regional powers in the middle east and let them address the problem of what to do with what remains of Iraq. Ultimately it is the people of Iraq who have to make their own decisions about their future, and we have to stop acting as if this is our problem. The 'you break it you own it' nonsense is just another false justification for our continued occupation of the region. You break it you may have to pay for it. You don't get to tell the storekeeper how to run his business.

[Armstead]

23. You're basica;lly right -- But I'd see it more as making transition

My opinion is we simultaneously strategically withdraw, negotiate to have international peacekeeping/aid services go in, pay reparations -- but be able to move in if something dreadful occurs in the near term.

I agree that we need to make it Iraq's responsobility ASAP. But I don't favor throwing Iraq into the deep end of the pool before it can swim. We need some kind of transition.

As for criminal prosecution, that'd be a domestic issue here. I'd favor sending the Neo-Cons who got us into this mess as our last soldiers in Iraq.

[endarkenment]

25. Well you and Murtha and the rest ot the 'transitionalists'

have managed to get yourselves partially pregnent. We cannot make the Iraqis do anything. It is not even clear that there really is an entity 'Iraq'. Instead of 'Victory in Iraq' you all are proposing 'Peaceful Transition in Iraq' and it is just as fictional, as delusional, as the neocon version. We are the major cause of all violence. When we BUG OUT, which will happen sooner or later, whatever fiction we have propped up will collapse and the people of the region will sort it out, now, six months from now, six years from now, at whatever interim cost in our blood and treasure that accounts for. Most likely we will see sunni shia and kurdish states develop, and perhaps a regional conflict that reorganizes the region into broader ethnic aligned nations, but that is going to happen regardless of our policies. When we took down the Iraqi regime we also, arguably unwittingly, drove the final nail into the coffin of the WWI era colonial system established by the French and the British from the remains of the Ottoman empire. What is done is done and there is not going to be some nice way out of it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. Your "2" isn't going to help the Iraqis, though.

Punishment may help prevent crime, but it doesn't do the victim any good.

Your "1" is basically a good idea, but it won't help the populace unless there's a stable enough Iraqi state in place to spend reparations effectively, and I don't see any prospect of that happening.

While I think a fast withdrawal from Iraq is *probably* the best option, I think that this is because it will disintegrate whenever the Americans leave, so it might as well be sooner rather than later. I don't think a public timetable is a good idea, though, because a) one should never underestimate the ability of situations to change dramatically - if an earthquake hits Iraq, troop pullouts will suddenly stop being a good idea - and b) it would make it easy for the insurgents to plan how best to destabilise the state during the handover of power, lowering what little chance for a functioning Iraq there is. Only the American military and the Iraqi government need to know the timetable, I think.

[endarkenment]

40. Actually I think it would help heal the wounds.

It of course would not directly help the Iraqis we have crushed under our military boot, but it might help to address the bitter and real grievences that the muslim world (and others too like those forgotten lands to our south) have with the way we act in the world.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. I doubt it, I'm afraid,

I think nothing except possibly support for the Palestinians will do much to improve middle Eastern opinion of America, and nothing that doesn't actually helpe them will make the Iraqis in particular think better of them.

[otokogi]

5. when the oil is threatened you mean...

this is lame, we need to get the fuck out and send aid, including $$$ to help them rebuild, not bomb them when we feel 'our interests' are threatened.

:puke:

[Armstead]

8. Did say bomb them?

I did not give very specific guidelines for what would constitute grounds for action.

But my point was to get out, but don;t preclude the options that may be required.

I hate this war, and I was vehemently opposed to it from before the beginning. But the US fucked up, and we shoiuld try to end it in a way that doesn't add to the existing fucked-upedness of it.

[sweetheart]

6. War is not reasonable

Either the draft should be implemented, and the US should put 500,000 soldiers
on the ground in iraq to fully occupy the country to its standards,
or it should withdraw the entire force from ASIA, and rely on strategic
deterrence as has maintained intercontinental peace for generations.

We are bankrupt in the desert, taxed the civil blood in to the sandy infinite
of asian ambivalence; another empire eaten and consumed, send uz the bill and
asia will break your hitlers for you...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I favor a "strategic pullback" too. All of 'em out tomorrow to Texas.

And, then discharge them to find real work.

[Armstead]

9. Anywhere but Texas

No telling what Bush would do with them.

He and his RW cronies would probably start their own private corporate army.

[Cleita]

11. Yes, it's reasonable, but they are going to need

either NATO or UN peacekeepers to stabilize the country. No Americans among them please.

[Armstead]

14. That would be a good idea

My biggest fear if we pull out altogether is that Iraq would experience a variation of what has happened in places like Somolia.

International peacekeepers might help to reduce that possibility without it having a US face on it.

[bowens43]

12. Tipping our hand?

I'm sorry but this war was both immoral and illegal. It was a criminal act. We don't have a hand. The only reasonable and honorable course of action is to leave now, apologize to the world and to pay restitution to the people of Iraq for what we have done to them.

[Armstead]

13. Basically I agree with you

But I think it would be equally immoral to just throw them to the wolves without any possibility of assistance from us if things get really bad.

That's why I believe a middle ground would be to withdraw, but keep the option open (for a while) to take action if necerssary. It's not an ideal solution, but nothing is.

[otokogi]

15. lol

"take action if necerssary" :rofl:

[Armstead]

16. Would you like to sit on your hands and laugh if.....

...Iraq experiences a horrific civil conflict and genocidal mess like Somolia and the Sudan?

Boy that'd be a real side-splitter wouldn't it?

[otokogi]

18. it couldn't be any worse...

you arm chair warriors kill me though... :hi:

[Armstead]

19. Me and my fellow armchair warrior Murtha

I suppose you consider him a chickenhawk too for originally proposing it.

And it could be a LOT worse. What's going on there now is the minor leagues of real civil conflict.

I just don't want it on my conscience that we set in motion the evenst that would lead to another Sudan, Somalia, Burma or other horrific situation like that, and then walked away.

BTW, I strongly opposed going into Iraq for this very reason. So armchair warrior is hardly how I'd describe myself.

[otokogi]

26. getting out of iraq is the only option

we have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians already in an ILLEGAL WAR, it doesn't get any worse than what it is now.

[Armstead]

27. Did I not say leave Iraq?

The difference seerms that you want to leave and to hell with the consequences.

I say we leave, but at least try to st least minimize the negative consequences, especially in terms of not throwing Iraqis completely at the mercy of their worst elements.

I agree that we screwed the pooch by going in there. And I don't advocate that we "stay the course." But I believe we do have a moral obligation (as well as some self interest) of at least trying to clean up some of the mess we originally made as we leave.

[endarkenment]

28. We tried we failed.

I find your position exasperating because you so clearly are trying to 'do the right thing' with respect to Iraq. The right thing to do is to get out and let the Iraqis sort out their own problems. A lot more people may indeed die, but without our overwhelming military presence and the safe havens of our green zones and military fortresses, the factions in Iraq will arrive, eventually, at some natural and stabile order. With us there that will never happen.

[Armstead]

29. Let me reiterate....Maybe this'll help you get my point

Among all of the bad alternatives, I favor a rapid pullback out of Iraq. Out. Gone Vamoso. I agree with Murth and you that our presence there as an occupying force is doing more harm than good.

This is preferable IMO to the other most discussed alternative from the politicians, of setting a timetable for phased withdrawal, whichj would simply prolong our involvement, and the misery stemming therefrom.

Where I differ from the third alternatiove -- the "just get out now" strategy -- is that I do beleieve we have to at least be prepared to do very limited actions if necessary. I emphasize prepared, and only as a last resort. I also realize that we should work with Iraq to encourage a peaceful transition. It might not ultimatyely be possible. But we owe it to them to at least try, as we leave.

[endarkenment]

32. We would inevitably pick sides in the civil war.

And because of our hatred of Iran and fear of a 'greater shiistan' we would choose the wrong side. We need to get out and stay out and let the region resolve its own problems.

[Armstead]

33. We'll just have to half agree to disagree

I totally agree with you that we opened Pandora's box by invading Iraq. And, unless a miracle happens, it's a mistake we're going to be paying for big time in unforeseen ways for decades to come.

I also agree that our presence is only making things worse, and the sooner we're out the better.

Where we disagree I guess is the manner in which we do that.

[otokogi]

34. your idea is a 1/2 measure

mine is a FULL military withdraw.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. That's never a safe thing to assume.

In Iraq, it's certainly nowhere near true.

[otokogi]

36. it has been AFU ever since we arrived

it was better under saddam... i don't see how it could get worse.

the logic of saying the only reason we can't pull out our death machine is because we are afraid of more death is absurd.

[me b zola]

20. I favor pulling out ALL foreign contractors TODAY

Not my origional thought, two other DUers have posted (or a slight variation of) this plan.

Pull all foreign contractors out of Iraq TODAY. Stop work on the gigantic embassy and the permanent military bases TODAY.

All of the jobs of rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure will put the Iraqis back to work. Less time to be pissed, give hope/a sign that the US intends to give Iraq back to the Iraqis, return economic stability.

UN/world comunity will be more inclined to send peace makers. US military will begin immediate draw down.


GIVE THE IRAQIS HOPE THAT THEY WILL HAVE THEIR COUNTRY BACK and the violence will slow down considerably.

[Armstead]

22. I agree with that

One of the biggest untold stories of this whole mess is the reason we got bogged down, instead of liberating and leaving Iraq.

The doofuses in the WH (and their corporate backers) wanted to remake Iraq into their ideal image of a corporate, privatized state. So that became their priority, instead of simply turning the country back over to the Iraqis.

[KansDem]

24. I suggest we get out as quickly as we got in...

But without the "Shock and Awe..."

[Avalux]

30. Out NOW.

We are the occupiers, and we cannot make things better. Our presence does not do anything but cause more violence. Out now and allow the Iraqis to take care of themselves.

[bigtree]

31. there are no legitimate interests in Iraq. the entire operation is a farce

every day our troops are there deepens the war as well as their own jeopardy. They should be immediately withdrawn, not left to dangle for some future militarism.

[NNN0LHI]

37. I have a better idea

Lets go back to the department of defense being the department of defense.

If someone attacks us we attack them back.

Other than that our soldiers should be back here in their own country where they belong.

Doesn't that sound reasonable?

Don

[endarkenment]

42. Sounds good to me.

maybe perhaps finally long after the cold war ended we can stand down and derive that big old peace benefit by not pouring half a trillion a year into making war on mud huts and caves.

[Armstead]

43. Certainly that's a reasonable idea

If I didn't agree with your basic premise, I wouldn't have been so staunchly against the war in 02 and 03.

I also think we ought to get the hell out ASAP.

But I do believe at this point we have some responsibility to at least do what we can to help clean up the mess we made before we're totally gone. I hate that, but it's the responsibility we have.

[pitohui]

38. it sounds reasonable to me EOM

.

[Adelante]

44. Yes, I do agree, Armstead

We all want the troops out, but without withdrawing rationally we leave behind not only civil war in Iraq, but the entire region in flames. This is good for nobody, as Juan Cole has explained so well. Deadlines and timelines are meaningless in a situation such as this, except it's what a lot of people want to hear.

[Armstead]

45. I see it as similar to setting someone's sofa on fire...

If you go over to someone's house and do something really stupid that sets their sofa on fire, you don't just say "Oops, it's time for me to leave," and walk away and leave your host to try and put it out on his own before it burns down his house. You at least try to help them get the fire under control.

[mdmc]

46. recommended / kicked

I opposed the war from the beginning. My opposition was based on the belief that overthrowing Saddam would require an occupation of Iraq for over a decade, if not multiple decades. Iraq had no history of stable, pro-west democracies. Creating one would take an enormous effort.
I deplore Saddam Hussein, but advocated that his natural death or an internal revolt would have been a better opportunity to exercise our influence in Iraq.

Love your writing Bro!