Better Under Saddam

[MadsenOMC]

Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who until recently led military training in Iraq, said that many people there now believe that they were safer when Hussein was in power. This isn't the first time we've heard that claim. He added that we will need to be there at least another five years because the Iraq army is nowhere near being ready to take over security in the country. In reality it's probably much longer than five years. We can't force the Iraqi people to take over security if they are not willing and if they believe that they don't need to because that's what we are there for. I know it's been said before but the situation there is disastrous.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061202179.html?nav=hcmodule

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who until recently led military training in Iraq, said that many people there now believe that they were safer when Hussein was in power. This isn't the first time we've heard that claim. He added that we will need to be there at least another five years because the Iraq army is nowhere near being ready to take over security in the country. In reality it's probably much longer than five years. We can't force the Iraqi people to take over security if they are not willing and if they believe that they don't need to because that's what we are there for. I know it's been said before but the situation there is disastrous.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061202179.html?nav=hcmodule

Maybe for Sunnis.
I doubt we will have a standing force there in five years whether they are ready to take over or not. We'll probably still be training them for many years but we won't be conducting security operations 5 years from now.

[MadsenOMC]

Maybe, maybe not. Whoever gets elected next year will be inheriting one hell of a mess. I don't envy them at all.

[Jim H]

Considering the rates now of people being killed, I would say it almost certainly was safer in the few years before the US takeover - well, in Baghdad and the other hotspots at least. I have no idea about the country as a whole.

[The Postmaster General]

I'd say pretty much anything would be better than having a war fought in your backyard.

[Vong]

By invading Iraq, the US has guaranteed a long term position in Iraq. Unless they want to see Iraq die, they have to stay now.

And I agree that the Saddam regime was safer than how it is now. At least with Saddam there was a strong central government holding things together.

[shoe1985]

With Saddam in control the majority were scared. They would be raped, tortured, or killed.

Now they are free to do whatever and violence is what they know. It is a sad thing, but we will be there probably forever.

I hate when people say this is the President's war. This is everyone's war because we all have a stake in the outcome.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by shoe1985
With Saddam in control the majority were scared. They would be raped, tortured, or killed.

Now they are free to do whatever and violence is what they know. It is a sad thing, but we will be there probably forever.

I hate when people say this is the President's war. This is everyone's war because we all have a stake in the outcome.

The people there are hardly free to do whatever they want. Dude, people who live there are saying that life was better and safer under Saddam. They are still being raped, tortured and killed.

It is the president's war. That doesn't mean we all shouldn't be concerned about it, but it is his war.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
The people there are hardly free to do whatever they want. Dude, people who live there are saying that life was better and safer under Saddam. They are still being raped, tortured and killed.

It is the president's war. That doesn't mean we all shouldn't be concerned about it, but it is his war.

Yes, they are still being raped, but the protection is for the people now. It will take years, maybe decades before things will actually be like they are here in the USA.

Hey, a lot of people were behind the war from the start. They gave him the support and now they are changing their minds. They knew the inspectors hadn't found anything, but pushed for it. Plus, who elected Bush? We all did, I didn't vote for him, be he won both elections, and this says he had the support for the war. So, if you voted for him, it is your war too.

[Vong]

Originally posted by shoe1985
It will take years, maybe decades before things will actually be like they are here in the USA.

Iraq will never be like the US...ever.
The only thing that will save them (and partially emulate the US) is for all the Muslim sects (Shi'I, Sunni and Kurd) to create a popular nationalist and (more importantly) secularist movement that will unite the whole country. However, since the country has been waging a sectarian war and many Muslims from each sect are busy killing the other, political Islam has dominated Middle Eastern politics for 50+ years, and the US loves fucking things up for everyone in area, this won't happen any time soon...probably not within our life time.

Keep in mind that the majority of the Middle East (including Iraq) has attempted the whole democracy thing, and it failed. What makes you so sure that things will improve over there to allow democracy to flourish?

[MadsenOMC]

Of course I didn't vote for Bush, and as Vong said, Iraq will never be like the U.S. Not a chance in hell.

[outsyder]

I'm sure France was more stable and safer under Hitler's control than it was while the Allies were waging war against the Nazi's all over the country.

This is a pointless comparison at the moment. Compare the different Iraqi regimes once all is said and done there.

[MadsenOMC]

When all is said and done? So never?

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Vong
Iraq will never be like the US...ever.
The only thing that will save them (and partially emulate the US) is for all the Muslim sects (Shi'I, Sunni and Kurd) to create a popular nationalist and (more importantly) secularist movement that will unite the whole country. However, since the country has been waging a sectarian war and many Muslims from each sect are busy killing the other, political Islam has dominated Middle Eastern politics for 50+ years, and the US loves fucking things up for everyone in area, this won't happen any time soon...probably not within our life time.

Keep in mind that the majority of the Middle East (including Iraq) has attempted the whole democracy thing, and it failed. What makes you so sure that things will improve over there to allow democracy to flourish?

Well that is the hope that they will be able to flourish under a Democracy of equal leadership. There is no way we can win this war. I think Bush and company thought they could really make a good impact on the Middle East, instead it has drawn more hatred for us.

We are pretty much fighting a pointless war, and if someone thinks we are going to win, go to Iraq. The only possible way to win is to nuke the whole Middle East, but this would not be possible because of civil right groups.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
When all is said and done? So never?

Which would make this war the first one to never end.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by outsyder
Which would make this war the first one to never end.

That's not the problem at hand. Our problem is that we've got troops caught in the midst of a civil war and "when all is said and done" it's a problem without a solution. The U.S. has two possible solutions: do things the Ronald Reagan way and aid one side no matter how many innocent civilians they slaughter or simply leave.

[Vong]

Originally posted by outsyder
I'm sure France was more stable and safer under Hitler's control than it was while the Allies were waging war against the Nazi's all over the country.

That's a poor analogy. You can't compare two clearly different scenarios:
(1) Hitler invaded France
(2) The US invaded Iraq
(3) The occupier in one scenario (Nazis) is better than the occupier of the other scenario (US)...analogy=false.

Originally posted by shoe1985
The only possible way to win is to nuke the whole Middle East, but this would not be possible because of civil right groups.

So....because Iraq is in shambles and the US isn't winning over there, we should then bomb the entire Middle East? Awesome reasoning dude. :rolleyes:

[Thrizzle]

I'll also add that:

1. We're basically training Al Qaeda in guerilla warfare, their soldiers are leaving Iraq as battle hardened combat experts and exporting their knowledge across the world.
2. We're losing Afghanistan. Handfuls of US troops are responsible for patrolling areas the size of Rhode Island. The Taliban is resorting to Viet-cong like tactics of terror, and we dont have enough troops to stop it. Add to that the dramatic increase in IED and saavy fighters (see 1), and the situation is rapidly deteriorating.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
That's a poor analogy. You can't compare two clearly different scenarios:
(1) Hitler invaded France
(2) The US invaded Iraq
(3) The occupier in one scenario (Nazis) is better than the occupier of the other scenario (US)...analogy=false.

Or

(1) Much like Hitler, Saddam's government committed genocide against minority groups
(2) Saddam's government was a authoritarian that tried to create the illusion of a democratic state.
(3) Americans go to war with controlling regime with the hopes of establishing a democratic government.

And no Vong, Nazi's were not better than the Americans are now.

[Vong]

Originally posted by outsyder
And no Vong, Nazi's were not better than the Americans are now.

Really? Because that's what I got from this post:

Originally posted by outsyder
I'm sure France was more stable and safer under Hitler's control than it was while the Allies were waging war against the Nazi's all over the country.

Saying one thing is more than something else (and uses positive terms) generally means it's "better".

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by outsyder
(3) Americans go to war with controlling regime with the hopes of establishing a democratic government.

Please don't tell me you actually believe that. The excuse for our involvement in Iraq for much of the war was that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and planned to use them on his own people and then us. That was the EXCUSE, but it's been made pretty apparent over the last year, with George Tenet coming out and everything else, that the Bush Administration wanted this war from day one and would have gotten it no matter what. As a result, we've used a huge chunk of our military resources on Iraq. Madmen are still on the loose and thousands more will be born out of the ashes of this war.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Please don't tell me you actually believe that. The excuse for our involvement in Iraq for much of the war was that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and planned to use them on his own people and then us. That was the EXCUSE, but it's been made pretty apparent over the last year, with George Tenet coming out and everything else, that the Bush Administration wanted this war from day one and would have gotten it no matter what. As a result, we've used a huge chunk of our military resources on Iraq. Madmen are still on the loose and thousands more will be born out of the ashes of this war.

I know it wasn't the reason, but that is the long-term goal of the mission as it stands now. It's not as if the United States is trying to annex the country.

And as for Vong, I was comparing the stability of Nazi rule over Europe compared to the chaos of the ensuing European war. I wasn't comparing it to when it was back in Allied hands.

Comparing wartime conditions to those of any form of stable government is not a fair comparison. That's the point I was trying to make.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by outsyder
It's not as if the United States is trying to annex the country.

I wasn't getting at that. I think the White House was trying to get people united behind them for some great cause to free the good people of some country most Americans can't even locate on a map for liberty and freedom and puppies and kittens and whatnot. By default, Iraq was that country and Saddam was the leader to take out.

I guess in some ways they did have good intentions, considering how many dictators the United States helped put in power in the 70's and 80's. At first it seemed like a nice change of pace to take one out. Unfortunately, it's never that simple, especially in a country which has had problems with sectarian violence over the last hundreds of years.

[outsyder]

Nation building is a long and tedious process. To prevent terrorist groups from seizing power in the vacuum left by Saddam, the US will have to weather the storm. This is not a short term project, and the US clearly was not expecting anything but. Things will get worse before they get better, but down the road, should Iraq become a stable democracy, then I think it will signal the beginning of the end for Islamic authoritarian government rule in the Middle East.

Of course, this is mere speculation, and there is still a long way to go, but at this point, there's no going back.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by outsyder
Nation building is a long and tedious process. To prevent terrorist groups from seizing power in the vacuum left by Saddam, the US will have to weather the storm. This is not a short term project, and the US clearly was not expecting anything but. Things will get worse before they get better, but down the road, should Iraq become a stable democracy, then I think it will signal the beginning of the end for Islamic authoritarian government rule in the Middle East.

Of course, this is mere speculation, and there is still a long way to go, but at this point, there's no going back.


That's one assessment of the situation, and while I don't think it's a bad one, I don't think an Iraqi democracy will ever be during our lifetime. What makes this situation unique is that things actually were getting a little better before they got worse. After Hussein was caught it seemed like a democratic Iraq was quite possible. However, this goes beyond Iraq. The amount of time it will involve for us to be in Iraq is of no benefit to us. I know it's selfish but America does need to consider its own needs in this situation. We have a deficit somewhere between 6 and 9 trillion dollars. Despite the fact that our military takes up over 50% of the budget, I doubt we'd ever be able to go to war with Iran if that ever has to happen, God forbid.

Besides, even if Iraq does find democracy, I don't think it will make the Middle East much safer. Keep in mind if Iraq did become a democratic nation it would be surrounded by other fundamentalist nations, which is terribly inconvenient for them.

[The Postmaster General]

I'm in line with outsyder's way of thinking. There is a war being waged in Iraq. I'm sure the fear of rapes and torture is better than the fear of rapes and torture at the same time your country is under attack.

I don't agree with the war, but I agree with medically necessary surgeries. You don't ask someone in the middle of a surgery if they feel better yet. That's probably a pretty easy analogy to find the fallacies in but that doesn't mean I'm going to be like, "Yeah, my bad. I think it's totally logical to think everyone would say they were way worse off when there weren't cars exploding all over the place."

The person who stated that Iraqis say things were better when Saddam was in power is saying so with the implication that we need a lot more troops in Iraq, and a lot more time to stay in Iraq, also noting that they are a lot more tolerant of extreme violence than we are. I don't think the Iraqi On The Street poll has any relevance to his conclusion, or anything other than the fact that people don't like having wars fought in their country. I'm not sure that Joe Citizen really thinks it much past that. Just as the general American public thinks in broad terms, to Joe Iraqi, the Saddam regime is probably more reflective of a time period than any actual events.

If you asked the people who were being tortured and raped during Saddam's regime, assuming they aren't actively being done in now, they'd probably say it's better now - Of course you can't ask those people because they are dead.

Ah, hell with this. I miss the days when Chris Elliot had his own TV show.

[Criminal Rock]

we are the same person, bubba...

[MacReady]

Outsyder how do you propose to win the war? And don't give me the "bare out the storm" idea, because the US forces have gone from wandering in a mild downpour to stumbling upon a full-blown hurricane.

[Vong]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I don't agree with the war, but I agree with medically necessary surgeries.

To have a "surgery", the patient must give consent. If the patient is otherwise incapacitated, then the doctor makes the call. However, hospitals don't contain pseudo-doctors who wear fake ID's claiming that they are performing surgery for the greater good of the patient and the rest of the hospital....

I think I carried that analogy too far :rolleyes:

[MadsenOMC]

So how are we defining success in Iraq now? Who gets to decide what success is? How long should the U.S. stay? Why are we there now? To build a democracy? To fight terrorism? This may not be a short term project but it shouldn't be our project period. Fuck this useless president for putting us in this situation, where there really is no good option.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MacReady
Outsyder how do you propose to win the war? And don't give me the "bare out the storm" idea, because the US forces have gone from wandering in a mild downpour to stumbling upon a full-blown hurricane.

That's the only option whether the US is the one to bear the brunt or not. I don't believe the situation is as bad as 'full-blown hurricane,' but it is a serious one nonetheless. The option that comes to mind is that international support in the way of monetary and human aid needs to be championed so that building a stable nation becomes a matter of global interest. Violence needs to be suppressed in order for progress to be made in that area, because as long as Iraq is a full-fledged warzone, that won't happen. At the current time, working on building up infrastructure in the green zone is the best option, taking advantage of the safer conditions that hopefully could provide a glimpse as to what a more stable Iraq might offer. I know it sounds cheesy, but it can be a good motivator for other citizens to see that the rebuilding of Iraq isn't as distant a goal as one might think.

But for the time being, unless the US can find additional military support from other countries (which is highly unlikely), then they need to remain in Iraq. Public opinion has never supported war, and in this case, it is crucial that it does not dictate the path of this one. Because if the US leaves prematurely, then Iraq will be seized by warlords and active terrorist groups, which in the long term, will probably lead to the US ending up back in Iraq many years down the road trying to fix the same problems. The war was a mistake, given that Afghanistan was far from stable. If the US really wanted to try and bring democracy into the Middle East the right way, Afghanistan was the place to do it first. I'm aware it is a democracy at the moment, but had the country been completely under control, the US could have sat back and promised protection against foreign attacks to the country. If I may borrow from Bubba's analogy, it's as insane as a surgeon attempting to operate on two patients at the same time with the same set of tools and medical supplies. If they were going to be operated on at all, it should have been one at a time.

[MadsenOMC]

So we won't leave because that would fuck up a country that is already incredibly fucked up due to our presence there?

[outsyder]

Much the way Afghanistan was, should Iraq be left to anarchy, it will be a threat to countries other than itself.

[MadsenOMC]

So we should stay in Iraq so that it doesn't become a threat to other countries? Does that mean we should invade any and all countries that we perceive to be a threat? Are we the world police?

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
So we should stay in Iraq so that it doesn't become a threat to other countries? Does that mean we should invade any and all countries that we perceive to be a threat? Are we the world police?

North Korea and Iran for instance, have no interest in attacking the states pre-emptively because the regimes ruling those countries are dependant on maintaining control of their respective countries to stay in power.

With Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda moved in during a power vacuum left after Russia left in the early 90's. If the United States leaves early like we saw when Russia did, non-state organizations will use the country as a base of operations and like we all saw on September 11th, become a danger to counties other than themselves because the nation was not guided into a stable responsible government.

With Iraq, Saddam wasn't going to attack the States, because the organization he ran was not one that could operate in cells, setting up and closing down bases of operation in whatever friendly international locations he could find. That is what Al-Qaeda does, and that's what they did.

Non-state actors seem to be the most grave threat in modern times because there is no mutually assured destruction, and/or no set base of operations like there was with the Soviet Union. When your enemy has no home, and no central base, it is much harder to direct and attack against them. So beyond intelligence monitoring, it is crucial to make sure these parasitic groups do not take control when there is a regional power vacuum.

[MadsenOMC]

But our presence there is making the situation worse, and worldwide terrorist attacks have gone up in recent years. You are not convincing me that we need to stay in that country for the long run. I do not think that is the answer.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by outsyder
With Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda moved in during a power vacuum left after Russia left in the early 90's. If the United States leaves early like we saw when Russia did, non-state organizations will use the country as a base of operations and like we all saw on September 11th, become a danger to counties other than themselves because the nation was not guided into a stable responsible government.


I know it sounds horrible but there are no real options here. As I've been saying for a long time now there is a civil war and the U.S. is simply caught in the middle of it. You know it's a problem when the enemy isn't even fighting you anymore.

I know we all want to believe the shiny patriotic talk over Iraq but it's never ever going to happen. It's not like other countries where we can bomb them and they'll actually treat us like liberators. The problems in Iraq are NOT fixable. After hundreds of years of sectarian violence destabalizing Iraq would never have lead to anything good. I know you want to see it as simple as black and white but it's not at all.

I guess all we can hope for now is an insurgency which isn't associated with al-Qaeda (I believe that would be the Sunni insurgency), to reluctantly give military help to. We'll probably have a Saddam-lite in power again but it's a lesson we've got to learn, because we should have learned better from Vietnam.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
But our presence there is making the situation worse, and worldwide terrorist attacks have gone up in recent years. You are not convincing me that we need to stay in that country for the long run. I do not think that is the answer.

So you propose that the US pull out, so that warlords and terrorist groups take over and flourish, only to provide a base to plan a major terrorist attack against the West 10 years later.

At this point, if the US leaves, it will get much worse than it already is. And after it gets bad enough, either the UN will intervene or the international community will want to and the US will end up right back in Iraq, fighting just to get to the point they're at now.

[MadsenOMC]

I don't think there are easy answers here, but the last four years have been disastrous, and it seems to me that terrorist groups and warlords are doing just fine even though we're there.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by outsyder
So you propose that the US pull out, so that warlords and terrorist groups take over and flourish, only to provide a base to plan a major terrorist attack against the West 10 years later.

At this point, if the US leaves, it will get much worse than it already is. And after it gets bad enough, either the UN will intervene or the international community will want to and the US will end up right back in Iraq, fighting just to get to the point they're at now.



Are you just making an effort to ignore every single major point I make?

[MadsenOMC]

This is from January. Now things are at best the same and maybe worse.

Statement of Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President, Defense and Foreign Policy Studies,
Cato Institute

before the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Escaping the Trap: Why the United States Must Leave Iraq
January 11, 2007

Optimism about the U.S. mission in Iraq has faded dramatically in the past few months. The bipartisan Iraq Study group conceded that the situation in Iraq was "grave and deteriorating." The Pentagon’s report to Congress in November 2006 paints a similarly dismal picture, with attacks on U.S. troops, Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians at record levels.

Yet proponents of the war refuse to admit what is becoming increasingly obvious: Washington’s Iraq occupation and democratization mission is failing, and there is little realistic prospect that its fortunes will improve. Something much more dramatic than a modest course correction is needed.

It is essential to ask the administration and its hawkish backers at what point they will admit that the costs of this venture have become unbearable. How much longer are they willing to have our troops stay in Iraq? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? How many more tax dollars are they willing to pour into Iraq? Another $300 billion? $600 billion? $1 trillion? And most crucial of all, how many more American lives are they willing to sacrifice? Two thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand?

Proponents of the mission avoid addressing such unpleasant questions. Instead, they act as though victory in Iraq can be achieved merely through the exercise of will power.

The Dire Security Situation in Iraq

Whether or not one describes it as a civil war, the security situation in Iraq is extraordinarily violent and chaotic. Moreover, the nature of the violence in that country has shifted since the February 2006 bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, one of Shia Islam’s holiest sites. The Sunni-led insurgency against U.S. and British occupation forces and the security forces of the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi government is still a significant factor, but it is no longer the dominant one. The turmoil now centers around sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites. Baghdad is the epicenter of that strife, but it has erupted in other parts of the country as well. The Iraq Study Group noted that four of Iraq’s 18 provinces are "highly insecure." Those provinces account for about 40 percent of the country’s population.

A November 2006 UN report highlights the extent of the growing bloodshed. The carnage is now running at approximately 120 victims each day. This is occurring in a country of barely 26 million people. A comparable pace in the United States would be a horrifying 1,400 deaths per day-or nearly 500,000 per year. If violence between feuding political or ethno-religious factions was consuming that many American lives, there would be little debate about whether the United States was experiencing a civil war.

In addition to the casualties in Iraq, there are other human costs. The United Nations estimates that some 1.6 million people have been displaced inside Iraq (i.e., they are "internal refugees") as a result of the fighting. Another 1.8 million have fled the country entirely, mostly to Jordan and Syria. Moreover, the pace of the exodus is accelerating. Refugees are now leaving Iraq at the rate of nearly 3,000 a day. The bulk of those refugees are middle and upper class families. Indeed, there are affluent neighborhoods in Baghdad and other cities that now resemble ghost towns.

The Complex Nature of the Violence

The mounting chaos in Iraq is not simply a case of Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence, although that is the dominant theme. The Iraq Study Group notes the complexity of Iraq’s security turmoil. "In Kirkuk, the struggle is between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen. In Basra and the south, the violence is largely an intra-Shia struggle." Implicitly rejecting the arguments of those who contend that the violence is primarily a Sunni-Shia conflict confined to Baghdad, the members of the commission point out that "most of Iraq’s cities have a sectarian mix and are plagued by persistent violence. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki warns of that conflicts in the various regions could be "Shi’ite versus Shi’ite and Sunni versus Sunni."

There is also mounting evidence that the majority of Iraqis no longer want U.S. troops in their country. The bottom line is that the United States is mired in a country that is already in the early stages of an exceedingly complex, multi-sided civil war, and where all significant factions save one (the Kurds) want American troops to leave. That is an untenable situation.

Illusory Solution-Send More Troops

Increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by 20,000 or so is a futile attempt to salvage a mission that has gone terribly wrong. In all likelihood, it would merely increase the number of casualties-both American and Iraqi--over the short term while having little long-term impact on the security environment. Moreover, the magnitude of the proposed buildup falls far short of the numbers needed to give the occupation forces a realistic prospect of suppressing the violence. Experts on counterinsurgency strategies have consistently concluded that at least 10 soldiers per 1,000 population are required to have a sufficient impact. Indeed, some experts have argued that in cases where armed resistance is intense and pervasive (which certainly seems to apply to Iraq), deployments of 20 soldiers per thousand may be needed.

Given Iraq’s population (26 million) such a mission would require the deployment of at least 260,000 ground forces (an increase of 115,000 from current levels) and probably as many as 520,000. Even the lower requirement will strain the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to the breaking point. Yet a lesser deployment would have no realistic chance to get the job done. A limited "surge" of additional troops is the latest illusory panacea offered by the people who brought us the Iraq quagmire in the first place. It is an idea that should be rejected.

Consequences of Leaving

Proponents of staying in Iraq offer several reasons why a prompt withdrawal would be bad for the United States. Those arguments vary in terms of plausibility. All of them, though, are ultimately deficient as a reason for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq.

Allegation: Al-Qaeda Would Take Over Iraq

Administration officials and other supporters of the war have warned repeatedly that a "premature" withdrawal of U.S. forces would enable Al-Qaeda to turn Iraq into a sanctuary to plot and launch attacks against the United States and other Western countries. But Al-Qaeda taking over Iraq is an extremely improbable scenario. The Iraq Study Group put the figure of foreign fighters at only 1,300, a relatively small component of the Sunni insurgency against U.S. forces. It strains credulity to imagine 1,300 fighters (and foreigners at that) taking over and controlling a country of 26 million people.

The challenge for Al-Qaeda would be even more daunting than those raw numbers suggest. The organization does have some support among the Sunni Arabs in Iraq, but opinion even among that segment of the population is divided. A September 2006 poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that 94 percent of Sunnis had a somewhat or highly unfavorable attitude toward Al Qaeda. As the violence of Al Qaeda attacks has mounted, and the victims are increasingly Iraqis, not Americans, many Sunnis have turned against the terrorists. There have even been a growing number of reports during the past year of armed conflicts between Iraqi Sunnis and foreign fighters.

The PIPA poll also showed that 98 percent of Shiite respondents and 100 percent of Kurdish respondents had somewhat or very unfavorable views of Al Qaeda. The notion that a Shiite-Kurdish-dominated government would tolerate Iraq becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda is improbable on its face. And even if U.S. troops left Iraq, the successor government would continue to be dominated by the Kurds and Shiites, since they make up more than 80 percent of Iraq’s population and, in marked contrast to the situation under Saddam Hussein, they now control the military and police. That doesn’t suggest a reliable safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Allegation: The Terrorists Would Be Emboldened Worldwide

In urging the United States to persevere in Iraq, President Bush has warned that an early military withdrawal would encourage Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Weak U.S. responses to challenges over the previous quarter century, especially in Lebanon and Somalia, had emboldened such people, Bush argues. Hawkish pundits have made similar allegations.

It is a curious line of argument with ominous implications, for it assumes that the United States should have stayed in both countries, despite the military debacles there. The mistake, according to that logic, was not the original decision to intervene but the decision to limit American losses and terminate the missions. That is a classic case of learning the wrong lessons from history.

Yes, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups apparently concluded that the Lebanon and Somalia episodes showed that U.S. leaders and the American people have no stomach for enduring murky missions that entail significant casualties. They are likely to draw a similar lesson if the United States withdraws from Iraq without an irrefutable triumph. That is why it is so imperative to be cautious about a decision to intervene in the first place. Military missions should not be undertaken unless there are indisputably vital American security interests at stake.

A decision to withdraw and leave Iraq to its own fate is not without adverse consequences. America’s terrorist adversaries will portray a pull-out as a defeat for U.S. policy. But the cost of staying on indefinitely in a dire security environment is even worse for our country. President Bush and his advisors need to consider the possibility that the United States might stay in Iraq for many years to come and still not achieve its policy goals. And the costs, both in blood and treasure, continue to mount.

Allegation: The Conflict Will Spill Over Iraq’s Borders and Create Regional Chaos

That concern does have some validity. The ingredients are in place for a regional Sunni-Shia "proxy war." Predominantly Shiite Iran has already taken a great interest in political and military developments in its western neighbor. Indeed, Washington has repeatedly accused Tehran of interfering in Iraq. There is little doubt that Iran wants to see a Shiite-controlled government in Baghdad and would react badly if it appeared that Iraq’s Sunni minority might be poised to regain power and once again subjugate the Shiite majority. The current Iraqi government is quite friendly to Iran, and Tehran can be expected to take steps to protect the new-found influence it enjoys in Baghdad.

But Iraq’s other neighbors are apprehensive about the specter of a Shiite-controlled Iraq. Saudi Arabia, in particular, regards the prospect of such a state on its northern border as anathema, worrying about the impact on its own Shia minority-which is concentrated in the principal oil-producing region. There are indications that wealthy Saudis are already providing funds to Sunni forces in Iraq.

A regional Sunni-Shiite proxy war in Iraq would turn the Bush administration’s policy there into even more of a debacle than it has already become. Even worse, Iraq’s neighbors could be drawn in as direct participants in the fighting. Washington should take steps to head off those dangers.

Probably the best approach would be for the United States to convene a regional conference that included (at a minimum) Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey. The purpose of such a conference should be to make all parties confront the danger of the Iraqi turmoil mushrooming into a regional armed struggle that ultimately would not be in the best interests of any country involved. Ideally, that realization might lead to a commitment by the neighboring states to refrain from-or at least bound the extent of--meddling in the escalating violence in Iraq.

Ultimately, though, maintaining a U.S. military occupation of Iraq to forestall a possible regional proxy war is simply too high a price to pay, both in money spent and American lives sacrificed.

Allegation: Leaving Iraq Would Betray a Moral Obligation to the Iraqi People.

In addition to their other objections, opponents of withdrawal protest that we will leave Iraq in chaos, and that would be an immoral action on the part of the United States. Even some critics of the war have been susceptible to that argument, invoking the so-called Pottery Barn principle: "You broke it, you bought it."

There are two major problems with that argument. First, unless some restrictions are put in place, the obligation is seemingly open-ended. There is little question that chaos might increase in Iraq after U.S. forces leave, but advocates of staying the course do not explain how the United States can prevent the contending factions in Iraq from fighting the civil war they already seem to have started. At least, no one has explained how the United States can restore the peace there at anything resembling a reasonable cost in American blood and treasure.

Leaving aside the very real possibility that the job of building a stable democracy might never be done, the moral obligation thesis begs a fundamental question: What about the moral obligation of the U.S. government to its own soldiers and to the American people? There is clearly an obligation not to waste either American lives American tax dollars. We are doing both in Iraq. Staying the course is not a moral strategy; it is the epitome of an immoral one.

The Consequences of Staying in Iraq

Leaving Iraq is clearly not cost-free, but the costs (both tangible and intangible) of a prompt exit must be measured against the costs of staying the course. Moreover, even if the United States absorbs the costs of a prolonged mission, there is no certainty that anything resembling victory resides at the end of that effort. Indeed, most of the indicators suggest that we would be merely delaying defeat.

Damage to America’s Standing in the World

Even the September 2006 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq conceded that the U.S. occupation of Iraq had served as a focal point and inspiration for Muslim extremists. Equally worrisome, it had also served as a training arena for such militants to hone their military and terrorist skills. An Al Qaeda letter intercepted by the U.S. military indicates that the organization itself regards a continued U.S. military presence and, consequently, a long war in Iraq as a boon to its cause.

A December 2006 Zogby poll of populations in five Arab nations reveals just how much anti-U.S. sentiment has increased throughout that region. Opinions of the United States, which were already rather negative, have grown significantly worse in the past year.

Outside the Arab world, there also has been a hardening of attitudes toward the United States. Even among long-standing friends and allies (in such places as Europe and East Asia), the United States is viewed in a significantly more negative light. The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse those problems will become.

Straining the All-Volunteer Military

Even some hawks are concerned about the negative impact of the Iraq mission on the all- volunteer force (AVF). They should be concerned. In December 2006, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army’s chief of staff, bluntly told a House committee that the active-duty Army "will break" unless there was a permanent increase in force structure. And that is before any contemplated additional deployments to Iraq.

The military leaders are not exaggerating. Already the Army has struggled to meet its recruiting goals, even though it has diluted the standards for new recruits, including by issuing waivers in cases where there is evidence of criminal behavior or mental illness. Indeed, the Iraq occupation has been sustained to this point only through extraordinary exertions, including an unprecedented number of "stop loss" orders, preventing military personnel from returning to civilian life when their terms of enlistment are up, and recalling members of the reserves-including some people in their 40s and 50s. The AVF is straining to the breaking point already, and the longer we stay in Iraq, the worse those strains will become.

Costs in Blood and Treasure

The tab for the Iraq mission is already more than $350 billion, and the meter is now running at approximately $8 billion a month. Furthermore, even those appalling figures do not take into account indirect costs, such as long-term care for wounded Iraq war veterans.

Except when the survival of the nation is at stake, all military missions must be judged according to a cost-benefit calculation. Iraq has never come close to being a war for America’s survival. Even the connection of the Iraq mission to the larger war against radical Islamic terrorism was always tenuous, at best. For all of his odious qualities, Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant, not an Islamic radical. Indeed, the radical Islamists expressed nearly as much hatred for Saddam as they did for the United States. Iraq was an elective war-a war of choice, and a bad choice at that.

Deciding to Leave

The United States needs to adopt a withdrawal strategy measured in months, not years. Indeed, the president should begin the process of removing American troops immediately, and that process needs to be complete in no more than six months. A longer schedule would simply prolong the agony. It would also afford various Iraq factions (especially the Kurds and some of the Shia political players) the opportunity to try to entice or manipulate the United States into delaying the withdrawal of its forces still further.

Emotionally, deciding to leave under current conditions will not be easy, for it requires an implicit admission that Washington has failed in its ambitious goal to create a stable, united, democratic, secular Iraq that would be a model for peace throughout the Middle East. But that goal was unrealistic from the outset. It is difficult for any nation, and especially the American superpower, to admit failure. However, it is better to admit failure when the adverse consequences are relatively modest. A defeat in Iraq would assuredly be a setback for the United States, particularly in terms of global clout and credibility. But one of the advantages to being a superpower is that the country can absorb a setback without experiencing catastrophic damage to its core interests or capabilities. Defeat in Iraq does not even come close to threatening those interests or capabilities. Most important, a withdrawal now will be less painful than withdrawing years from now when the cost in blood, treasure, and credibility will prove far greater.

The withdrawal needs to be comprehensive, not partial. The only troops remaining in Iraq should be a modest number of Special Forces personnel who would work with political factions in Iraq inclined to eradicate the Al Qaeda interlopers in their country. It must be clear to Iraqis and populations throughout the Muslim world that Washington has no intention of trying to maintain a military presence in Iraq.

Above all, U.S. policymakers need to absorb the larger lesson of the Iraq debacle. Launching an elective war in pursuit of a nation-building chimera was an act of folly. It is a folly they should vow never to repeat in any other country.

[The Postmaster General]

This might seem glib, but I swear I'm not meaning it to be - whether or not that means I'm a glib person....

Anyway, I think success in Iraq will be defined by our relations with the citizens as a whole and their abilities to speak their mind. Many people are saying that the Iraqis love us, but I'm not seeing the proof. Whether or not it is true, the fact is that there is a severely lacking voice coming from Iraqi citizens - there seems to be no real media outlets. Everything I hear about Iraqi citizens comes from some random American who wears their agenda on their shoulder. Where are the outspoken Iraqis with a loud voice that can be heard for miles around the world and up some up-and-coming dictator dickhead's asshole?

That's what freedom really is. Voting means two things, one's named Jack and the other's named Shit, and every time a car blows up in Iraq, Jack is out back taking a whack, and Shit... Well, shit totally hits the fan.

Anyway - I'm just getting tired of hearing how great things are for the Iraqis, by everyone except the Iraqis. I see photos of shit going down, and never once do I see some random Iraqi standing in the foreground with a big thumbs up.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
This might seem glib, but I swear I'm not meaning it to be - whether or not that means I'm a glib person....

Anyway, I think success in Iraq will be defined by our relations with the citizens as a whole and their abilities to speak their mind. Many people are saying that the Iraqis love us, but I'm not seeing the proof. Whether or not it is true, the fact is that there is a severely lacking voice coming from Iraqi citizens - there seems to be no real media outlets. Everything I hear about Iraqi citizens comes from some random American who wears their agenda on their shoulder. Where are the outspoken Iraqis with a loud voice that can be heard for miles around the world and up some up-and-coming dictator dickhead's asshole?

That's what freedom really is. Voting means two things, one's named Jack and the other's named Shit, and every time a car blows up in Iraq, Jack is out back taking a whack, and Shit... Well, shit totally hits the fan.

Anyway - I'm just getting tired of hearing how great things are for the Iraqis, by everyone except the Iraqis. I see photos of shit going down, and never once do I see some random Iraqi standing in the foreground with a big thumbs up.

Good post Bubba.

[boombche_stum]

We just need to leave Iraq, period. I don't think people will ever get the Muslim identity and their culture because it is a polar opposite to most of us. How can we fix something if we don't know how it works?

Most people will never look into Shariah Law, the deep rooted hatred between the Shia's and Sunni's or the Islamic religion on the whole. And that is the problem. Their politics are deeply rooted in their faith. Period. And a majority of them refuse to change that.

My assessment: It's hopeless. You tell me how we are going to turn a country into a democracy that doesn't want to be one?

[Badbird]

You know whose lives were better when Saddam was in charge?

The 3500 + soldiers who are now dead.

The only way to "win" this "war" is a massive troop increase - I'm talking like 500,000 troops. But in order to do that, you have to have a true multi-national army amde up of allies you can trust and to come up with a plan you can all agree on.

Since Bush is too stubborn and too stupid to figure this out, the quagmire will continue forever.

For fuck's sake, we can't even secure the city of Bahgdad. How can we possibly stabalize the whole country?

Oh yeah, we never should have dissbanded the Iraqi Army either. Oops.