Not Leaving Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dreamer20, Aug 13, 2010.

  1. dreamer20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Providence
    Operation Iraqi Freedom ends Aug. 31,2010, but the proposed complete U.S. troop withdrawal isn't going to happen then. The following article indicates a complete U.S. troop withdrawal isn't an objective for the Obama administration. As in G.W.Bush's era, the U.S. occupation of Iraq will continue with armed security coming from both the U.S. military and private military contractors:

    The US isn't leaving Iraq, it's rebranding the occupation | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian

    Are you disappointed or happy with this state of affairs in Iraq?
     
  2. Tevye

    Tevye New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2010
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not disappointed since the set date was clearly too soon this is a danger of offering a final date it's not possible unless we want complete disaster since Iraq doesn't appear ready yet to govern their country. I'm not happy why would I be happy knowing more people will die? I'm not surprised politicians have led us on with lies for years this one may be at least short term for the better if it helps Iraq get on its own legs and feet.
     
  3. Boobalaa

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,657
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm 56yo..grew up watching Vietnam on TV, Israeli's vs. Palestinians..etc..no it does not surprise me
     
  4. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    367
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    I am not disappointed with it because I think it's a step in the right direction. I won't be happy, however, until the last of our combat troops off Iraqi soil. While it would be great to pack the troops up and leave en masse next Thursday afternoon, that's fanciful and impractical thinking. This very dilemma was the subject of a New York Times analysis piece earlier this month.

    It makes sense that the sooner the Iraqis can control their country, the sooner we can leave. Recognizing that it's a process and not a single event is very hard for war-weary Americans (myself included) to buy into, but it appears that it's essential to success (which I narrowly define as: preventing Iraq from devolving into sectarian killing or civil war because of ineffective governance). If the only way they can control their country today is with our assistance, I'll accept that and hope that we do everything in our power to swiftly enhance their ability to govern peaceably.

    America has made a lot of mistakes in Iraq (starting with thinking an invasion was a good idea), but removing the troops before Iraq can stand on its own would be a horrible epilogue to write for this chapter of American history.
     
  5. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,930
    Likes Received:
    641
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    We - the countries that went into Iraq - are now in a position where just about anything we do or don't do is wrong.

    I've run an academic project with Iraq (post-Saddam). I've formed the view that we are willing to put enormous sums of money into a military venture but are unbelievably tight-fisted when it comes to any activities around nation building. We need development of the civic institutions of Iraq - including their universities - so that the people of Iraq are as well placed as they can be to take full control of their own country. But (for the most part) we haven't done this.

    Given the situation as it is I think we need to stay a bit longer, perhaps replacing a military presence with more restructuring support and provision of expertise. However I think there are increasing difficulties in the UK in coming to terms with the UK involvement in Iraq, and politically it must suit the new government to regard it as a mistake of the old government and try to avoid getting sucked in to anything. After all the UK's deputy prime minister has recently called the Iraq war illegal, while material published today suggests that weapons inspector David Kelly really was murdered. I'm not convinced the UK has an appetite for any continuing involvement whatsoever. And that's a shame.
     
  6. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Mission accomplished.............................................
     
  7. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,890
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    599
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    To take your comments starting at the end: Id agree there is no apetite for continuing involvement, but I dont see why this is a shame. We have the luxury of leaving the americans to deal with the mess they wanted to create and we have a political window in which to do it, which is to say a new government not saddled with having to reverse the decision to take part in the first place. The US is in a different position, because it is their troops which are doing the policing. We and the others who took part were merely window dressing to make the US operation look better. It is the US which makes the decision what to do.

    Yes. But that might be taken to suggest better we stop.

     
    #7 dandelion, Aug 13, 2010
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2010
  8. vince

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    14,785
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    540
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asia
    We need to rebuild Iraq's oil producing infrastructure and get that black gold pumping again boyz. After all that's why Britain and the USA invaded isn't it? I'm beginning to wonder though.... Why haven't they got it flowing yet? The only good reason for starting a war there would have been to remove Saddam, end the sanctions and get the oil. That's what I thought they were up too 8 years ago. But they haven't done that. So maybe they invaded for the wrong reasons... Wolfowitz's half-baked ideological ones.

    The UK and the USA have a lot blood on their hands, and they will never be able to repay the Iraqis for the pain and suffering and destruction their policies have caused. And they will never ever create a democracy, or anything remotely resembling one, in Iraq. As soon as their backs are turned, the place will be in the hands of one or more strongmen again.

    USAUK should just cut their losses and get out ASAP.
     
  9. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    That's what I always thought.
    (And maybe they were too baked.)

    Too soon to say that, imo.

    I'm torn here.
    I think that the very fragile democracy that has been established might be beefened up a bit, given a bit more time.
    But it's entirely possible that everything will revert, whenever the Yanks leave.
    And if that's true, then, sure ... getting out as soon as possible is the ideal.
    But my pessimism is not quite as sealed as yours.
    I think it's possible that Iraq may establish a sustainable system that, while not resembling a western democracy, is the closest approach we have ever seen in an Arab nation.
     
  10. vince

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    14,785
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    540
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asia



    People in my neighborhood been saying that since 03'. Everything they predicted about Op Iraqi Freedom has come to pass.

    Pessimistic it is. I see nothin' to be Op.toe.mistik about Huck. No Arab nation has ever had a real elected, non-corrupted government and ones surrounding Iraq, certainly don't want to see one next door. The Wabbahists fundamentally don't believe in the concept. The Syrians would destabilize any government in Iraq no matter what it was, because that's what Syrians do. It's just their nature. Israel seems to prefer having enemies in the region rather than friends, so don't look to them to back any Arab govt. in Iraq. Iran does not want to share a border with a strong united Iraq again. They had enough of that, thank you very much and will do everything they need to do, to insure that does not happen again. The Turks generally don't like and don't trust Arabs and are basically interested in two things. They don't want a Kurdish state on their borders and their construction/engineering and manufacturing companies are happy to do business rebuilding what USUK destroyed. They will do that regardless of the form of government in Baghdad and actually, the more corrupt the better.
     
  11. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    All of that is perfectly plausible.
    I just hope that events develop in a more positive way.
    But nothing you've said would surprise me.

    Except this:


    I think they might be on fairly good terms with a democratic Iraq, unless it becomes obvious that Bush, et al, were all wrong in supposing that a democratic Arab country would be inclined toward peace.
    Maybe on this point the Bushites were wrong.
    But we don't know yet.
     
  12. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    367
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Were you ever in Iraq prior to 1991? Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question because I'm sure you weren't. It's also apparent you haven't read much about the UK's dalliances in Gulf region affairs before you were born. Despite your opinion that it was "the situation as it was before", that isn't at all the Iraq that existed. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party ruled with an iron fist and there was virtually no sectarian killing after the early-1970s because of their success at promoting secular plurality.

    After 1991, things fell apart because of a perfect storm of situations: the aftermath of the stalemate in the Iran-Iraq war, the failed invasion and retreat from Kuwait (the first Gulf war), the Shi'ite revolt (possibly inspired by American promises of support), and UN sanctions which created unrest among the poor after it became evident that everyone was suffering from the sanctions except for the Ba'athists. Lots of killing took place to be sure, but it was mostly all state-sponsored, ergo, not the type of sectarian violence I was referring to in my post.

    There is not enough space available here to educate you on the history of Iraq or the challenge we (the community of developed nations) face there, but I would suggest that you examine any of the following books to learn more before you opine on what you think you know:


    • A History of Iraq by Charles Tripp
    • The Other Iraq: Pluralism and Culture in Hashemite Iraq by Orit Bashkin
    • Western Imperialism in the Middle East 1914 - 1958 by D. K. Fieldhouse
    • Rebuilding War-Torn States: The Challenge of Post-Conflict Economic Reconstruction by Graciana del Castillo
    • Balance Sheet: The Iraq War and U.S. National Security by John S. Duffield and Peter J. Dombrowski

    I think the US decision to invade was a bad idea -- that ship has sailed, however. The OP was not asking for a referendum on whether we should have gone to war; dreamer20 discussed the withdrawal and the 're-branding of the ongoing occupation' and posed this question:

     
  13. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    We have tens of thousands of troops stationed in countries all over the world. We've got almost 40k troops in Kuwait next door to Iraq for nearly 20 years now and I don't hear anyone complaining about that.
     
  14. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,890
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    599
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    Because they are not being shot at or blown up?

    I'm not sure what you are upset about. In your first post you defined success and the acceptable terms for the US to withdraw as:

    Before we invaded the government of the country was effective and the country was not devolving into sectarian killing. It was stable, not threatening anyone else, and we tore that to pieces. It might not have been nice, but it met your criteria for a situation where the US troops could now go home. Or more precisely as was, sit around outside the country, but unlike now not being shot at. If you want to talk about history, the lesson of history is that if you impose your will by force, you must expect to have to continue applying that force indefinitely. Its up to the US to decide if its willing to do that.
     
  15. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    That just might be the lesson of history.
    But if it turns out that the American application of force was giving the Iraqi people something that Iraqis actually wanted ... the final result might not be as you describe.
    And I think the people do want democracy.
    Over the long arc of Iraqi history, it has never much mattered what the people wanted.
    But we just might be in a new era.
     
  16. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    367
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    You need to reread exactly what you quoted from me and then your original reply, word for word. Don't think about what you meant, think about what you wrote. I think you'll see exactly what I saw.

    I find it ironic and somewhat entertaining that you attempt to lecture me about the results of imposing will by force. 1776, anyone? How about the creation of Iraq in the first place?

    You will note in this thread and others, I'm clearly on the record as opposing any initial invasion action in Iraq, so I don't know why you think you can direct those remarks to me. As to this 'we British are somehow above all of this' tone, I'd really urge you to read those books I cited. You do know that modern Iraq only exists today because of British influence, right? You do know that British political choices after World War I established the pre-eminence of minority Sunni rule over majority Shi'a, right? You do realize the sectarian killing that I referred to in my first post did not exist as a serious threat to peace until after the US invasion, right?

    Seriously, read the books before you post more and dig further fact-void holes to fall into.
     
  17. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,500
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    77
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    No, why don't you, instead give us a summation replete w/ where the authors come from and their political agenda. Just because someone writes a book... well you know, they are looking to sell books.

    My guess is you like the same line of thought, and like an iTunes store recommendation love to stay on the same moral and rhetorical line...

    Jus' guessin'
     
  18. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    367
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    I was just thinking this morning that the Politics forum was gradually regaining some civility since you cut down your postings here. The past five or six days without you were... pleasant.

    For the record, I've read four of those books. I either contributed portions of the research or fact-checked the research for three of them. The concepts and origins of Hashemite philosophy, however, are not the stuff of political opinion -- this is History 301. I just received a copy of the fifth the other day and haven't gotten deep into it, but so far it is seems like a good recommendation. As to your suggestion about posting a summation, I'd rather people read the entire books because summations don't do the subject matter a lot of justice. The backgrounds of these authors are pretty wide and varied, but I recommended the books because dandelion appears to lack basic knowledge about the stage-setting elements now in place impacting decisions being made and to be made regarding Iraq. I didn't recommend the books because they advocate one position or another, but rather to demonstrate how Iraq got to where it is now and what cultural, socioeconomic, political and religious challenges any path forward presents.

    As to financial incentive, I have to laugh: academic books are rarely written for financial gain. I think you're possibly confusing the genre of books I recommended with those uninteresting, but popular tomes on sale at Wal-Mart and Costco by the likes of Glenn Beck, Dennis Prager, Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin.

    I'm confused about your post -- it's off-topic, it doesn't contribute to the dialogue and it doesn't further the understanding of the subject matter. So, unless you like the sound of your own keyboard, why bother?
     
  19. D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0

    actually your're your wrong, we pussy fooed with iraq like we are with afghanistan. if you apply your will with enough force (japan for example) then they learn that fucking with you becomes untolerably unpleasant experience and are unwilling to re-live that experience.

    If you're gonna fight you better fight.
     
  20. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    Doesn't work for insurrections.
    To whom would the U.S. apply sufficient force?
    And how would they know these were the enemy?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted