Coitus Interuptus - Pulling Out

[Waitone]

Whatiffin is a waste of time.  We are doing to Iraq and south asia just exactly what we did to Europe after WWII.  

As we speak the US is building a new embassy in Baghdad larger than the Vatican.  It is a freakin' city within a city.  It will be the large US embassy in the world.  

We are building super sized military bases deep in the Iraqi interior.  They are designed to give us all the capability we need to maintain a significant force away from prying eyes.  

We are building something like 7 major intelligence gathering sites with all the geewhiz goodies one would expect from a communications intercept station.

At the end of WWII the US surrounded the old soviet union.  We put bases all around the soviet land mass.  We are doing exactly the same thing with Iran by placing bases in Iraq and Afghanistan (something you never hear of).

So get over it.  We are in Iraq permanently.  If we draw down it will be combat troops and associated support units.  Bring the troops home?  Ain't gonna happen.

[Firethorn]

Don't forget  the other part of the equation in Vietnam was that the South Vietnamese government was about as corrupt as could be and couldn't be counted on unless politicians had something to gain personally.

Unfortuantly, corruption is fairly rampant in Iraq right now.

At least in Iraq there doesn't seem to be much govt corruption, and that is a key to stabilizing the country and exiting at the proper time.

'Exiting'?  We haven't exited from very many countries in success stories, now have we?

Haven't exited yet:  Europe, South Korea, Japan
Exited: Vietnam, Mogideshu.  Sorta Panama

Panama is interesting, because although we've left there, a few more years and we would have been there for a century.  I wouldn't be suprised to hear that we have forces there still or again(in interests of the WoD).

[Perd Hapley]

We are doing exactly the same thing with Iran by placing bases in Iraq and Afghanistan (something you never hear of).

No you don't.  Not to mention it also puts our military between Iran and Sryia.  I think the geographic/strategic angle must have figured largely in the decision to go to Iraq, yet it seems the administration never mentioned it.  Is that because the American and Iraqi people need to get used to the idea?

[Parker Dean]

 I think the geographic/strategic angle must have figured largely in the decision to go to Iraq, yet it seems the administration never mentioned it.  Is that because the American and Iraqi people need to get used to the idea?

I have no doubt that it was a strategic move to surround Iran. It helped that Hussein was a political pariah after GW1. Actually, that probably made Iraq inevitable after Afghanistan. It probably also explains why some of the proferred reasons seemed a bit thin, which BTW didn't bother me as I saw, and agreed with, the larger goal. Somehow I doubt this was cooked up immediately after 9/11. I'll bet it was an existing war plan that became politically possible once 9/11 had occurred.

I suppose that getting people used to the idea was probably necessary. To just say that you're invading Iraq in order to pressure Iran and Syria would set off earth-shaking cries of Imperialism. Better to let the idea come slowly so that it seems a natural progression.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't know that putting the fear of Uncle Sam into rogue states has anything to do with imperialism, but I can see that it wouldn't be very diplomatic to say, "Yeah, we're toppling Hussein so we can hold a sword to your neck, Iran."  Not subtle enough to give the Iranians any dignity in future negotiations.  

I was actually talking about getting used to the idea of "our boys" being stationed far away for decades (and the expense that would entail) and the Iraqis getting used to the idea that the infidel would be looking over their shoulders long after they got back on their national feet.

[RevDisk]

OK...
Now that I've got your attention.

What exactly would be wrong with pulling out of Iraq right now? So what if there's a civil war? So what if Iran steps in and takes over? SO WHAT?

We accomplished what we meant to accomplish didn't we - no WMD's and Sadaam's boys aint in control anymore.

It's not like we're getting all that much oil from Iraq either (are we?).

So I ask again - So what if we pull out now? If they're spending all their time and effort killing each other that leaves them a whole lot less time to figure out how to kill US!

Erm, Iran is gonna gain a heck of a lot of influence regardless of whether we stay or leave.  The Shiites were oppressed by the Sunnis for a long time.   The *expletive deleted*it solidarity is not something you'd want to underestimate.   Currently, Iran is the only major *expletive deleted*it run country in the region.

Hrm.  There WERE no large quantities of WMD's.  The ISG did their investigation, wrote their report and went home.  (The ISG was the US govt's official WMD inspection team.)   Yea, Saddam's clan is no longer running the show, but the Islamic fundimentalists didn't get along with Saddam.   Actually, they downright hated him.   (He was an evil dictator, but he was a secular evil dictator.)   He supported the Palestinian insurgents, but obviously didn't get too comfy with the Islamic fundimentalists who wanted to overthrow him.    

Dispite claims to the contrary, yes, there is a big difference between Palestinians and Islamic fundimentalists.  There's more than a little overlap, but they fundimentally have different goals.   The Palestinians are primarily nationalistic, as opposed to Islamic fundimentalism which has a much wider scope.   Sure, the Palestinians will talk a good game of pan-Arab unity or Islamic unity, or whatever gets them more money.   Back in the day, they talked international solidarity to get support from the Soviet Union.  Anyone who thinks the Palestinians were really commies needs their head checked.  

And no, we're not getting much oil from Iraq because a lot of the infrastructure is wrecked.  Tho, it did give OPEC and oil companies an excuse to jack up prices.    The invasion caused the perception of lower supply, which is BS, as Iraq didn't produce that much that couldn't be compensated through OPEC quota modifications.

The Iranians did fund and promote regional terrorism against the US, but shied away from terrorism outside the region.   Part of it was retaliation for the whole Shah regime thing, plus covert assistance of their secular enemy (Iraq).   If we left the region, the Shiites would most likely mind their own business as they have a bigger bone to pick with the Sunni.

On the other hand, the Sunnis tend to back the extraregional terrorism.   They've sponsored terrorism attacks in the US, Europe, Africa, and eastern Asia.    However, we're "friendly" with a lot of Sunni controlled governments.   Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, etc.   Invading Saudi Arabia would have been a much better idea than invading Iraq, as the Saudi govt funds international terrorism on a very broad scale.   Don't believe me?  Look up the nationalities of the September 11th terrorists.   Count how many were Iraqi, and how many were Saudi.

If you think all Islamic fundimentalists are the same, you're dreaming.   Different folks with very different goals.   Some are direct threats to America, others are only threats to their own governments.  


What would happen if we pulled out?  Eh, civil war.   Maybe the Kurds would finally get their Kurdistan.  I happen to like the Kurds and have a lot of empathy for their dream of a homeland.   I have a couple of their rugs hanging on my walls.   Much too beautiful to step on, it'd be almost sacrireligious to destroy such artwork.   The Sunnis would attempt a nationalist campaign to unify the country under their rule again.   The Shiites fight back, and maybe seek some quasi official relationship with Iran.   A handful, and only a handful, of foreign Islamic fundimentalists would set up shop trying to turn Iraq into a Islamic theocracy.   Good news is that the majority of the foreign Islamic fundimentalists are Sunni, and the Shiites would have a vested interest in killing them.

Sooner or later, there's gonna be a civil war in Iraq.   Doesn't matter if we leave tomorrow or in ten years.   Or a hundred, for that matter.  The Kurds are never going to give up their quest for a homeland.   If the Shiites were smart, they'd cut a deal with the Kurds.   The Sunni want control of the country back.  The Shiites don't want to be ruled by the Sunni.

You can sing "federalism and nationalism!" until you're blue in the face.  It ain't gonna change the fact that the folks on the ground have vastly different interests, and none of 'em want to be ruled by another group.

[Perd Hapley]

The following questions are sincere and not rhetorical flourishes.

Erm, Iran is gonna gain a heck of a lot of influence regardless of whether we stay or leave.  The Shiites were oppressed by the Sunnis for a long time.   The *expletive deleted*it solidarity is not something you'd want to underestimate.   Currently, Iran is the only major *expletive deleted*it run country in the region.

Erm, I had heard a little while ago that the Shiites in Iraq and Iran have a lot of differences that would keep them apart.  I wondered if you had any insight on that.  

Yea, Saddam's clan is no longer running the show, but the Islamic fundimentalists didn't get along with Saddam.   Actually, they downright hated him.   (He was an evil dictator, but he was a secular evil dictator.)   He supported the Palestinian insurgents, but obviously didn't get too comfy with the Islamic fundimentalists who wanted to overthrow him.

Hrm.  What does hrm/erm mean anyway?  I really don't buy this idea that we could trust our safety to the disagreements between a megalomaniacal dictator who wanted to stick it to the US or Israel, and Islamic terrorists who are fully committed and prepared to carry out attacks such as 11 Sept.  The impression I get of Saddam is that he was perfectly willing to help terrorists who were set to attack the U.S.  Hate him they may, but why wouldn't they use him for their own ends?

However, we're "friendly" with a lot of Sunni controlled governments.   Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, etc.   Invading Saudi Arabia would have been a much better idea than invading Iraq, as the Saudi govt funds international terrorism on a very broad scale.   Don't believe me?  Look up the nationalities of the September 11th terrorists.   Count how many were Iraqi, and how many were Saudi.

That last point we've all heard in the Big Media so many times we can all say it in our sleep.  However, I sincerely, as in not rhetorically, wonder why you prefer to invade the very center of Islam, or why you find it better than invading Iraq.  Do you want a general and open war with all of the Islamic world?  Should we destroy the qabah in an attempt to destroy the faith of conservative and radical Muslims?  Or do you want to invade and simply sit within striking distance of their holiest site, thereby convincing Muslims everywhere that we truly are out to destroy Islam?  What do you think of the idea that it is best to improve our current relations with the House of Saud, rather than blow them up?

 

A handful, and only a handful, of foreign Islamic fundimentalists would set up shop trying to turn Iraq into a Islamic theocracy.

If we pull out, why shouldn't we expect the same sort of *expletive deleted*it theocracy practiced in Iran?



 

You can sing "federalism and nationalism!" until you're blue in the face.  It ain't gonna change the fact that the folks on the ground have vastly different interests, and none of 'em want to be ruled by another group.

I reckon.  Just so long as they don't reach out and touch us.

[The Rabbi]

A handful, and only a handful, of foreign Islamic fundimentalists would set up shop trying to turn Iraq into a Islamic theocracy.

If we pull out, why shouldn't we expect the same sort of *expletive deleted*it theocracy practiced in Iran?

Our experience in Afghanistan should be instructive.  We helped the resistence defeat the Soviets and then left the country alone.  In that vacuum the Taliban came in and took control and we had to go back to clean them out.  Why anyone thinks a withdrawl from Iraq will not produce a very similar outcome is beyond me.

[richyoung]

The problem with Vietnam, as the book I mentioned said, was that the military tried to fight it like they fought WW2 and Korea--a big war.  If they had tried to fight it like a small war it would have gone much better.
The right time to quit is when we have won.  Winning means leaving a stable government with the means to enforce law and order.

I don't necesarily disagree.  What * I * think should have happened is that US forces should have manned the DMZ and interdicted the Ho Chi Minh trail, and left the South Vietnamese to deal with the VC and infiltrators.  When their conventional forces were sufficiently built up, then let them take ofer the DMZ and HCM trail...