Iraq

[MareNostrum]

Well..

Mission accomplished..

Unfortunately a phrase that you cant use anymore.
Along with the increased violence, there are now some people
who say “If the Iraquis don’t want peace, but a civil war, then let them
sort the mess out themselves”


What is your opinion.

Months have passed after the shock and awe campaign, and still there are no signs that Iraq is making significant progress. One of the backbones of democracy is imo stability and security. Imposing democracy, ie elections, is one thing to do, but ensuring the safety of the civilians is far more important. Now I am really interested to read some opinions regarding Iraq.

At what cost should the coalition forces remain in Iraq? What are the objectives and are they realistic? When would you say “now it’s enough, let’s get the hell out of here”. Would you consider that to be “betrayal” or acceptable due to conditions in Iraq? Or should the forces stay there at all costs? And achieve complete stability. Even if the casualty rates start to rise, the ethinical groups keep lynching each other and ofcourse the $$$.


I still have the feeling as if everything is still undecided. With the Kurds doing their thing in the North, and the Sunni's and Shiites now showing their "religious compassion" to each other, I even question whether this country could remain unified anyway. Peace and democracy cant be easily achieved, and its obvious that many politicians did not expect such a setback regarding the progress.

Your thoughts,
where would you draw the line..
ofcourse keeping in mind the pretext for invading Iraq in the first place.

[The White Knight]

The troops should leave when stability is (at least somewhat) achieved. One could ask the question if the garrisons überhaupt keep stability and aren't the cause for many of the anger.

Seems like 'the coalition' had an impulsive plan A, that is 'a quick war'. Plan B seems non-existent.

Edit: Oooh.... this is a poll. In that case I voted for option two[Gosh, what is the matter with me]. They can't stay there for ever.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

I voted for the third option. They can't even *think* about withdrawing now because a rash or even partial, step-by-step gradual withdrawal would make the Al-Qaeda elements in Iraq feel stronger and it'd give rise to the openly pro-Iran Shia clerics. The clerics are 'controlled' at the moment because they have to strike out a balance in the government but with the Americans gone, I'm certain there'd be an all-out war between Al-Qaeda and the pro-Irani clerics.

[LSJ]

There are a lot of negative views and ideas being pushed around in Iraq, and having the people who are stereotyped as hating you and being destructive staying in your country as heavily armed police doesn't make you feel very good.
Unlike in Afghanistan the conversion to democracy is going to be a lot harder. When the allies attacked Afghanistan, they instantly poured money into the nation for rebuilding. The people were attacked, but the government was very corrupt and most people didn't support them. The new system was brought in with lots of medical aid and construction.
In Iraq, the bombings happened and then the troops poured in. They forced democracy in before they started major reconstruction. As well, they didn't recieve the swarm of doctors and nurses that Afghanistan got.
Democracy was brought in with destruction and now the people that invaded are sitting around as world police while some civilians are without housing and require serious aid in some parts.
It did not go nearly as well as they would have wanted it to.
Bombings of churches by unidentified people leaves angry feelings between the religious groups. Iraq is in danger of civil war. If the troops were suddenly gone the people may erupt into a bloody confilct for control of the nation.
If the troops stay there then the civil war violence could be turned against them and cost many lives.
If the troops leave in steps, while the government trains more and more soldiers and gets vehicles and proper firearms, the chance of a civil war if lessened. I believe that as long as the nation has an actual military before the others move out, the danger of civil war will not be so great. If the people trying to keep the peace are soldiers from the mob's country and the same religion, the violence may be turned down. Having white christians (generalization) with tanks trying to keep order would not have the same affect.
The plans in Iraq didn't go so well, and now that the government is treated like a tool by the people, the only hope for them to look like a real Iraqi Republican government is for them to have the independence and military.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

There are a lot of negative views and ideas being pushed around in Iraq, and having the people who are stereotyped as hating you and being destructive staying in your country as heavily armed police doesn't make you feel very good.
Unlike in Afghanistan the conversion to democracy is going to be a lot harder. When the allies attacked Afghanistan, they instantly poured money into the nation for rebuilding. The people were attacked, but the government was very corrupt and most people didn't support them. The new system was brought in with lots of medical aid and construction.
In Iraq, the bombings happened and then the troops poured in. They forced democracy in before they started major reconstruction. As well, they didn't recieve the swarm of doctors and nurses that Afghanistan got.
Democracy was brought in with destruction and now the people that invaded are sitting around as world police while some civilians are without housing and require serious aid in some parts.
It did not go nearly as well as they would have wanted it to.
Bombings of churches by unidentified people leaves angry feelings between the religious groups. Iraq is in danger of civil war. If the troops were suddenly gone the people may erupt into a bloody confilct for control of the nation.
If the troops stay there then the civil war violence could be turned against them and cost many lives.
If the troops leave in steps, while the government trains more and more soldiers and gets vehicles and proper firearms, the chance of a civil war if lessened. I believe that as long as the nation has an actual military before the others move out, the danger of civil war will not be so great. If the people trying to keep the peace are soldiers from the mob's country and the same religion, the violence may be turned down. Having white christians (generalization) with tanks trying to keep order would not have the same affect.
The plans in Iraq didn't go so well, and now that the government is treated like a tool by the people, the only hope for them to look like a real Iraqi Republican government is for them to have the independence and military.

I agree with your entire post except one point. I live right next door to Afghanistan and I know this for a fact - beyond Kabul, there's neither democracy nor peace. The killing isn't of civilians but it's Taliban elements vs Uzbek/Shia/Darri/Tajir warlords or American soldiers. Some remnants of the Taliban have fortified themselves in the inaccessable border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's just as bad as Iraq - it's just that civilians don't get caught up in the middle because of the remotness of the area.

[Ahlerich]

well any option will not be good..and have the disadvantages predicted years ago.
i still think withdraw the troops now, in steps or completly. it will maybe cause more chaos and the civil war might start.
on the other hand what can you do? it does not seem like the last years of temp occupation have brought any stability..so how to establish stability in the future. if there would be a good plan how to stabalize the country..ok leave the troops there until the plan failed..or succeeds...but i htink leaving the troops there just buys time until the civil war starts..
jacked situation...leave the country, let the civil war start and then start from scratch with a more resonable try to limit the danger..with somebody else leading the operations than the texan farm hand

[Last Roman]

well any option will not be good.

agree, there is no real good option. We will have to take the one that means less bloodshed in the future

[Obershutze]

They leave, more people are gonna die than if they stay.

[Marshal Qin]

The only way to recover the situation is an increase in troop numbers. That is, of course, assuming that the US actually wants a peaceful and stable Iraq - which I doubt. Keeping them divided is a much better way to maintain the status quo in the region because a stable ME = more control over their resources, more political clout and more economic pressure on the west.

[Last Roman]

That is, of course, assuming that the US actually wants a peaceful and stable Iraq - which I doubt. Keeping them divided is a much better way to maintain the status quo in the region because a stable ME = more control over their resources, more political clout and more economic pressure on the west.

nah, Bush isn't smart enough for that, or that evil.

Also, we are (supposedly) moving away from oil

[Marshal Qin]

nah, Bush isn't smart enough for that, or that evil.

Also, we are (supposedly) moving away from oil

The problem is that leaders of powerful nations ARE that evil. The Romans did it, the Brits did it and now the Yanks are. Its just that evil is defined differently when you are king of the mountain.

[Erik]

I voted "other".

The "coalition of the willing" are responsable for this mess, so they have to do everything they can to protect the Iraqi people.
At this point it means they should stay in Iraq, and provide security in the streets, not just around their own base.
This wil probably cause huge casualties amongst American and British troops, but I rather see 10 soldier die than 1 innocent civilian.

If they need more manpower they should revive the draft:
American people wanted this war so badly? then American people can get involved themselves.

ps: I know this wil never happen, I just think this is what SHOULD happen.

[Last Roman]

If they need more manpower they should revive the draft:
American people wanted this war so badly? then American people can get involved themselves.

draft? no thanks, why should I fight for something I don't believe in? And you are generalizing, there are plenty of people (me included) who did not support the war from the start

[Bwaho]

Just make Iraq the 51st state already.

i thought that was britain?

[Sosobra]

I voted "other".

The "coalition of the willing" are responsable for this mess, so they have to do everything they can to protect the Iraqi people.
At this point it means they should stay in Iraq, and provide security in the streets, not just around their own base.
This wil probably cause huge casualties amongst American and British troops, but I rather see 10 soldier die than 1 innocent civilian.

If they need more manpower they should revive the draft:
American people wanted this war so badly? then American people can get involved themselves.

ps: I know this wil never happen, I just think this is what SHOULD happen.

Yes those evil Americans make Iraqis kill/maim each other.

I think we should pull forces out now, if Iraq wants to be a bomb throwing, Allah shouting theocracy let them. They have the right to self determination like everyone else.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

This is the classic example of shortsightedness and blind optimism putting us in a situation where we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

If we stay, we may forestall a civil war, for the time being. It is clear that al Qaeda's strategy in Iraq is to foment domestic violence, and they will keep taking steps to trigger that civil war that they have made the crux of their operations in Iraq. However, should our presence there negate that civil war, we will still have to deal with the never-ending insurgency. I say never-ending because I think so far in the War on Terror we have grossly underestimated the staying power of our enemies. These were the same people who fought the Soviets for a decade in Afghanistan. The same people who fought an insurgency in the Phillippines for decades, in Chechnya for decades. They can keep this up as long as they have to. We will not defeat the insurgency simply by installing democracy into Iraq. They must be crushed militarily, but how? By killing them, you make them martyrs, and their friends and relatives join in their place. All the high-level leadership that have been captured or killed thus far hasn't made a dent. How do you beat them?

If we go, al Qaeda gets its civil war. The government we created falls, and is probably replaced by exactly what the Qaeda boys want: an Islamist regime. Probably Shiite, but maybe Sunni. Then you have to figure in the outside players. Count on Iran giving tacit or even overt military aid to the Shiites, Turkey perhaps intervening to prevent the creation of a free Kurdistan, and even Syria weighing in. Israel will not be pleased, and may get involved themselves. As for America, we are looked at with disgust, and yet another scar that we may never recover from (ala Vietnam).

So, damned if we stay, damned if we leave.

[MasterCommander]

Well we cant just leave, if we do we would leave the country in a huge mess.If we do leave other countries would think of the US as weak because we started something we could not finish or handle.I agree on making security on the streets to protect the people from bombings and such.What the US needs to do is consentrate on training the Iraqi police and such thus leaving behind a stable strong Police and Security forces.

[Sétanta]

Stay till the Job is done. End story

[Siblesz]

Once you lose the war at home, you lose the war abroad. The war is lost already... but if the American populace were to support the war like like they did during WWII, then I'd go for option 3 (doing otherwise would go against fully harnessing the pragmatic pros of the war. The stated effects of such pros have worn off).

Taking into account the worldwide low support for the invasion in Iraq, I choose option 1. At this point, extending the conflict will culminate in even worse consequences for American prestige within and out of its borders.

[Oldgamer]

So, damned if we stay, damned if we leave.

This is why I voted "other". Leave when it is honorable to do so, not when the US elections are over and the DEMs can then safely advocate an immediate pullout. We're going to be "damned" by whomever no matter what we do. Let's do the right thing.