kevin: Withdrawing may be an appalling and grisly option, but would it be better to kill a few hundred thousand more people and then withdraw?

as long as bush and the gop retain control in the next elections...

yes

oh....

phirst!

We had our chance to do this right and Bush blew it big time. At this point, is there any alternative that does not involve a blood bath. Staying, leaving, something in between? About the only thing I can see is to use the promise of withdrawl as a way to start a political dialogue among the major factions. Risky, of course, but it's better than leaving our guys there with targets on their backs.

"In Iraq, if anything, we are having even less success than we did in Vietnam, and there's hardly even a colorable argument left that we have any hope of turning this around." - Kevin

58,000 dead in Vietnam
2600 dead in Iraq

Nothing accomplished in Vietnam (a Democrats war)
A freely elected permanent representational gov't in Iraq
A 250,000+ military/security force
Saddam on trial

I don't see any correlation at all

Does the left ever tire of being defeatest losers?

Prepare to be bitch slapped again this fall and in '08.

Have a nice day.

"There is, at this point, not much question that an American withdrawal from Iraq would lead to massive bloodshed, a Shiite theocracy, and considerably enhanced influence for Iran in the Middle East."

how is that different from what we already have, other than that the iraqi government is mostly for show?

and there *is* doubt about the shiite theocracy, do you expect the kurds and the sunnis both to be defeated completely?

as far as understanding the consequences of withdrawal, the future is cloudy for me (maybe it isn't for the "stay the course" brigade), but the consequences of staying are not: more american dead and wounded, more money wasted, more influence for iran, more dead and wounded iraqis.

those who want to stay need to do more than just say leaving would be bad, let's hear the plans and the milestones and the end conditions.

Withdrawing may be an appalling and grisly option, but would it be better to kill a few hundred thousand more people and then leave?

Kevin, that's a false choice. We don't have to do one or the other. Why don't we stay in Iraq, add some more troops, and instead win the war? Look what happened in Vietnam after we left. Thousands of people murdered in Saigon. Instead of rooting for failure, we can still win as long as we have the will to do it.

Keep calling them out Kevin. I'm finally coming around to the idea that we have to leave, and I'm about sick of being told by the war supporters that my belief that withdrawal is our only tenable option is unreasonable or hysterical or calculated or immoral or whatever. If they can't say HOW we can win, then they don't need to say anything at all.

Withdraw.

Iran could use a tarbaby right about now.

Well, if we're going to compare to Vietnam, we have to ask the question: What would have happened had we pulled out of Vietnam 5 years earlier? Probably the same thing, but with less devastation of the country and 20,000 less dead Americans. If we'd have stayed? Well it's hard to conclude that we could have stayed indefinitely and prevented the inevitable.

I really don't know what we should do in Iraq, but its pretty hard to believe that the best solution is to keep the guys who screwed it up in the first place in charge.

Kevin, that's a false choice. We don't have to do one or the other. Why don't we stay in Iraq, add some more troops, and instead win the war? Look what happened in Vietnam after we left. Thousands of people murdered in Saigon. Instead of rooting for failure, we can still win as long as we have the will to do it.

Al, that's a false option. Where are we supposed to get these troops. How many Americans do you think support the idea of instituting a draft so we can send 100,000 more soldiers over? And that doesn't even get to the argument as to whether more troops would even help.

Lawrence Kagan and his ilk have those rivers of blood on their conscience. Any moral standing they might once have had has been thoroughly obliterated.
It's the same group that's been cheerleading for that "only" Democracy in the Middle East this past summer. And once again, rivers of blood.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html

Jay, you and/or your relatives will presumably be among the proud 55,400 to go, no?

Didn't think so. Have a nice day, yourself.

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

speaking of kosovo....

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - 4/9/99

More lecturing from the idiots who pushed for the war they wanted, not the war they were sold. They wanted a war for liberation. The President, Rumsfeld, Rove and the GOP planned and executed a war for revenge, making their fundamental goals abundantly clear to anyone that would listen.

We get it, leaving Iraq will intensify the bloodshed. But staying will ensure that the United States is unable to move forward in its own interests or in anyone else's. Staying in Iraq means foreign policy paralysis across the board.

p.s. Fuck you Kaplan you stupid piece of shit.

"But the war's aftermath also bloodied the hands of critics who insisted on walking away without condition and regardless of consequence."

I don't think he's blaming Vietnam's architects here. It's the Vietnam War's critics that he's blaming for the aftermath(the hippies & peaceniks) though it's not clear to me what power they had over Nixon. (Sarcasm)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - 4/9/99

This needs to be mailed to everyone who still thinks that "stay the course" is anything but a bumper sticker. It needs to be on the front page of every paper every day. It should lead every TV newscast. It should be a bumper sticker itself, and a t-shirt, and a billboard, and hell, a desert topping.

The neocons have plugged a bunch of quarters into the Iraq-One-Armed-Bandit and by god they're gonna sit there emptying a bucket of coins until the goddamned machine pays off.

The legacy of our involvement in Iraq will be far worse for us than allowing regional genocide and similar abuses. The Viet Cong did not have a global terrorist network and a religous vendetta. That's not an argument to stay or an argument to do anything, really. It's just a statement of how profoundly stupid this invastion has been, and that we will live with the consequences for decades.

Good news, Al: we're short on troops, so we're calling you up! Please report next Monday; the Blowhard Brigade is counting on you!

larry kaplan: But ask any American officer there and he will tell you that, absent U.S. forces, Iraq's ditches will fill rapidly as the death toll multiplies tenfold.

"We are not killing them faster than they are being created." - Brig. Gen. Robert Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism. 3/2/06

Why don't we stay in Iraq, add some more troops, and instead win the war?

Your local recruiting station is open for business, Al.

Those like Kaplan who oppose withdrawal have a question of their own to face up to.

Like this one:

Given that Osama's plan is to bleed the USA to death in the desert... are those advocating America remain in Iraq, overtly abetting Team Osama?

At what point does that abetting become a crime?

There is, at this point, not much question that an American withdrawal from Iraq would lead to massive bloodshed, a Shiite theocracy, and considerably enhanced influence for Iran in the Middle East. It would be a debacle almost without parallel

KEVIN DRUM:

KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:KEVIN DRUM:

STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where is your ****evidence*** that American withdrawal will lead to the second coming of the Khmer Rouge??? Where are the !!serious!! independent analysts making that call??? Where is the *evidence* they cite? Have you examined the serious people who disagree? Have you looked at this assessment rigorously? Or are you just swallowing this ASSUMPTION?

The US pursuing the endless counterinsurgency in Anbar province that provides the military need and psychological neccesity for Iraqi Sunni response. Why wouldn't US withdrawal end that counterinsurgency?

The US is providing the permanent military dominance that enables Shiite thugs to have the advantage needed to carry out daylight death squads. Why wouldn't that withdrawal force a more cautious, less provocative Shiite security policy?

The US is singlehandedly blocking arrangements like decentralization, amnesty, and other national reconciliation gestures needed as part of negotitations. The US is blocking negotiations themselves, while thinking, mistakenly, that it is encouraging them.
Why wouldn't a US disengagement enable a political settlement to become possible?

Why must you repeat these stupid narratives? You know that US military force is making things worse! Why must you assume that ceasing US military force will ALSO make things worse!

These assumptions by policymakers and the media are killing this debate.

steve...great analogy

The neocons have plugged a bunch of quarters into the Iraq-One-Armed-Bandit and by god they're gonna sit there emptying a bucket of coins until the goddamned machine pays off.

they'll meet the living....at the buffet

get your team paraphenalia here:

http://www.gzbi1.com/

"We stayed in force in Vietnam for nearly a decade, and we still couldn't accomplish our goals. Should we have stayed another decade?"

I'm still waiting for a single Iraq hawk to answer that question, or more importantly, why they think withdrawing from Iraq ten years now will be less of a bloodbath than withdrawing today.

Here's a hint: try to come up with an answer that DOESN'T ASSUME, sans evidence, that all the problems in Iraq can be solved with the current number of troops given sufficient time.

we can still win as long as we have the will to do it.

Having the will to do something is not sufficient to succeeding. This is not some after-school special where the spunky underdog makes it onto the sports team after all. There is a variety of opinion from senior officers as to what it would take to *salvage* something from the current situation in Iraq. But of the ones who think something can be done, these all agree that it's a number of years away and quite a lot more money to go. To say nothing of the casualties we'll take. Or was "will" a shorthand for all that?

Fuzzy-headed rhetoric is what got us into this mess in the first place; please don't foist anymore of that crap on the pile this administration has already built up. It's not helpful.

republicrat...think they have any with this logo?

"The White House reveals that the U.S. embassy in Baghdad now houses a formal 'Office of Hostage Affairs'. - 9/7/06

There is an alternative to either "stay the course" or "withdrawal." It's called "partition." No, it's not a very attractive option, but it looks damned good compared to the other two alternatives.

Iraq is eventually going to turn into three countries no matter what we do. That was preordained from the moment we walked in. The only issue is how violent it will be. Our goal should be to try to manage the process so as to minimize violence.

Of course, this will never happen on W's watch. Because it would be admitting defeat (and we all know how he feels about that). Because some important allies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey hate the idea. Because the Sunnis will end up without any oil. Because Syria and Iran and Turkey might end up moving into parts of Iraq, and maybe even fighting each other. That's why it's so important to manage the process carefully.

Look, it's going to happen. Get used to the idea. But a precipitate withdrawal or continuing on our current path are probably the two worst ways to manage the partition process.

"There is, at this point, not much question that an American withdrawal from Iraq would lead to massive bloodshed, a Shiite theocracy, and considerably enhanced influence for Iran in the Middle East."

There's a lot of question about this hypothesis. First of all, there's a strong possibility that the Shiites won't win in a three sided civil war. They might not lose, either. Instead, there could very well be one year (roughly) of bloodshed, followed by the realization that the three sides can never destroy each other. Following that realization, parties can begin making the pragmatic concessions that succesful democracies are built on. As long as a party (the Shiite arabs, as well as the Kurds) thinks that the US army will protect its interests, it has no incentive to compromise. As long as one side feels besieged (Sunni arabs), it has no room to make concessions without being perceived as the "loser." Our withdrawl is the best option in a series of bad options, but there is substantial question as to the effects of such a move.

would it be better to kill a few hundred thousand more people and then leave?

That probably is not the result of the "stay the course" (with constantly adapting tactics) strategy. Right now, only a tiny percentage of Iraqi deaths are by American combat arms. Most likely, 10 years of American presence entails the fewest total deaths of the available likely options.

Whether it is worth a few thousand American lives to save a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives is a different question. the American forces are unlikely to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the upcoming years.

Re; "...Abdullah Al Yawar, a Sunni sheik in Nineveh province, warned me that "if the Americans leave, there will be rivers of blood."

Sunni blood. About time they figured that out. I must admit, sometimes I think our best option would be to just sit back and let the shiites take care of the sunnis. Then set up shop in Kurdistan.

"There is an alternative to either "stay the course" or "withdrawal." It's called "partition."

"the Sunnis will end up without any oil."

Yeah, this wouldn't lead to civil war. Partition makes no sense...

Instead of rooting for failure, we can still win as long as we have the will to do it.
Posted by: Al on September 12, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, Rummy and Bush don't seem to have the WILL to do it.

(if they did, they would have done whatever it takes, including conscription, to get sufficient troop numbers in there to win).

Kaplan, wrong from the start, gets today's question wrong, too. It's not Withdraw from Iraq, yes or no? So don't you follow him there, Kevin. You're smarter and more humane than he is.

The correct question is Withdraw from Iraq, when and how? It's the only question that matters, and anyone who isn't thinking it through isn't thinking.

Hey Jay; I have a cousin, a Marine, somewhere in Anbar province, driving aroung in an unarmoured Humvee; should he die so we can "repair what the United States has smashed"? SHOULD HE???

I would agree with Kevin Drum but more directly. Since the time this 'stay and fix Iraq' argument was first waved three years ago, the civil fighting death toll has multiplied tenfold and tenfold again. The US Army's efforts haven't stopped it and there's no reason to think another year of occupation will have any positive effect.

"Sunni blood. About time they figured that out. I must admit, sometimes I think our best option would be to just sit back and let the shiites take care of the sunnis."

Are you watching the same occupation as the rest of us? The Sunnis are better trained, better financed, and ruthless. They probably couldn't force the Shiite religious parties to surrender, but they could surely match any bloodshed the Shiites try to inflict upon them.

Partition's also a good option, but we'd need to load all the Sunnis who are willing to go, onto busses, and ship them off to Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

It's either that, or witness the most spectacularly public brutal genocide of our time. Sistani just bowed out. The Shiite militias are serious. Airstrikes after withdrawl might slow them down.

Michael Ware just got back from being embedded with troops in Ramadi. He said that privately commanders are telling him that they need THREE TIMES AS MANY TROOPS to complete their mission.

Let's see...have 140,000 troops, need three times that number...carry the two....

There is, at this point, not much question that an American withdrawal from Iraq would lead to massive bloodshed...

I am reaching the end of tolerance for this type of thinking. Mr. Kaplan helped start the war, the river of blood whose banks he destroyed ought to only be filled with the black blood of warmongers like him. Unfortunately, the reality is the river of blood will only be filled by the innocents he loves to kill.

Mr. Kaplan's authority and undue respect must be destroyed. Mr. Drum could be a little more forceful in his criticism and call Kaplan a mass murdering American who should be ostracized from public discourse. Listening to the advice of Mr. Kaplan is the same as seeking the counsel of Charles Manson. Or Ted Bundy. Or Pol Pot. Or Gen. Westmoreland. Or Kissinger. Or Pinochet.

Smear Kaplan and save a Iraqi child's life. Honor him and tens of thousands die.

"Partition makes no sense."

Maybe not, but it's inevitable. The only real question left is, how do you manage it without civil war or foreign intervention?

Why would anyone care what the New Republic writes? They are the worst of the worst, faux liberals and contrarian bedwetters who are consistently wrong about everything, and repeatedly exposed as plagiarists and sock puppets.

You might as well give credibility to Jonah Goldberg or David Brooks.

rosswords wrote:
That's why it's so important to manage the [partition] process carefully.

I am increasingly of the viewpoint that partition is likely. But it's laughable to assume that the process could be "managed carefully" by the current Keystone Korrupt Kops administration.

Is Mr. Kaplan willing to take the responsibility of the deaths of Americans (and Iraqis) if we follow his advice and continue to be there as it takes, whatever the 'it' may be?

Comment deleted by poster.

Ross, its pretty ironic, isn't it, that in Vietnam we fought for 10 years to keep 2 countries separate that really weren't separate, and that in Iraq we're fighting to keep 1 country together that really isn't 1 country.

Having invoked just-war tradition to oppose the war's cause, they completely disregard its relevance to the war's conduct — namely, the obligation to repair what the United States has smashed.

But are we repairing anything? If instead of repairing we're just crashing around the shop, ripping more stuff from the shelves then what good are we doing? You don't ask the bull to repair the china -- you try to get it the hell out of the china shop.

Al welcome to the reality world,How does it feel to be free of the Neocon wastebin.More troops is just what we told you guys to do if you where going to do this assinine war.Powell had it right we had it right but GWB had it all wrong.Don't blame us for there mistakes.RULE #1 OVERWHELMING FORCE.Afganistan and Iraq are disasters because of DO IT ON THE CHEAP.We said no war, But if you have to do it use OVERWHELMING FORCE!!!!!!!!

Shorter Kaplan: "Goddammit, you people didn't want us to fight this war, and now you want us to stop fighting it! Make up your minds, hippies!"

Father Figure,

Re; "The Sunnis are better trained, better financed, and ruthless. They probably couldn't force the Shiite religious parties to surrender, but they could surely match any bloodshed the Shiites try to inflict upon them."

You may be right. The sunnis might make a decent stand - and there might be a lot of shiite blood spilled as well. But to be honest that doesn't bother me a whole hell of a lot. They want a civil war. Let them have it.

Curious. Sixty-odd comments on an Iraq thread, and not one mention that it's been proclaimed the central front of the war on terror....

Only two mentions of terror at all.

Didn't anyone watch Dear Leader last night?

I just feel so bitter. To me it seemed the nearly inevitable consequences of an invasion would include an impossible situation, where either staying or leading would lead to more bloodshed. Withdrawal is the least bad option in my opinion, though it gets worse as time goes by; the consequences of withdrawal now appears worse than they did a year ago.

So it is galling be lectured by someone who advocated embarking on this debacle. Yes, I know withdrawal could lead to a blood bath. There actually was a better option which I and others advocated--not invading the god damned first place. Those who pushed for an invasion might want to remember that before getting too sanctimonius now that we're forced to choose between petentially horrific alternatives.

--Rick Taylor

They want a civil war. Let them have it.

Indeed. Perhaps we've discovered our true calling on the world stage. We should invade more countries where preexisting tensions are simmering, thereby enabling all the potential warring parties to have it out once and for all.

Think of all the places we could help out in this way! Congo, for example. Hell, even China!

In a few hundred years, all of the world's potential civil wars will have been fought, and everybody will be at peace!

Withdrawing will not be an overnight affair and the act of moving in that direction will set in motion new dynamics in Iraq.
The parties there will have to rearrange themselves into more stable and defensible positions, without a foreign force to intervene.

This could be painful and messy, but if it happens in the midst of US redeployment, it need not become some kind of Rwanda situation, can be much less bloody than Yugoslavia/Bosnia, Lebanon and other protracted civil wars.
We need to be able to see distinctions between different kinds of wars and civil strife, horrible as that may be.

One reason it could work out better than other places, is much of the boundary-making is defacto already accomplished, and there are major cities and infrastructure in each zone, so it's not like there's some party getting nothing.

Baghdad is a problem area, and oil is a problem area, and access to waterways another.
But you would then look at coming up with a plan for these before taking action, via hard diplomacy, and you would stage the redeployments so perhaps Baghdad would be later in the game.

Ie, just saying you are leaving does not mean you are going to act stupidly or abruptly.
It can be a process, and you can look at regional security considerations in setting up certain parameters and lines in the sand which must be respected.

Right now, the US is propping up an integrated Iraq, which is not viable on its own without US force and perhaps never will be.
We keep the peace, but we also keep a tinderbox situation in place, preventing it from resolving to something which is actually stable and can stand alone.

The alternative in Iraq, which would not require reconfiguration nor foreign presence, is a heavy-duty authoritarian regime, whether secular or religious.
But neither the US nor the Iraqis want this, especially since the dictator would be 'not-one-of-us' for a majority of the people.

We need to accept that the place will and must reconfigure, and withdraw in a consistent, deliberate and measured fashion, which allows that reconfiguration to happen in a relatively stable and planned way.

There will be violence, but there already is.
Skillful, targetted use of US force, coupled with sane, defensible boundaries, can prevent outright war.

We need to work with the reality of the situation, creatively, but get our head out of the sand.

Imagine you have a "friend" who insists on taking a drunken joyride despite your strenuous objection. Y'all kill somebody, and that "friend" insists that the only responsible thing is to try and evade capture by the police, because the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.

Then multiply that by a few tens of thousands, and you've got a neocon.

Kevin wrote: "There is, at this point, not much question that an American withdrawal from Iraq would lead to massive bloodshed ..."

On the contrary, there is a great deal of "question" as to whether an American withdrawal from Iraq would lead to more or less "massive" bloodshed than the massive bloodshed that is already happening there now.

Randy wrote: "The sunnis might make a decent stand - and there might be a lot of shiite blood spilled as well. But to be honest that doesn't bother me a whole hell of a lot. They want a civil war. Let them have it."

This callous attitude is a perfect example of why the US should never have invaded and occupied Iraq in the first place. And it also speaks to the attitude of US troops in Iraq who regard the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians as worthless.

The bottom line is that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is a crime -- a war of unprovoked aggression and mass murder, based on the deliberate, elaborate and repeated lies told by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and other principals of the Bush administration to the American people, the US Congress, the United Nations Security Council and the entire world.

The US occupation of Iraq is an ongoing crime against humanity. It must be ended and the perpetrators of this crime -- the career war profiteers of the Bush administration -- must be impeached, indicted, tried, convicted and imprisoned for their crimes.

And the United States is and will be obligated to pay massive reparations to the people of Iraq for the mass destruction and mass murder caused by our unprovoked war of aggression.

Civil war, although very bad, does create nations. The US Civil War made us all Americans. Before the war US citizens' national identity derived from the state of their birth. General Lee chose Virginia over the Union, a bewildering choice to the modern observer.

That does not mean Iraq will establish a national identity from their civil war. Iraq may very well devolve into sectarian states. Regardless of the outcome, it is not America's business to interfere in other nations' self-determination, so we should leave Iraq now.

Comment about Mr. Kaplan deleted.

SA,

Re; "This callous attitude is a perfect example of why the US should never have invaded and occupied Iraq in the first place."

We should have gone in, taken out Saddam, searched for WMDs, handed them a book on "Democracy for Dummies", and then pulled out. Oh, and establishing a base or two in Kurdistan would probably be a good idea - as we may need it when we follow the same plan in Iran.

Nixon caused the bloodbath in Cambodia, by destabilising the Sihanouk government. After the final bugout from VN, the U.S. government supported Pol Pot for years.

During our decades in VN, we created millions of people who lived by stealing from our bases, black market deals, smuggling, prostitution and drugs for American troops, bribes to get American bulldozers working on their own projects, and politicians prostituting themselves to the American military to project the appearance we were 'winning'.

Is it any wonder that re-education camps were needed? In the U.S. the rightwingers would love to set up such camps for inner-city residents- they call them 'boot camps' and 'tough love'.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled viewing of The Green Berets. If it's not too damn French for you.

As a person born there a year after the bloody partition of the Indian subcontinent, I am quite fascinated by all of these guys sitting in their armchairs proposing all sorts of solutions for Iraq as if the people actually living there are a bunch of cattle who cannot decide what to do for themselves.

Americans. Never. Lose.

A book on hand jobs for dummies for those who cannot gone in, taken, or pulled out has been searched for but not established. Curd is made from milk let stand, two or more hours. Children like to follow plans, remember, whether it is mommys does not matter. It is funny to write about a plum tree, growing in Tehran, but its roots are deep and the soil rich with history, so it grows and provides the cooling shade that we should all find comfort in.

They want a civil war. Let them have it.

That's not true. Some want a civil war, unfortunately, all will be caught up in it.

Gregor,

Re; "...as if the people actually living there are a bunch of cattle who cannot decide what to do for themselves."

Good point. No point in crying over spilled milk, but from this point forward, we should let them decide for themselves. And like I said, if they choose civil war, we should let them have it.

MeLoseBrain,

Those who don't want a civil war could choose to help us find those who do. If they don't, they are in effect choosing civil war.

This line of thinking reduces to: there's no end of the problem we've gotten us into and it's irresponsible of you to want to quit doing it.

"Those who don't want a civil war could choose to help us find those who do. If they don't, they are in effect choosing civil war."

Boy, Randy, you must not live in Iraq if you think its that simple. You are implicitly asserting that they shouldn't fear retribution, and shouldn't have any moral qualms about assisting a (frequently brutal) occupier, simply because they don't like the thought of a civil war. And that ignores familial obligations, etc. They should do what we want, darnit!! If only the majority of Iraqis simply did everything that Donald Rumsfeld and the neocon Armada wanted them to do, our troops could have left immediately! The world is really simple when you think about like a neocon...

There is, at this point, not much question that an American withdrawal from Iraq would lead to massive bloodshed, a Shiite theocracy, and considerably enhanced influence for Iran in the Middle East. It would be a debacle almost without parallel.

There is, at this point, not much question that a continued American presence in Iraq will lead to massive bloodshed, a Shiite theocracy, and considerably enhanced influence for Iran in the Middle East.

Isn't this also true? The bloodshed will simply be prolonged over a longer period of time, but will still be massive. A Shiite theocracy is already well on its way in Iraq (sans Kurdistan) -- nothing is going to stop it since that is what a majority of Iraqis seem to want (ah, democracy). Iran's influence has already risen greatly, and shows no signs of diminshing because the US stays in Iraq. Iraq is Iran-lite, and will only become more so as the US disengages.

The only point of those who want to stay is to delay the inevitable and thereby pretend its not goig to happen -- there is no plan for the continued US presence to prevent any of these dire consequences from coming to pass.

Oh, and I have one other question; people like Lawrence Kaplan were incorrect about almost every single underlying assumption that they had before the war. Why should their predictions about the consequences of withdrawl be afforded any weight whatsoever? Why shouldn't their credibility be shredded to tatters, as a result of all their incorrect assumptions?

As a person born there a year after the bloody partition of the Indian subcontinent, I am quite fascinated by all of these guys sitting in their armchairs proposing all sorts of solutions for Iraq as if the people actually living there are a bunch of cattle who cannot decide what to do for themselves.
Posted by: gregor on September 12, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

It's not that.

It's just that - none of us like what their decision will inevitably lead to. The Shiites and Sunnis want to kill eachother. We understand they've made that decision. That decision was made hundreds of years ago.

Now, the decision seems to be -
Brutal dictator and peace.
or
Militant theocracy and genocide.

I'd like a third choice, please. Perhaps involving freedom AND peace? And if that's not possible, then my fourth choice would be; anything that involves getting our troops back home where they belong, and stops burning $100 Billion borrowed taxpayer money a year.

To the quite limited extent that Americans are to blame for the Cambodian killing fields, it is the Nixon administration for backing the coup that installed the feckless puppet Lon Nol, not the opponents of the Vietman War.

Why cannot we just facilitate the dissolution of IRAQ into KurdIraq, SunniIraq and ShiaIraq. Whether we stay or leave, tomorrow or 10 years from now, the result will be the same. The winner (there has to be a winner after all we are AMERICANS)Iran, of course.
The British left two festering sores when they "
disengaged" from Empire -

1. Palestine
2. Kashsmir

We are repeating history. Obviously we have learned nothing. I have a young son, will he be fighting in Iraq in 2020?

Father Figure,

Well, this is one of those situations where they really don't have any safe choices. They can trust us or they can trust their clans. Either way they could lose. Just callin' it as I see it.

Everyone says leaving will bring bloodshed and civil war,And you know this how? For all we know we could leave and peace will break out for the next one hundred years.

What they need is a strong leader like G.W.Bush who don't mind killing for the sake of good.Someone with a strong fist to kill these people who get in the way.Oh wait we removed him from leadership already,Nevermind.

Mann Coulter,

You're right. But then, they could have peace now if they wanted it.

I have a young son, will he be fighting in Iraq in 2020?

Yes.

Pull out now, let the civil war escalate.

At least they'll be fighting each other over there instead of fighting us over here. No?

elmo,

You may be joking, but you also may be on to something.

The only way to avoid genocide, regional war, and a Shiite megastate when we leave, whether it is in 2 or 20 years, is to leave a repressive Saddam-like regime in power. That cant be admitted, so the only politically viable exit strategy is to hang on until the American people are so disgusted that they dont care who we leave in power.

The right's all-pervasive propaganda machine makes it unlikely that Americans will ever put the blame for this debacle where it belongs.

Whether they are for withdrawal, continuance, or escalation, it is time for ALL Democrats to admit that it was a mistake to invade Iraq.

Beirut, even at its worst in the late '70s and early '80s, was a vast improvement over non-Green-Zone Bagdad today. I bet you'd have a hard time finding a Bagdad resident who would NOT take that exchange.

The really frustrating thing is not that we don't have any good choices. We do, including increasing the number of troops and seeking renewed assistance from the interenational community. But all of these choices are dependent on one thing -- someone other than George Bush is president. That's the real obstacle to resolving the crisis in Iraq.

Instead of withdrawing completely, a better solution would be to redeploy our troops along the borders with Iran and Syria and let the Iraqis fight it out for the center of the country without any outside interference.

We gain nothing by staying where we are now except more dead and maimed American soldiers. Yet unless we are prepared to keep a military persence in Iraq for the next hundred years, we have to accept that the Sunni's, Shiite's, and Kurds will fight it out for control of Iraq whenever we leave the country, be it in 2007 or 2027. I'd rather get the bloodshed over with now, simply because the situation in the Middle East will be more stable one everyone knows who controls Iraq, rather than continuining in the endless state of uncertainty that we have now.

Michael7843853 wrote: "The only way to avoid genocide, regional war, and a Shiite megastate when we leave, whether it is in 2 or 20 years, is to leave a repressive Saddam-like regime in power."

Well, that was, after all, the Bush administration's original plan for Iraq: to install Chalabi as the "new, improved Saddam" -- a US-backed puppet dictator who would turn over control of Iraq's oil and the profits therefrom to US-based multinational oil companies and rule Iraq in their behalf.

When that didn't work out, the Bush administration had no other plan.

glasnost wrote:

"The US is singlehandedly blocking arrangements like decentralization, amnesty, and other national reconciliation gestures needed as part of negotitations. The US is blocking negotiations themselves, while thinking, mistakenly, that it is encouraging them."
__________________

glasnost, do you have a cite for these assertions?

"You're right. But then, they could have peace now if they wanted it."

Randy, are you sure that you aren't actually Doug Feith? I mean, that is breathetakingly naive, simplistic, etc. Of course, if the Sunnis just said "gosh, all those years of obtaining oil wealth were wrong. We gladly accept third class status in the new Iraq. Hopefully, we can excel in our new role as the Kurds' and Shiite arabs' punks." What a realistic possibility...

Paul the cynic,

The winner (there has to be a winner after all we are AMERICANS)Iran, of course.

Iran will be a partial winner due to the removal of a relatively equal military power in the region. However, they'll have the kurds in the north of their own country to deal with, but in this scenario those Kurds will have support from "KurdIraq" (your term). Meanwhile, my understanding is that the Shiite's in the south are only in a marriage of convenience with Iran. If they actually had autonomy, it's by no means clear that they would unequivocably align themselves with Iran.

SecularAnimist wrote:

"Well, that was, after all, the Bush administration's original plan for Iraq: to install Chalabi as the "new, improved Saddam" -- a US-backed puppet dictator who would turn over control of Iraq's oil and the profits therefrom to US-based multinational oil companies and rule Iraq in their behalf.

When that didn't work out, the Bush administration had no other plan."
______________

SA, what's the proof that the plan was to install Chalabi as dictator? It seems pretty clear that the plan, such as it evolved, was for true democratic processes to form a government. Which is what it did, no matter how hamstrung that government now is by sectarian violence.

Chalabi has his shot at elected leadership and lost. Why fixate on him?

Withdrawal would mean a river of blood? What's the level of blood now- a limpid stream? A babbling brook?

Withdrawal advocates who wear the position on their sleeves as if it were a badge of heightened moral awareness seem to forget that, as theologian Kenneth Himes wrote in Foreign Policy, "The moral imperative during the occupation is Iraqi well-being, not American interests."

Does Kaplan believe this? Jesus Christ, these people have no shame, no honor and no clue. They start a profoundly immoral war on nothing but misplaced assumptions and/or massive lies based on nothing but "American interests", branding those opposed as traitors and then whine about the moral attitude war opponents cop when we're proven right?

This week, there will be hundreds of Iraqis in Bagdahd who will be murdered by rampaging militias. This is Iraqi well-being? What the fuck are we doing there? What are we occupying? Why?

We haven't been given an honest answer for three years. The last thing we need is for failed theorists like Kaplan to keep talking.

Only one way to find out, an orderly withdrawal. If we doubled the troops we would only double our errors.

Father Figure,

Its only 3rd class status because they refuse to set aside their secular divisions. That too is a choice.

Randy:

No, that's an ideological Western frame placed into a cultural system where it doesn't belong.

To defend one's honor and family in Iraq does not amount to a "choice" in any sense that Americans would understand it.

Bob

Ahmed who?

It's pretty easy, we let Saddam go and then we leave, he had the Shia in a box before. Let him do it again.

I've always believe that if the iraqi's really wanted to be free they should have freed themselves (like the Russians) enough Americans have died for this folly already.

2671

It seems pretty clear that the plan, such as it evolved, was for true democratic processes to form a government.

If that was the plan, they should have called a summit immediately after the invasion, gathered an international peacekeeping force to stay in Iraq till such time as the national elections were held, and immediately get the hell out.

You must be smoking something.

The plan to begin with was for a long term occupation. GWB's statements continue to support this hypothesis.

Trashhauler wrote: "what's the proof that the plan was to install Chalabi as dictator?"

Read George Packer's book The Assassin’s Gate and Paul Bremer's book My Year In Iraq for discussion of how the Bush administration's delusional neocons thought that after overthrowing Saddam's government, the US would simply turn over Iraq to Ahmad Chalabi and his fellow members of the Iraqi National Congress.

Trashhauler wrote: "It seems pretty clear that the plan, such as it evolved, was for true democratic processes to form a government."

Have you been following the news from Iraq at all for the last three and a half years?

The Bush administration resisted elections every step of the way and when they finally had no choice, they did everything they could to make sure that the process of forming a new Iraq government was as un-democratic and as controlled by the US as possible.

trashauler,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42580-2005Apr10?language=printer

Where did this amnesty plan go?
Do some investigative reporting, and you'll find the stories about displeasure from the Bush Admin on the concept. It was whittled down to exclude anyone who had killed US or Iraqi soldiers, and became meaningless.

As for the rest of it, if you wanted to pay me for a report, I could find the dots and connect them, but it would take more trouble than I'm willing to put in. But if you look for any time at all - I bet you could find quotes on Juan Cole - you'd see that the Sunni insurgents have made US withdrawal a condition of any truce.
The US is not negotiating anything with Sunni insurgents accept their surrender, and there's no way they can negotiate with the Shiites while the US is whacking them if and when they pop their head up.

The smoking gun is not in my back pocket, but... do "you" think that the US has engaged in any serious negotiations with the Baathists, the Sadrists, or tried to broker between them?

They're too rigid to consider it.

it should be "cri de coeur" not "crie de coeur"

The sensible thing to do at this point would be to withdraw our troops to Kurdish-controlled territory in the north and then redeploy them along the Iranian and Syrian borders with Iraq so as to try to minimize foreign influence.

The Shiites and the Sunnis are going to have at it whenever we leave, be it 2007 or 2027, and I'd rather have them go at it sooner rather than later, and without foreign influence from Iran and Syria.

This would also have the side benefit of hopefully keeping Hezbollah under a little bit more control as well.

glasnost wrote: "The US is singlehandedly blocking arrangements like decentralization, amnesty, and other national reconciliation gestures needed as part of negotitations. The US is blocking negotiations themselves, while thinking, mistakenly, that it is encouraging them."

Trashhauler: glasnost, do you have a cite for these assertions?

Christ, feckin' idjits. Whenevever their arguments are shredded the wingnuts retreat to this "do you have a cite?" cover. Yeah -- it's called common knowledge. It's called reading the papers. It's called learning how to use Google. If you don't know these facts, Trashauler, then you haven't been paying much attention the last three years and there's not much point in talking to you about this.

It is clear to me that the most mainstream and respected of the multitude of Kung Fu flicks would have to be Enter the Dragon. This film is directly responsible for the existence of the Sunni insurgency. They are obsessed with this kinetic blur of flesh and blood.

IIRC, tucked away in the colony of Hong Kong, Bruce Lee runs around shirtless and trains hard. He teaches in a school of the martial arts that could pass for a madrassa anywhere in the Levant.

Competing in tournaments is a regular occurrence and the invitation from a certain Mr. Han (Shih Kien) is no exception. However, that all changes when Braithwaite (Geoffrey Weeks), an agent of the British government, drops by to chat with Lee. It seems that Han likes to mix his martial arts with a dash of drug smuggling, arms running and prostitution--just like in Iraq.

This is critical and you *better* not miss it. Not surprisingly, Braithwaite would dearly love to dispose of Han and his private little island, if only he had some solid proof. This is, of course, where Lee comes in, a one-man chick banging, ass kicking expeditionary force.

Luckily the forces of good have already managed to place an operative on the island, though nothing has been heard from the bosomy Mei Ling (Betty Chung) for many months. While Lee contemplates what could be a suicide mission, a few of the other international fighters arrive. Fresh from the States, Roper (John Saxon) is running from mounting gambling debts while Williams (Jim Kelly) has had his fill of racist police officers.

How does NFL quarterback Jim Kelly fit into this? I have no sonofabitchin idea. Meeting these old acquaintances isn't what makes up Lee's mind though; the crucial factor is that Han's bodyguard Oharra (Bob Wall), a sadistic bully, directly caused the tragic death of Lee's sister.

Now while revenge fails to play a part in Lee's philosophy, *just like Iraq, fer chrissakes,* the opportunity to make amends is just too tempting to refuse.

That's my position.

Bob

Randy: Those who don't want a civil war could choose to help us find those who do. If they don't, they are in effect choosing civil war.

Many Iraqis are cooperating with the Iraqi police and army to find those who are involved in the killing. One of the reasons for Americans to stay is precisely to help the majority to defeat the diverse spirited and murderous minorities. The doubt isn't about the existence of people who are "choosing" to prevent civil war. The doubt is about their numbers and their effectiveness compared to the criminal and sectarian gangs and militias that are trying to incite the wars.

glasnost wrote:

"The smoking gun is not in my back pocket, but... do "you" think that the US has engaged in any serious negotiations with the Baathists, the Sadrists, or tried to broker between them?"

I have no idea, glanost. It seems to me that an absence of knowledge about secret negotiations would not be the same as proof they hadn't occurred. I do know that military people talk and negotiate with Sunnis all the time. We know many of these people have contact with the insurgents. If not talking with the Baathists was a strict policy, then most senior military leaders have violated it.

No need to write a report, I was curious about the depth to which the entire Administration is believed to be stupid and incompetent. Apparently, simple contact with the White House removes all cognitive ability.

The above post is not me.

Likely it's Thomas -- because I forced him to admit that he's Cheney, after lying about it for months.

I haven't read the drivel yet. I doubt it's particularly amusing, cuz the guy doesn't have much of a feel for parody.

Bob

The above post is *actually* me.

I think the one doing this is Charlie or Thomas -- because I forced him to admit that he's Cheney, after lying about it for months.

father figure: The Sunnis are better trained, better financed, and ruthless. They probably couldn't force the Shiite religious parties to surrender, but they could surely match any bloodshed the Shiites try to inflict upon them.

I agree, but here is a somewhat more optimistic elaboration.

there is a lot of internal movement as Sunnis and Shi'ites are gradually segregating. I expect eventually a de facto partition, and a reduction in the sectarian killing after that has been achieved.

First it was shown that the Sunnis could not reassemble sufficient military power to recapture the whole government. Now it is being shown, I think, that the Shi'ites lack sufficient military power to dominate the government.

The nominal government is sort of in a tqilight zone. It was elected; 95% or so of Iraqis support it; but it isn't sufficiently strong to suppress the dissenting rebels.

Actually ... I take that back. In its its own, obsessive way, it *is* kind of funny -- but you'd have to have a taste for such things.

I'm not (needless to say) a Kung Fu movie devotee. I saw Enter The Dragon, though, when I was about 13. The *only* thing I remember about it was when Jim Kelly goes to the bad guy, in his most over-the-top blaxploitation flick accent:

"Man, you know, you are right out of a *comic book*."

I took the Batman TV series seriously when I was a little kid. That line was probably my first awareness of unintentional self-parody :)

Helpful hint next time I'm not around and you run into another one of these things: I do perversion humor. I don't do straight sexual humor like an enthusiastic 14-year-old.

Bob

SecularAnimist wrote:

"Read George Packer's book The Assassin’s Gate and Paul Bremer's book My Year In Iraq for discussion of how the Bush administration's delusional neocons thought that after overthrowing Saddam's government, the US would simply turn over Iraq to Ahmad Chalabi and his fellow members of the Iraqi National Congress."
__________________

Bremer's description didn't have anything to do with the widespread criticism of his own decisions, did it? He seems to have been the epicenter of the "official" effort to discredit Chalabi, certainly. He also seems to have been amazingly resistant to Administration desires in political efforts to advance democracy and involve the UN in the election process.

wonderin:Think of all the places we could help out in this way! Congo, for example. Hell, even China!

The US interrvened in both places, with just the sad consequences that you imply. People who say that American interventions are unsuccessful more than they are successful are not just blowing hot air.

Democrats opposed Gulf War I; Republicans opposed intervention in the Balkans. People who opposed the US aimns in VietNam seem to want the US to do something military in Darfur. To me, it looks as though most people are inconsistent.

It is hard to tell why Kevin, an otherwise smart and reasonable guy, is so prone to sophomoric and silly statements whenever he attempts to address Iraq or even the war on terror.

Here, "we are having even less success than we did in Vietnam." "should we have stayed in Vietnam another ten years?" "would it be better to kill a few hundred thousand more people and then leave."

The less success statement has no rational basis. No one suggested the more years in Vietnam, rather either unleashing the power to win or at least acknowledging the horrible truth of pulling out.

And "kill a few hundred thousand more people." What absurdity. We are not killing anyone other than terrorists and other bad guys. It is so liberal to casually acuse American of killing a few hundred thousand more people.

republicrat:

It's one thing to intervene to stop genocide or to distribute food to the starving (as in Somalia). It's quite another to invade a country that hasn't attacked for your own geopolitical motives and proprietary threat assessment.

It makes no sense in a straight humanitarian calculus to have invaded Iraq just to topple an odious dictator. There are too many of those around in the world. That's why the *only* way Bush could have sold the Iraqi invasion, both to the American public and to the rest of the world, is through the WMD / intolerable threat argument.

And this is why everybody on the left opposed this invasion. I personally opposed Vietnam, Grenada and Panama. But I backed Somalia, Kosovo, Haiti and Liberia. I certainly would also back Darfur and Congo if those were realistic options.

I opposed the Gulf War -- but then realized in the run up to the Iraq war that all the principles I was defending there were the principles that made the Gulf War a just intervention. I was wrong there.

Genuine international coalitions and honoring international law are critical things in the post Cold War world.

Bob

"And this is why everybody on the left opposed this invasion."

Except of course their elected representatives.

If one is to appose a war in a representative Democracy its important to do two things.

#1. Get your elected representatives to vote against it.
#2. Have them do so before the invasion.

Fitz:

I don't consider the Democrats particularly "on the left" as a general rule, BUT --

I'll tell you -- both my US senators voted against it (one of whom is now my governor) and my congressman voted against it.

So NYAH :)

Bob

Fitz:

And yes: I'm talking about the IWR, not the supplemental appropriation bills that it became fashionable to oppose after the invasion and the occupation began to lose support.

Bob

Arminius wrote:

"Christ, feckin' idjits. Whenevever their arguments are shredded the wingnuts retreat to this "do you have a cite?" cover. Yeah -- it's called common knowledge. It's called reading the papers. It's called learning how to use Google. If you don't know these facts, Trashauler, then you haven't been paying much attention the last three years and there's not much point in talking to you about this."
_____________

Oh, I've been paying attention, Arminius, and read many conflicting accounts on any number of issues. But I apologize for not wording my request for expansion of glasnost's assertions better than I might have. Yeah, the "gimme the cite" thing can be irritating, even when it might be appropriate.

There is a tendency on many sites to treat certain beliefs as "common knowledge" or "accepted truth." Outsiders question such dogma at their own peril, which is why most people stay comfortably amongst those whose views reflect their own. I've no interest in crossing the line in this area and I've no desire to hijack the thread into rehashing ancient history.

And in case I didn't make this perfectly clear:

The argument in defense of Trashhauler and against using cites posted under my name is not me.

In case the ham-fisted parody didn't make it immediately clear :)

Bob