I have a simple rule. If the Bush administration is in charge of our diplomacy (etc.) with the newly independent Iraq I think you can expect the worst.

Posted by: B on February 14, 2007 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

It would be good... for liberals. When Iraq is a flowering democracy, the past few years of gloom & doom are going to make them look like idiots for doubting the strength of the US military, and racists for assuming Arabs can't have democracy. The only way for liberals to avoid that fate is to force America to surrender to terrorists, so that's what they're trying to do. Party before country, donchya know.

Posted by: American Hawk on February 14, 2007 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

AMERICAN HAWK: Party before country, donchya know.

Stupidity before thinking, don't you know? Yeah, you do.

Posted by: jayarbee on February 14, 2007 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

Bush's surge is just about the most foul partisan stunt imaginable. The whole point of this futile gesture is to provoke a Democratic response and thereby lay the blame on the Democrats for a failure that most consider inevitable. Few Americans want an open ended involvement at this point and no one can seem to come up with attainable credible benchmarks for success. Why stay if we are not helping the situation and they dont want us there? Does a precedent for democratic success in such a fundamentally divided country with absolutely no previous history of representative government exist? It will be a stunner if it does work out; there is no denying that.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on February 14, 2007 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

Its premise is simple: nearly everyone -- even anti-war liberals -- tends to accept the conventional wisdom that an American withdrawal from Iraq will result in unbridled civil war and massive carnage.

Well, that premise is wrong. What many, if not most, of the left has been arguing for quite awhile is that pulling out the troops will lead to a decrease in the violence. I don't understand why you are acting as if that is a new concept.

(btw, Is it possible to selectively block AH's rss access so that he doesn't continue to pollute the top of every thread with his anti-American BS?)

Posted by: Disputo on February 14, 2007 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

It is politically dangerous for liberal writers to be claiming that no civil war will follow a US departure -- when so many liberal voices have been saying for a long time that civil war would be one of the outcomes of a US invasion.

It would be much better for Democrats to be focusing their energy and new congressional power on investigating/impeaching Bush and Cheney for what they have done and passing resolutions restricting their ability to wage a new war against Iran. By focusing on what should now happen in Iraq, Democrats may end up owning the mess there (certainly the Republicans will attempt to frame it this way) without either punishing past Republican sins or preventing impending ones.

Posted by: JS on February 14, 2007 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

A very common trait of the human species is that when we predict the future we tend to predict the worst. How many movies have you seen set in the future that show sunny days and happy times? When we prognisticate we predict Communist takeovers, nuclear holocausts, deadly pandemics and massive terrorist attacks, which never happen. Bearing this in mind, it is quite possible that the opposite of what everyone thinks is what will really come to pass. The Iraqis may finally understand they have to live on the same planet together and make some kind of accomodation, instead of erupting into the all-out bloodbath so many predict.

Posted by: James of DC on February 14, 2007 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

Well, since the pro-war crowd has been wrong about absolutely everything, he has a point.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2007 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

take a few minutes? no, we'll use this as a springboard to say whatever it was we were going to say anyway.

Posted by: a on February 14, 2007 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

an American withdrawal from Iraq will result in unbridled civil war and massive carnage. But are we really so sure of that?

No need to worry about a American withdrawal now.Looks like the surge is already working. Liberals and Democrats will look like fools as Bush's surge will cause a American victory over the terrorists in Iraq.

"Al Sadr Fled Iraq, Fearing U.S. Bombs "
"According to senior military officials, al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family."
"Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house.""

Al

....

Posted by: asflkk on February 14, 2007 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

A corollary to this question is: how bad will it get if we stay? Most (all?) of the pro-war crowd seem to assume that the situation can't get much worse if we just hang in there. These has been a bit of talk about an Iraqi "Tet Offensive", but the possibility is usually discounted out of hand.

But the adversary seems to be getting better at killing us faster than we're getting better at killing them. They have time on their side - we're spending $2B per week, while they're mostly using explosives that "escaped" after our invasion to make IED while using up a few suicide fanatics that seem to be in endless supply. And now they're popping our helicopters for added entertainment. What's next? How about a transport plane or two? That would be fun. Maybe they could take out a couple of hundred of our guys at once. Oh the possibilities!

Here's a thought: the longer we stay the more likely is is that we'll take a big hit. Even if we don't, we're undergoing the death by a thousand cuts. There's no way this can turn out well.

aa

Posted by: aaron aardvark on February 14, 2007 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

The longer we stay, the more C-130s full of untraceable cash disappear.

I wonder what will happen in the Muslim world when America pulls out and they have to face the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq laid bare, or to Al Qaeda in Iraq when they no longer have an excuse for staying.

Posted by: Boronx on February 14, 2007 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINK

Dreyfuss argues that the situation in Iraq cannot significantly worsen because "Neither the Sunnis nor the Shiites have much in the way of armor or heavy weapons—tanks, major artillery, helicopters, and the like."

He says that "the most likely outcome is... a bloody Sunni-Shiite stalemate" -- which, he points out, is what we have now.

I'm not sure if it takes tanks and helicopters to carry out "bloodbaths". I can think of a number of them in the past that were carried out with much less -- just muskets or hatchets.

How wise is it to base Democratic policy on the assumption that no bloodbath will occur in a place where there is so much hatred?

Posted by: JS on February 14, 2007 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

Party before country, donchya know.

And Republican Hawk would know.

Posted by: Doug H. on February 14, 2007 at 2:31 AM | PERMALINK

I understand that Walter Mondale has been strongly advocating that withdrawal will stop the civil war. This belief is apparantly based on (gasp!) historical evidence.

On the other hand, I disagree with Dreyfus' estimation of the Turkish threat. Sure they have an army that could take over Kurdistan. But, as we are so amply demonstrating, it is what comes next that is the critical factor. I doubt that the Turkish army is better equipped than ours for a long, drawn-out insurgency. Especially when they are so much more vulnerable to terrorism.

Posted by: mcdruid on February 14, 2007 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

I'm chiming in with Disputo on this. In fact, when the first "rumors" of a civil war came online I was reading Today in Iraq, especially the comments. It was stated that the very idea of a Sunni/Shia civil war would be as ridiculous as having a civil war in America between Methodists and Lutherans. There is so much inter-marriage that too many households are mixed rendering the idea of civil war idiotic. And no, they are not Westerners who seem to be much more comfortable with such things, i.e., American Civil War, the numberous wars of the European Reformation, that kind of thing.

There have been many of us, both in the U.S. and abroad, who have argued that it is the U.S. troops breaking down doors, beating and detaining the men at some torture chamber such as Abu Ghraib, or killing the parents in a car while the children are in the backseat, and a complete disregard for the people or culture that is causing all this bloodshed.

There is a video at Information Clearing House titled "Voice of the Iraqi Resistence" that should provide some very good context for those with the stomach to hear some truth about what America is doing there.

Posted by: NeoLotus on February 14, 2007 at 3:38 AM | PERMALINK

I'd have to disagree with mcdruid about Turkey. Turkey has been fighting a Kurdish insurgency in their own country for 20 years now. It doesn't get much play in the western press, but at least 30,000 people have died. They know very well what a long, drawn out insurgency will look like. They would prefer to have the Kurdish region of Iraq remain part of Iraq and they will go to war to make sure that happens. The will not try to occupy Kurdistan if they can avoid it. But they will cut off Kurdistan and strangle it economically. They have quite a lot of leverage with the pipelines. And Iran will help them do it because they have their own problems with the Kurds. My guess is the Kurds will grudgingly agree to stay in Iraq rather than face the Turks. Of course, none of this will happen because the US won't leave Iraq. It will be a three way civil war within a year and we won't know how to get out.

Posted by: fostert on February 14, 2007 at 3:46 AM | PERMALINK

I disagree with Dreyfuss on one particular point -

it's possible that maintaining or escalating troops there could fuel the unrest.

- which is that there is no question whatsoever that maintaining troops in Iraq fuels the unrest, and will continue to do so as long as they remain.

Posted by: Dan on February 14, 2007 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINK

There is more unity in Iraq than most people realise, given the religious and ethnic differences. Saddam Hussein's army largely comprised Shi'ites, and yet they fought against Iranian Shi'ites on behalf of a Sunni dictatorship because they felt they were fighting for Iraq.

Incidentally, the US government's policies are doing a fine job of uniting Shi'ites and Sunnis against them. Now if these people can only get the Kurds on board they can establish unity in the whole nation.

Of course there would have to be a political party supporting that unity. What could it be called? How about the Arabic for "Unity" --

"Ba'ath".

Posted by: MFB on February 14, 2007 at 4:49 AM | PERMALINK

Cat blogging must be making you soft in the head - 18th century philosophy essentially took care of the problem of absolutes so is it really necessary to argue modern given that ultimately there are no certainties? Unless Dreyfuss wants to argue that worst case scenarios are being deliberately falsified to keep war going, a claim for which there seems no logical basis, then his premise is idiotic and could just as easily be construed to mean we haven't even begun to understand just how bad things are going to get. "Peace in our time" was an equivocation and so is this remarkably lame argument.

Posted by: cull tech on February 14, 2007 at 7:11 AM | PERMALINK

This was forecast for Vietnam as well, but aside from some reducation camp nastiness, nothing of the sort happened.

Posted by: bob h on February 14, 2007 at 7:23 AM | PERMALINK

It is all so Freudian. Too bad bushgov has the psychological burden of the little-man syndrome.
They need a big manly victory--and will engage in perpetual war until one comes.
This need will persist, despite thousands of deaths and zillions of dollars.
"Surge" was an interesting choice of words, quite Freudian.
With General Pace not feeding into their current propaganda,
there's a bit of a premature ejaculation of sorts.
Administration spokesman Tony Snow was rather macho about that yesterday in the white house briefing.
And over the course of the war, their Viagra moments include bushgov's timing of war/action/announcements/strategies all for political benefit, decided by partisan political considerations, easily google-searched, proven as fact the manipulation for political gain.
Like the election in 2004--or was it the erection? But I digress.

Also, in a similar vein to the good article Kevin presents, Mimi Katz has a reality-based text on "What Will Happen if We Leave Iraq" with insights there and in the comments that follow.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/01/what_will_happe.html

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 8:12 AM | PERMALINK

I am not convinced our early departure won't result in an even more bloody proxie war between Iran, Turkey and the House of Saud (allied with other Sunni nations.) There is just too much oil and water sloshing around Iraq not to tempt their neighbors. I am not arguing that the three camps will fight directly. I suspect that a Lebanon style proxie war is a real possiblity.

Posted by: Ron Byers on February 14, 2007 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

another point that has never been made -- if we leave Iraq and the situation does become horrible -- we can always go back in and probably this time with a true coalition of nations .

Posted by: smartone on February 14, 2007 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

"...nobody knows for sure what would happen if we left Iraq,..." - Kevin

Well one thing for sure is that women would be forced back into oppression, required to wear the full hajib, political opposition would be eliminted, strict Sharia law would be imposed, which calls for among other things, the slaughter of rape victims.

And the this is apparently Okay with the left, those who consider themselves defenders of civil rights.

What a joke.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2007 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Well, your parents were certainly correct that Vietnam would become a peaceful garden of love when we left. Cambodians would go back to entertaining tourists at Angkor Wat and everybody would love each other.

Weren't they ?

Posted by: Mike K on February 14, 2007 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

"Well one thing for sure is that women would be forced back into oppression, required to wear the full hajib, political opposition would be eliminted, strict Sharia law would be imposed, which calls for among other things, the slaughter of rape victims."

Since this wasn't the case before the US illegally invaded Iraq and overthrew its government, why should we believe it will be the case if the US ends its occupation of Iraq and returns the country to its people?

And why should we believe your predictions about, you know, anything?

Posted by: Joel on February 14, 2007 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

It is all about the oil. And the oil men in this administration's imperialism to sustain their wealth and power. They have completely weakened Iraq. And as wikipedia will say, "a puppet government is a government that owes its existence to a foreign power. Such a government is also known as a puppet government."
And now the US is arming/training one side in a civil war--the Shiite controlled army and police.
Here's a sad story: "I left Iraq in my childhood...went back for the first time in 24 years to see family...I was shocked at the dreadful state the country was in. I blame the former regieme and especially the USA for the destruction of the country. I truly believe Iraq has gone to the dogs.
The new government is corrupt, the police force is made up of militias, criminals/terrorists roam the streets, competent civil servants are purged from their jobs or executed, electricity is on for only 4 hours a day, sectarian/ethnic tensions are rife. If this is the New Iraq which is supposed to be a Beacon of Hope, then I don't want to be a part of it."
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4606013.stm

But we're never leaving--remember this video from President Bush last summer where he said "We're not leaving so long as I am the president."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-not-leaving/

Worth reading: Los Angeles attorney Frank J Mentrez and member of Military Families Speak Out, says "...(that)we think we know more about what is good for the Iraqis than the Iraqis themselves do, is paternalistic Big Government at its worst. There are countless ways we should try to help the Iraqis without having our troops in their country."
zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&Item/D=11223

Frank Rich said it best: "The Libby case is just one very big window. We see the full history
of a self-described war presidency that bungled the war in Iraq, and, in doing so, may be losing the war against radical Islamic terrorists as well."

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

I just don't see in the article anything like a serious argument for anything approaching a stable state in Iraq when we leave.

What does it matter if the larger population generally isn't in favor of a divided country? The forces who are already fighting amongst themselves presumably disagree pretty strongly disagree, and are not likely to stop when we leave. As is usual everywhere, what the people want and what their leaders may want are two very different stories.

Perhaps it's true that no side will have the sort of armament necessary to go deep into the others territory. But that mainly argues that it would have to be a protracted, entrenched kind of warfare, not that people would lay down their arms.

And in the end one has to consider the expectations that the various elements now harbor. The Shiite leaders have been encouraged to think by the American occupation and the "democratic" government to believe that they can rule the roost. The Kurd leaders believe that they can have a more or less independent state rich in oil resources. And the Sunni leaders remember well when they were in power, and reigned over all of Iraq, and must anticipate that when foreign forces are removed, that they can achieve that status once again with the proper effort.

I see nothing in that underlying dynamic to suggest anything remotely approaching stability when we leave.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 14, 2007 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

"Since this wasn't the case before the US illegally invaded Iraq..." - joel

The second you mentioned the "illegality" of this conflict, you become ignored and seen as someone who is either:

A. Completely ignorant of the facts, or

B. Blinded by partisanship

So, why should anyone listen to you about, anything?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2007 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

"...if the US ends its occupation of Iraq and returns the country to its people?" - joel

Do you suppose you could wrap your mind around anything other than what the MSM feeds you?

You're like a talking puppet.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2007 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

While we're on the Apocalypse' theme:

Over the Hedge
Signs of the coming hedge-fund apocalypse.
By Daniel Gross

http://www.slate.com/id/2159584?nav=tap3

(Or Dr. Gross finally notices something seriously amiss in the global debt bubble.)

Posted by: MsNThrope on February 14, 2007 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

"A. Completely ignorant of the facts" Uh, no. You mean Completely supported by the facts.

"B. Blinded by partisanship" Projecting much, Jay?

I notice you didn't actually attempt to defend your absurd prediction, Jay. You decided to change the subject to contest the fact that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. This diversion on your part confirms my inference that you are unserious.

I will defend my assertion that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal after you defend your ahistorical prediction that Sharia law will prevail in a post-occupation Iraq.

Posted by: Joel on February 14, 2007 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

"You're like a talking puppet."

Heh.

Pot, kettle, black, etc.

Posted by: Joel on February 14, 2007 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Better men than you proposed the same policy:

""The greatest gift our country can give the Cambodian people is not guns but peace. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now." -- Rep. Chris Dodd (D., Conn.)
Congressional Record
March 12, 1975"

And the result ?

"On April 17th, 1975 the Khmer Rouge, a communist guerrilla group led by Pol Pot, took power in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia. They forced all city dwellers into the countryside and to labor camps. During their rule, it is estimated that 2 million Cambodians died by starvation, torture or execution. 2 million Cambodians represented approximately 30% of the Cambodian population during that time."

I think your theory will never get tested because the Democrat who wins the election in 2008 will shrink from being responsible for genocide. Of course, Petraeus may have things under much better control by then. They have taken three years to learn how to do this and they may finally have it right.

Posted by: Mike K on February 14, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Mike K, how, exactly, was Cambodia analogous to US-occupied Iraq? We never overthrew Cambodia's government, never occupied the country. Your analogy is ahistorical.

"Of course, Petraeus may have things under much better control by then. They have taken three years to learn how to do this and they may finally have it right."

Of course, porcine aviation may also be a reality by then, too.

Nice try, though. Do play again sometime.

Posted by: Joel on February 14, 2007 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

Joel needs to read this article on how life worsened for Iraqi women since the U.S. occupation.
It will be educational for him. Rather than spout war-mongering talking points, I mean.
The article includes texts from the woman in Iraq who blogs--Riverbend, Baghdad Burning.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=101034.

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

What I find most disturbing about the situation is Iraq is the apparent lack of Iraqi nationalism. If there was a strong sense of nationalism, the ethnic and religious divides could be overcome, but without that sense of an Iraqi identity we are left with a Yugoslavia kind of break up along ethnic and sectarian lines.

Posted by: Ron Byers on February 14, 2007 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

"But are we really so sure of that?"

Questioning conventional wisdom? how outrageous of you, Kevin!

Who would have ever thought that "what everyone is saying" might not be the whole story?

Posted by: Joey Giraud on February 14, 2007 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

So, from what I gather: This MIGHT not be as bad as the genocide that took place after the US retreat from Viet Nam?

Posted by: nikkolai on February 14, 2007 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

The article doesn't present a very persuasive case, Kevin. The NIE assigned a high level of certainty to the notion that the civil war would get worse if we left.

If I may, let me advance your argument a slightly different way. We have a poor record of affecting events in this part of the world. We overthrew an Iranian democracy in the fifties and paid for it twenty years later when Khomeini took power there. We supported the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan only to see elements of them morph into the terrorist-sheltering Taliban. We aided Saddam Hussein as a buttress against Iran only to see him emerge as an expansionist threat. We invaded Iraq to install a democratic regime and we got... what we got. Unintended adverse consequences have been more common than successful applications of our will in this area of the world. The civil war might well get worse if we left, but might our presence extend it? Are we preventing a strong man from emerging that might not be our kind of guy, but who would be preferable to the anarchy that reigns today?

So ultimately I agree for slightly different reasons.

There is only one thing I'm reasonably sure we can manage. And that is to act as a trigger force to discourage the direct intervention of neighboring countries. (Indirect intervention is another issue.) But that would probably only take 40,000-50,000 troops.

Posted by: Wagster on February 14, 2007 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Whoops--I meant jay, not joel

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

"Joel needs to read this article on how life worsened for Iraqi women since the U.S. occupation. It will be educational for him. Rather than spout war-mongering talking points, I mean."

WTF? How were my posts war-mongering? I pointed out that Iraq was a secular society before the US invasion. I have no doubt that things are worse for Iraqi women (not to mention Iraqi men and children) since the US occupation. Jay was predicting that things will even grow worse if we leave. I pointed out that if past is prologue, this prediction is nonsense.

CWA, you need to read more carefully. I await your apology.

Posted by: Joel on February 14, 2007 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

I certainly do apologize. I immediately felt badly, and hurried to post that I had made an error, saying -- whoops, I meant Jay, not Joel.
I apologize a thousand times over.

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks, CWA. I didn't see your post until after my reply.

I like your handle: "Consider wisely always"

Posted by: Joel on February 14, 2007 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Joel. Kind of you to say. Again, sorry for my error.

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

I am an idiot.

I apologize for defending the party of racists (Republicans) and cheerleadng a war based on lies.
As much as I try to see this as a war of liberation, I actually see it exactly as it is: a bloody debacle.

I took my meds.

I am better now.

Posted by: American Hawk on February 14, 2007 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Crack open your history books and read... The British occupied Iraq 3 times prior to our current mess.

Iraq is a patchwork of squabbling tribal and religous allinaces.

When the British left, the Iraqis sorted things out for themselves and it is likely the Iraqis will sort it out for themselves again.

The long-term downside is that what will likely emerge this time around is a society controlled by religous fundementalist factions and/or rule by another strongman.

The Bush alternative is our current 'plan', which can be distilled to: Semi-permanent occupation and control via a puppet government.

The long-term results of this policy are pretty predictable... eventually the lid blows off completely... with a big bang.

Posted by: Buford on February 14, 2007 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Mike, you a-historical ignoramous, we smashed the neutralist Cambodian government, enabling the Khmer Rouge takeover. Later, we supported the Khmer Rouge against the N. Vietnamese--fortunately unsuccessfully

Posted by: rea on February 14, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Well one thing for sure is that women would be forced back into oppression, required to wear the full hajib, political opposition would be eliminted, strict Sharia law would be imposed, which calls for among other things, the slaughter of rape victims.

Umm, that's happening now, with the US there. Saddam, for all his faults, was a securalist, and women in Baathist Iraq enjoyed freedoms unavailable to their sisters in putatively free states such as US ally Saudi Arabia. Since the US invasion, by contrast, women have lost many of their rights and been forced into hijab, Sharia law has been imposed de facto (if not de jure) in much of the country, women can't even go outside for fear of rape and kidnap, etc. The result of the incompetent and illegal US aggression has been a nightmare of oppression for Iraq's women.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2007 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

nearly everyone -- even anti-war liberals -- tends to accept the conventional wisdom that an American withdrawal from Iraq will result in unbridled civil war and massive carnage.

I feel so isolated. Anti-war Leftists predicted the US invasion would unleash civil war on Iraq. When the US leaves that civil war will continue. It will most likely subside quickly after that, though. Like in Algeria after the French left or Viet Nam after the US left.

The catastrophic, 'unbridled' civil war if we leave propaganda theme is used to continue the neo-con hope they can subdue American popular opinion and keep the money flowing to their defense contracting friends and associates. They also hope they can kill enough Iraqis to subdue them. They have the moral and physical capacity to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis, but will soon lack the political machine to do it. That is why they use the threat of impending disaster for Iraqis from increased civil war to fool the American people into continuing to finance their war for oil. It is a lie similar to the Domino Theory used to keep the US in Viet Nam.

It is ironic. The pro-war faction says Iraq will descend into violent chaos as they kill tens of thousands of Iraqis with advanced technology. Americans, conservatives, moderates and liberals, are so blinded by their national militant identity that they cannot recognize how terrible their inputs are for the people of Iraq and the suffering they cause.

Posted by: Brojo on February 14, 2007 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with Mr. Dreyfuss' analysis completely. This mythical "Islamic caliphate" concept being pushed by the Bush fascists is ignorant fear-mongering, which is the only tool these pathetic people have left in their toolbox. Anyone who believes al-Qaeda is going to take over Iraq if American troops leave is a damn fool. That sceanrio is about as likely as the Boy Scouts taking over Manhattan if the police were to leave. Al-Qaeda is a tiny group of ragtag, poorly armed fanatics numbering about 1,000 in a country of 26 million. Do the math, fools.

As far as the Sunni-Shiite civil war, I agree with Mr. Dreyfuss that the two groups are far more likely to reach accomodation when we leave than when we stay. Our presence there prolongs the strife, instead of bringing it to a head. As I have posted here before, Iraq is an artificial country that was only held together by a brutal dictator that our CIA helped install and support. If we had spent half of the trillion dollars we will piss away in Iraq on alternative energy sources and making our cars and homes more energy-efficient, we wouldn't have to worry about this sad little wreck of a country.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on February 14, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Our continued presence is terrible for the Iraqi citizens and for our troops.

Regarding Vietnam, from retired General William Nash, US commander in Bosnia, 1995-97:
"But just think of the dire predictions made in 1975 when the helicopters were leaving the embassy grounds of Saigon, and everybody thinking that the dominoes would begin to fall. Lo and behold, not only didn't they fall, but a number of regional actors started taking some responsibility."

And Michael Mandelbaum, of the John Hopkins University foreign policy program:
"People might draw back from the brink or it may be that the civil war has to play itself out.
In any event, if the US withdrew or drew back, at least our troops won't be getting killed,
and surely, the first obligation of the American government is to the people of the US,
and that includes US armed forces."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/28/MNGCJNQHOI1.DTL&feed=rss.news

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

That sceanrio is about as likely as the Boy Scouts taking over Manhattan if the police were to leave.

Actually I think that happened once ... in an episode of "Car 54 Where Are You?". About right since Toody and Muldoon are now in charge of foreign policy.

Posted by: G.Kerby on February 14, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Its premise is simple: nearly everyone -- even anti-war liberals -- tends to accept the conventional wisdom that an American withdrawal from Iraq will result in unbridled civil war and massive carnage.

Well, start with a false premise...

Actually, what most anti-war liberals have said for quite some time is that the present escalating civil war was made inevitable by our invasion of Iraq, that it continues to be intensified by our continued presence, that our withdrawal will almost certainly reduce the overall duration and intensity of the civil war as compared to our continued presence. Now, anti-war liberals often acknowledge that may still involve an increasingly violent situation for some time, inasmuch as that results from the invasion and destabilization we have wrought already, but few anti-war liberals have suggested that our withdrawal will cause, as you and Dreyfuss suggest they have, an unbridled civil war.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2007 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Any discussion of Iraq that does not have the word "impeach" in it is not worth anything.

Posted by: Bob M on February 14, 2007 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

If I recall correctly, Kevin Drum has more than once opined that "of course" US withdrawal from Iraq would lead to increased violence and bloodshed, and that advocates of prompt withdrawal should "face up to" this "fact".

And this was met, in these very pages, by comments from many frequent readers of his blog saying that that outcome was by no means certain, and indeed might be unlikely. I don't recall that Kevin ever responded to these arguments from his own readers.

But when Robert Dreyfuss makes the same argument in the pages of Kevin's employer's magazine, Kevin is quick to respond that of course "nobody knows for sure what would happen if we left Iraq, after all" and praises Dreyfuss for asking "the question seriously instead of simply assuming the worst" -- which is exactly what Kevin himself has done repeatedly, essentially parroting the arguments of supporters of continued US occupation by "simply assuming the worst" outcome of withdrawal.

What's that about, Kevin?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2007 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Stay or go, the insanity of Bush's America can only do harm.

Other nations have long known that a rogue regime seized the power of the American presidency on January 6th, 2001. The only thing that drives the United States to do good is the good will of the American people. The world community knows we've been cut out of the loop. They have learned to expect Bush's American to blindly serve the immediate ends of a tiny faction, however counter-productive, however massive the devastation to others. They do not look to us for help. They submit to our "help" because the fascist regime forces them to.

As long as we leave the massive power of the American presidency in the hands of men who are a law onto themselves, options that would be available to a legitimate American President will remain closed to us.

The ONLY way to open the doors of possibility that are closed to the fascist war criminals is to impeach Bush and Cheney.

Only legitimate successors would have a shot at engaging the critical parties in seeking solutions that can work because the players have a stake in making them work. (Iraqi Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish power brokers; Arab League nations, Iran; the EU; Turkey; Russia, China, . . .)

We may be too stained by the horrors of the Bush regime to do anything positive. But under legitimate leadership, we could at least begin to to redeem ourselves by getting out of the way and setting aside reparations that would be paid as milestones and conditions negotiated by other stakeholders are met.

Without a scintilla of legitimacy, rationality, or trust, nothing "the decider" does will "work".

Only impeachment can rescue our constitutional democracy.

Only impeachment gives us a shot at doing anything to turn things around in the Middle East.

Posted by: Pat K on February 14, 2007 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Everybody knows them brown-skinned Muslim zealots can't governate themselves.

That's why we sent our brave white Christians over yonder.

We is gonna to teach them democracy.

And how to eat fast food too...

We has got to civilize them.
Then we's can step down when they's step up...

Just ask my poppy.
Hes smart to.

Posted by: Bush Twin #1 on February 14, 2007 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

It is encouraging to see that the only commenters on this site who support Bush's Iraq policies any more are the ignorant dumbass dittoheads like Jay, Mike K and "American Hawk", who have nothing to offer but rote regurgitation of the most idiotic, scripted right-wing drivel-points ever invented.

Only brain-dead mental slaves of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News support Bush's policies any more.

And contrary to their belief that they represent mainstream American opinion, they are in fact an irrelevant, cultish lunatic fringe whose opinions mean nothing to anyone -- least of all to the ultra-rich corporate elites whose bought-and-paid-for propagandists sneer at them while they spoon-feed them this crap.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2007 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

The real question is whether "unbridled civil war and massive carnage" would have any long-term impact on American national security interests.

And the answer is "no."

The predicted effects from "losing" in Iraq are as grossly exaggerated as were the predicted effects from "losing" in Vietnam.

Which is why the war's defenders cannot come up with anything more specific than "it will embolden the terrorists" and "it will hurt America's credibility" (as if that hasn't reached rock bottom already from Bush's lies and incompetence!).

Ask them to state exactly and with specificity what negative consequences "losing" in Iraq would have and the war lovers cannot come up with anything but platitudes, bromides, and vague assertions of dire consequences.

Because it really is about never having to admit that they were (and are) wrong, both specifically about the war and about foreign policy in general.

The self-proclaimed righteous can never be wrong is their motto.

Posted by: Google_This on February 14, 2007 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Dubya is on tv, looks red in the face, tired, fleshy, dried out skin, eyes kind of crossed, closer together than I remember. Gesturing with his hands. Getting some questions about the Iraq vote. Do you believe a vote of disapproval undermines your ability, for one--
" Ummm, I, Ummm, I understand the congress is going to express their opinion...tangential about his answer, "vote for Petreaus then you don't want to fund his strategy." He finds it interesting there is a declaration about a plan they did not give a change.
He always has this insincere look in his eyes. Looks like he has acid indigestion as he waits for questions, yet is laughing at his own jokes, what a conflicted man.
"Money trumps peace sometimes." Wow, is that a freudian slip with regard to the oil man president.
"Someone who doesn't agree with my policy is just as patriotic as I am."
Recall the crap he said about democrats being traitors and supportive of terrorism just last fall.

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Google_This wrote: "The real question is whether 'unbridled civil war and massive carnage' would have any long-term impact on American national security interests. And the answer is 'no' [...] the war's defenders cannot come up with anything more specific than 'it will embolden the terrorists' and 'it will hurt America's credibility' [...]"

Of course US withdrawal will have long-term impacts on American national security interests, especially if Iraq does indeed deteriorate into even worse civil war, and especially if that scenario pulls in neighboring countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey) into a proxy war in Iraq, or an open regional war between those countries.

But supporters of continued occupation cannot honestly discuss the reasons why this is true. That's why they continue to spout absurd lies about the "threat" from "emboldened radical Islamist jihadism" and other bullshit pretexts for continued US occupation.

The reason why continued or worsening chaos and conflict in Iraq is indeed a threat to "American national security interests" is that America's one and only "national security interest" in the region is oil -- specifically, control of and profit from the region's vast oil reserves by the ultra-rich neo-fascist corporate-feudalist elites of the US-based multinational oil companies, which is the sole and entire reason for not only the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but for all US involvement in the region.

It is crucial to understand that "America's national security interests" have nothing to do with actually protecting America or the American people from actual threats, and are defined by America's military-industrial-petroleum complex as "the interests of America's ultra-rich ruling class".

And by putting at risk the project of securing control of Middle Eastern oil for Dick Cheney's ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in the US-based multinational oil companies, as well as the continually rising profits of the giant military contractors, US withdrawal from Iraq does indeed endanger "America's national security interests" as those are actually defined by elite policy makers, as opposed to what the gullible public believes those interests to be.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

What's that about, Kevin?

That's about Kevin's contract calling for at least one WM article-pushing post each issue. But you knew that.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

mhr--you give Reagan too much credit. Changes in the USSR were stimulated by dissatisfaction with the ways things were going--they wanted to restructure for economic and social growth.
Mikhail Gorbachev's book Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World"
Their losses were enormous after WWII.
Gorbachev wanted constructive and wide-ranging dialogue.
He said "only a madman would unleash nuclear war."
"It is high time the caveman mentality was given up"
"A new outlook is necessary in a nuclear age."
"Respect for other countries' interests."

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Surrender would involve turning over American leaders to Iraqis for trial and punishment. Most Americans just want our troops out of Iraq and harm's way.

I think I prefer surrender. Having our generals and war leaders hanged by Iraqis would have a similar effect that the hanging of German and Japanese generals and war leaders had: a repudiation of a militant national identity and war to solve economic problems. Then we could amend the constitution forbidding foreign wars. That may be the best possible outcome of this terrible invasion and occupation Bush fooled the American people into fighting.

Posted by: Brojo on February 14, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Well one thing for sure is that women would be forced back into oppression, required to wear the full hajib, political opposition would be elimin[a]ted, strict Sharia law would be imposed, which calls for among other things, the slaughter of rape victims.

None of this is true. "Back" implies that the condition of women has improved under Coalition occupation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Or does the speaker mean "back" to the status quo ante 1958, when the Hashemite monarchy was overthrown and replaced by the popular Abdulkarim Qassim? At that time, "strict" Shari'a was not in force, and pressure to do so was not strong (see, for example, Charles Tripp's Cambridge History of Iraq, Cambridge UK 2002).

The usual slanders of Muslims and Islam, and Shi'ism in particular, are in evidence here. Shari'a absolutely does not call for the "slaughter" of rape victims, any more than "American values" call for the lynching of random African American men. The former is a far more rare occurance than the latter. The practice of Islam in isolated frontier regions of, say, the Hindu Kush mountains, has more to do with universally-found clan or caste feuds than with Shari'a.

I would be unsurprised if the writer quoted above googles for five or six accounts of doubtful provenance, showing miscarriages of justice in Islamic countries. I could merely direct same to "Without Sanctuary" or the Online Holocaust Museum. Or we could discuss the fate of Amadou Diallo.

Posted by: James R MacLean on February 14, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Once the United States withdraws, Iraq will no longer be a magnet for that jihad."

This assumes that there aren't any permanent, sorry, i mean persisting, US (coalition?) bases remaining in the area (KSA, Iraq itself or other) which, we might remember, were the irritant that got UBL bent out of shape to begin with (other that KSA decided to let the US kick Saddam over his own Afghan-veterans).

Posted by: jhm on February 14, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Will those events embolden Bin Ladin and the islamic radicals?- very likely.
Posted by: mhr

News-flash mhr: we lost 7 helos in the last two months. That's a huge spike in the insurgents' ability to down our choppers. If they aren't "emboldened" now, then WTF do you call it?

And why should we care how the insurgents feel anyway? Your fear of brown people really has you toadying to the most absurd rationales.

Posted by: cyntax on February 14, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

"When an American president called the Soviets an "evil empire" and matched their military buildup with the US' own, did that make him a war-monger and lead to war..."

The soviets weren't building up thier military at the time, so it mostly made him a fool.

Posted by: jefff on February 14, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Dreyfuss writes: The idea that al-Qaeda might take over Iraq is nonsensical. Numerous estimates show that the group called Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its foreign fighters comprise only 5 to 10 percent of the Sunni insurgents’ forces.

I believe this is a straw man. The fear is that al Qaeda might secure a base of operations in Iraq where they might have substantial power. This is precisely the situation that existed in Afghanistan, so it's conceivable in Iraq.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 14, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

My opinion is that the article Kevin gives us has an excellent point here:

"Even if post-occupation efforts to create a new political compact among Iraqis fail, the most likely outcome is, again, a bloody Sunni-Shiite stalemate, accompanied by continued ethnic cleansing in mixed areas. But that, of course, is no worse than the path Iraq is already on under U.S. occupation"

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

So this is how dictatorships begin. The people whine and complain but do nothing in the face of power that might inconvenience their lifestyles?

Well, since I won't be flying in a small plane any time soon, I say lets shut this country down and strike.

I am puking sick of what is going on. Puking. Sick.

ooo, maybe I should make out a will....

Just for posterity, I call myself Zit because growing up, me mum said I was a pimple on the face of progress. :)

Posted by: Zit on February 14, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: I believe this is a straw man.

Well, you're an expert on straw men. Unfortunately, your analysis is, as always, clueless where it isn't dishonest, and serves the cause of defending the neocon adventure in Iraq poorly.

The fear is that al Qaeda might secure a base of operations in Iraq where they might have substantial power.

"Might" implies that they have not done so already.

This is precisely the situation that existed in Afghanistan, so it's conceivable in Iraq.

Which is an indictment of Bush's folly in launching the war on Iraq and creating the situation where there is no credibile solution to this problem. Your "belief" that the United States can prevail in Iraq isn't worth a bucket of piss, "ex-liberal."

The sole bright spot in this entire tragic episode is that the grand scale incompetence and mendacity of the neocons is now obvious to the American public, rendering their latest campaign of dishonesty to goad America to support the sacrifice its blood and treasure in a military strike against a regional rival of Israel is as doomed to failure as Bush's war in Iraq.

Posted by: Gregory on February 14, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

consider wisely always wrote: "mhr--you give Reagan too much credit."

As a brain-dead dittohead mental slave of right-wing extremist propaganda, it is mhr's place in life to deify and worship Ronald Reagan, The Great Conservative Hero Who Single-Handedly Defeated The Evil Soviet Empire In Hand-To-Hand Nukular Combat ...

... and to revile and excoriate Jimmy Carter, who by funding and supporting the rebels who fought against the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan in the 1970s, pushed the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, which contributed much more to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union than did Reagan's arms buildup.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

George W. Bush, answering a question from ABC's Martha Raddatz about whether there's a civil war in Iraq: "It's hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment. I haven't been there. You have. I haven't."

The president has visited Iraq at least twice since the war began, most recently in June 2006.

From Tim Grieve, The War Room, at salon.com

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals will never forgive Reagan for his victory...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Posted by: Gregory on February 14, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

The fear is that al Qaeda might secure a base of operations in Iraq where they might have substantial power. This is precisely the situation that existed in Afghanistan, so it's conceivable in Iraq.

The situation that existed in Iraq is that an al-Qaeda-backed group (the Taliban) that was ideologically closely allied with al-Qaeda and depended on al-Qaeda as an auxiliary military force against its local enemies established control of most of the country, and was sponsored by a neighboring, ideologically allied regime (Pakistan) that also had its own direct ties to al-Qaeda affiliates fighting against its main enemy.

The probability of something like that happening in Shi'a-dominated Iraq is pretty remote; although I suppose if there is a partition it is conceivable that Saudi Arabia (who was, after all, the only nation besides Pakistan to recognize the Taliban regime) might sponsor an al-Qaeda linked regime in the Sunni portion.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, Reagan--half asleep during most of his presidency, forgetting about Iran-Contra?

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

I think Dreyfuss does a decent job of unpacking the questionable logic behind most of the worst case scenarios in the event of a U.S. military pull out. It should come as no surprise that the reasons which "reasonable" politicians invoke in order to justify their continued support of the illegal and immoral occupation are as baseless as the reasons given by the Bush Regime in the march to war.

What politicians on both sides on the aisle must come to terms with is that the U.S. has unleashed forces in Iraq which it has no control over. Sad how the great superpower is helpless to determine the course of events in Iraq in light of all the money and blood it has expended for just that purpose.

Posted by: smedleybutler on February 14, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: The situation that existed in Iraq is that an al-Qaeda-backed group (the Taliban) that was ideologically closely allied with al-Qaeda and depended on al-Qaeda as an auxiliary military force against its local enemies established control of most of the country, and was sponsored by a neighboring, ideologically allied regime (Pakistan) that also had its own direct ties to al-Qaeda affiliates fighting against its main enemy.

The probability of something like that happening in Shi'a-dominated Iraq is pretty remote;

You had a typo, cm. The word "Iraq" in the top line should have been "Afghanistan."

I actually agree with you. I think if we fail, a bloodbath is likely, but the al Qaeda option is unlikely.

I would add that from a totally selfish US POV we're better off due to Bush's war in Iraq, despite the failed occupation. There was a real risk that Saddam would build nukes, as he came close to doing in 1991. The current situation is pretty horrible for Iraqis, but from our POV nobody there has the time and resources to conduct a program of nuclear development.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 14, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Dreyfuss makes many good arguments. They are at least as valid as the doomsday scenario the WH paints. Logic compells that we extend his thinking to embrace the likelihood that not only will the withdrawal of US forces not result in the chaos so often trumpeted by the neocons, but that the presence of our forces is actually prolonging the day when peace might actually break out. This isn't as outrageous as it sounds. The presence of our troops may be enabling the factions to continue fighting instead of actually having to make accommodations with one another. I've had the feeling for some time that the Maliki government is making the most of the US presence to accomplish ethnic cleansing now before the US pulls out and they have to sit down and make peace.

Posted by: ExBrit on February 14, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

The deliberate liar ex-liberal lied: "I would add that from a totally selfish US POV we're better off due to Bush's war in Iraq, despite the failed occupation."

The US is in no way whatsoever "better off" due to Bush's war of unprovoked aggression, based on lies, for the corrupt purpose of seizing control of Iraq's vast oil reserves for Dick Cheney's ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in the US-based multinational oil companies.

The deliberate liar ex-liberal contiued lying: "There was a real risk that Saddam would build nukes, as he came close to doing in 1991."

There was no risk whatsoever that Saddam would "build nukes". None. At the time Bush launched his war of unprovoked aggression based on lies, Iraq had no capacity to build nukes, had no programs to develop that capacity, was not seeking to start up any such programs, and was in no position to start up any such programs even if Saddam had wanted to.

All ex-liberal ever does is spew one lie after another -- and they are invariably the most blatant, stupidest and longest-discredited lies in circulation among the dittohead mental slaves of the right-wing extremist Bush-bootlicking lunatic fringe.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with jhm. It is my belief that future presidents will keep some US military presence in Iraq. Years passed and the US stayed in Europe, in Korea. Democrat or Republican, I suspect this is the reality. Maybe this is why Senator Clinton has been so tentative. Maybe it is about the oil.

P.S. this is off-topic, and I like seeing women in important positions on cable news stations,
but Nora O'Donnell from CNN was practically orgasmic talking about McCain today. I was nauseous.

And Jim Cramer, stock analyst, is saying First Solar (FSLB) is a stock to go with, surging on strong 40, new contract, making money. Just for FYI...

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

There was no risk whatsoever that Saddam would "build nukes". None.

I agree with SA that ex-liberal is a mindless, quivering fear-monger who bears as much resemblance to a mature, reasoning human being as a butterfly bears to a cucumber. Still, we could probably--out of generosity--assign a probability slightly greater than zero to Saddam building a nuke...

Posted by: obscure on February 14, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist -

In 1991 Iraq had scientists, oil money, and the desire to build nukes. They were close to doing so when Papa Bush defeated Saddam and we ended that nuclear effort.

In 1981 Israel bombed a Baghdad nuclear reactor, ending that effort of Saddam to go nuclear.

In 2002, Iraq still had scientists and oil money. If Saddam had chosen to seek nukes, he had the resources to do so. And, since he had forced the UN inpsectors out in 1998, he might have built nukes without the world knowing about it.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 14, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: Reagan took Sadaam off the terrorist list in 1982
Rumsfield was photographed shaking hands with him in 1983, sealing the deals.
In 1984, full diplomatic relations were apparently established.
He may have gassed his people in 1988.
Evidently the crime for which he was convicted took place in 1982--the year your hero took him off the terrorist list.
There was an ambassador in the Bush 41 administration who claimed she admired Sadaam and his efforts, having lived in Iraq for years. This was in 1990. Hmmmmm.
Well, it sure went to pot when he invaded Kuwait.
What do you have to say about that?

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

consider wisely always: What do you have to say about that?

What I have to say about your post is: What's your point?

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 14, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

You're quoting dates and I am quoting dates.

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

The deliberate liar ex-liberal continues doing the only thing he ever does, which is to spew blatant and stupid lies.

ex-liberal: "If Saddam had chosen to seek nukes, he had the resources to do so."

No, he did not have the resources to do so.

ex-liberal: "And, since he had forced the UN inpsectors out in 1998, he might have built nukes without the world knowing about it."

Saddam did not "force the UN inspectors out in 1998". The UN withdrew the inspectors, after being advised by the Clinton administration that the US was about to begin bombing Iraq, and would not be able to guarantee the safety of the UN inspectors from the US bombing attack.

And well before Bush launched his unprovoked war of aggression, based on lies, against Iraq in 2003, the new UN inspectors had already reported with a high degree of confidence that Iraq had no nuclear weapons programs and was not in a position to start up any such programs, so your lie that Bush's war was justified because Saddam "might have built nukes without the world knowing about it" is idiotic.

As idiotic, in fact, as Bush's public statement that he ordered the 2003 invasion of Iraq because Saddam "refused to let the UN inspectors into Iraq".

You are not only a deliberate liar, you are a pathetically, clownishly stupid deliberate liar.

Just like Bush.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2007 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Well said, SecularAnimist. You are admired for your strong challenges to such mal-statements.

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with jhm. It is my belief that future presidents will keep some US military presence in Iraq.

I disagree -- not because they won't want to, but because they won't be able to. At some point, sooner rather than later, the situation is going to get so hot that we'll be forced to pull our forces out. The cost in lives lost and money spent to maintain a toehold there simply won't be worth it.

We will, of course, continue to maintain forces in the region, in such places as Kuwait and Qatar, etc., and in carrier groups in the Gulf. But our military presence in Iraq proper won't last beyond a few more years.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Years passed and the US stayed in Europe, in Korea

We didn't, however, stay in Vietnam, and for a simple reason: we lost. Just as we're going to lose (and have already lost) in Iraq.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2007 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Good points, Stefan. It is just a gut feeling. With the 14 bases already built in Iraq.
I fear it may be all about oil.
Exxon et al. seem to have so much power in the US and globally, were able to testify (lie) to Congress without having to be under oath. Got away with misrepresentations about the Cheney energy task force in which they participated. It took Judicial Watch to surface the meeting minutes. And no consequential follow up as yet.
I am the world's biggest skeptic.

Posted by: consider wisely always on February 14, 2007 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

With the 14 bases already built in Iraq.

Well, as I said we had quite a few bases in Vietnam, too. The Vietnamese Navy still enjoys the facilities we built for them in Cam Ranh Bay....

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2007 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Party before country, donchya know. American Tawk at 1:05 AM

That's what RepubliConTarians have been doing for 12 years and it's why they lose elections. Keep on rollin' The only ones making detailed predictions about the period after Americans withdraw from Iraq have been those who have been completely wrong about every aspect of Bush's invasion. Why start to believe them now?

Well one thing for sure is that women would be forced back into oppression...Jay at 9:02 AM

After Bush's invasion, Iraq women now have fewer rights and fewer Iraqi children can attend school. After Bush's invasion, Afghanistan women have no rights and are killed if they try to obtain an education. Where's the joke?

your parents were certainly correct that Vietnam would become a peaceful garden of love ...Mike K at 9:05 AM

Straw man attack. Didn't you get the New Party Line? Vietnam is our ally. Vietnam has always been our ally. Vietnam will provide slave labor for our multinationals.

The second you mentioned the "illegality" of this conflict...Jay at 9:25 AM

The illegality of Bush's invasion of Iraq according to Ricard Perle. Of course, other, more reputable persons, have shown that to be the case as well.

...did that make him a war-monger and lead to war, as many liberals predicted would occur? Did SDS... mhr at 12:24 PM

You can ask all those who died in Central American and in other places around the world because of Raygun's policies if he was a war monger, but the answer is yes. You can ask scientists and rocket designers who was right, Kennedy or Raygun, and you will learn that yes, Kennedy is right. SDS is an expensive, wasteful farce.

it mostly made him a fool. jefff at 1:09 PM

It makes fools of the Americans for supporting the military waste, fraud and abuse they fund. The American military is a boondoggle

... This is precisely the situation that existed in Afghanistan, so it's conceivable in Iraq.... ex-lax at 1:18 PM

Afghanistan was a fundamentalist; Iraq was secular; Shia are not al Qaida. Your argument is made of straw.

There was a real risk that Saddam would build nukes...ex-lax at 2:30 PM

There was a real risk that Pakistan and North Korea would build nukes. Bush did nothing. There is no threat to the US. Now, most nations realize that having nukes is security against an American invasion. This is against America's best interests. As usual, you're 180 degrees off. Posted by: Mike on February 14, 2007 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

From what I understand, the strategy of the Shiite militias is to run all the Sunnis out of Iraq, and they are succeeding -- the Sunni population is already down by about one-quarter.

So if the US leaves then this process will continue and possibly accelerate, and we will end up with an Iranian-style theocracy. Stable, but hardly a good outcome.

Posted by: Phil on February 14, 2007 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

But are we really so sure of that?

How sure do you have to be to:

(a) arrest a bunch of Arabs taking flying lessons in Arizona?

(b) Invade Iraq to finalize the complete demolition of all the remaining WMDs?

In the case of (a), the CIA and administration were not sufficiently "alarmist".

In the case of (b), the administration was too "alarmist".

Either the American withdrawal will produce more casualties than the Democrats expect, or it will produce fewer casualties than the Republicans expect. At this point, which is the side on which to err?

Even after we withdraw, which Congress will eventually order, we won't know what would have happened had we withdrawn later still, or earlier still.

What if the doomsayers are wrong? maybe you should link some day to one of those explanations of how the recent global warming was caused by the transient strengthening of the stream of particles emanating from the son.

he asks the question seriously instead of simply assuming the worst

Is there even one person who "simply assumes" the worst?

Posted by: spider on February 14, 2007 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Given that all of the reasons originally (and secondarily, and tertiarily, etc.) advanced by the administration for going into Iraq in the first place have been shown to be, at best, mistakes, if not outright lies, it appears that the only reason we have for staying is Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn Rule". The Real Question, therefore, is "If Iraq were exactly as it is today, except that US forces were not already there and had not caused the mess, would we send 160,000 troops over there right now to try to fix it?" If the answer to this question is "No", we should withdraw immediately in the least harmful manner possible. If the answer is "Yes", the next question should be "Why?"

I haven't seen anyone ask this question. I think everyone should.

Posted by: Jim Burt on February 14, 2007 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

This seems to be another effor to shed responsibility for painful choices--just bury the head in the sand.

We heard it all before. Kerry said the the north vietnamese would never slaughter our allies in the south if we just left. Of course, he was never taken to task when these people were slaughtered.

The same rationalizations here.

Posted by: Pasha on February 15, 2007 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

BTW, I hate to put too much cold water on asking questions--that is if anyone really wanted to do an honest analysis, but this is a little too much like the various conspiracy theories we hear about.

What if .....

What if Bush is right about everything? No harm asking? We don't know, right? maybe there are some nukes buried in Baghdad in some secret bunker? What if?

.......

Point is, what I am not seeing is any responsibility in the query. A responsible query does not start with the conclusion. It starts with examining the facts. Where is this examination?

Posted by: Pasha on February 15, 2007 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

Fostert,
It is precisely because the Turks have been fighting Kurdish nationalists that they will think twice about invading Kurdistan.

Besides, it is my guess that two nuclear nations will recognize the country very soon after the Kurds declare independence: China and Israel.

Posted by: mcdruid on February 15, 2007 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINK

No answer?

Here is where author begins:

1. United States is doing little, if anything, to restrain ethnic cleansing

2. the civil war is limited by physical constraints

3. neither Shiite Iran nor the Sunni Arab countries would likely risk a regional conflagration by providing their Iraqi proxies with the heavy weapons that would enable them to wage offensive operations in each other’s heartland.

The first point seems to be that things are as bad as they can get already--that US is ineffective. Relative to what? There can be no comparison because the comparison is circularly based on author's own conclusion (asserted) that civil war is not likely to get worse. If things are bad with some US policing, the argument should go that things would be better with more, not less--but author has no analysis here to support his belief that more policing also would be ineffective--just another assertion that points out that he is trying to deny a logical inference that takes him in the opposite direction.

2. Author asserts that under present policing, Shia and Sunni cannot spread war. Then the policing is effective by this point--at least it prevents both sides from moving the heavy weapons--again, another point in wrong direction.

3. Really? And the historical precedent was not the Iraq-Iran war? So each sides will both self-contain even if they are then at mercy of other side cheating? And these are people that are already killing each other whereever they can now.

Seems again a point in wrong direction.

Posted by: Pa on February 15, 2007 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK