US pullout of Iraq - Good or Bad?

gbh

The longer the US stays in Iraq the worse it seems to get. And for good reason.

The Shia militas want to get them out and probably aim to become the dominant political force.

While Iran probably wants the US to get tired of staying in Iraq and out of their neighbourhood. So they arm militas to attack US troops.

Then there is AL Quida in Iraq which has changed its tactics to attacking civilans.

So the question is, Is the US presence in Iraq helping stem the violence or leading to its increase. And also does the ever worsening situation confirm beyond any shadow of a doubt that the US decision to invade Iraq was the worst tactical decision by a US government in generations and that those who planned it must accept entirely the blame.

Manic Moran

gbh wrote:

The Shia militas want to get them out and probably aim to become the dominant political force.

So we should let them run roughshod over the Sunnis? Why didn't we just let the Serbs retain their position as the dominant political force in Kosovo over the Albanians then? The Shia will be the dominant political force, it's an issue of just how dominant.

While Iran probably wants the US to get tired of staying in Iraq and out of their neighbourhood. So they arm militas to attack US troops.

As long as the US is engaged in Iraq, that means they're not able to do much about Iran. Furthermore, they provide 'soft targets' for Iranian forces if the Iranians feel the need to up the ante more directly in the event of US/UN actions on the nuclear issue. It is in the Iranian interest for the US involvement to continue for the next few years. There was an article in Time magazine a week back explaining why almost every country in the mid-East believed it was in their own personal interests for the US to stay there, varying from the Iran argument above, Turkey relying on the US to stop the creation of an independent Kurdish state, Saudi believing that the creation of a Shia state by force of arms may threaten its own Sunni authoritarian regime, Israel for obvious reasons, and so on.

Then there is AL Quida in Iraq which has changed its tactics to attacking civilans.

Which isn't really anything to do with the US involvement. They have their own little fight going on, even the Sunni tribes in Anbar have joined forces against AQ.

And also does the ever worsening situation confirm beyond any shadow of a doubt that the US decision to invade Iraq was the worst tactical decision by a US government in generations and that those who planned it must accept entirely the blame.

No, and pretty much yes. There's little doubt, I think, that the Paul Bremer administration was a total cock-up.

NTM

GarraiGamhain

Its like tearing a plaster off. Quick and painful. Let the civil war work itself out I say.

wes

Iraq is done whether the US leave or stays, at this point it won't make a difference. The US will pass the buck as far as this mess goes to someone else as they normally do, millions of lives destroyed, hundreds of thousand dead.

Western nations ignoring the huge refugee crisis, the largest since the Palestinian Naqba. They are even ignoring the Christian and other religious minorities who have gone to Syria and Jordan for the most part. The US and UK shamefully won't even take in people who have worked for them, and due to this are targets.

There is no light at the of the tunnel for Iraq or her people. A nation destroyed due to the grand designs of the the US's Neo-con project. Whether the US stays or goes the damage is done, and they are unwilling to fix it, even when someone gave them a blue print (Iraq report) that may have done it (at least a better chance than what there doing now).

SeanW

I was one of the very few here who believed the initial invasion was a good idea because I believed the US administration that Saddam had WMD, until almost a couple of weeks before it started.

What turned me off military action against Saddam/Iraq was the presentation Colin Powell gave to the UN Security Council in pursuit of a mandate for war.

The presentation, from what I saw, revolved around a couple of trucks and trailers in the desert being billed as "Mobile chemical weapons laboratories." All this while weapons inspections were ongoing.

WTF??? :mad: You're going to start a war over a couple of F**king trucks? While the country is being subjected to among the most intrusive inspections in history?

4 years later, no WMD (no surprise there) and Iraq is in a crap mess with a million ethnic armies running around causing carnage and Al Quaeda making a foothold ... There are now more questions than ever about just what the hell possessed these neocon psychos to start this since WMD was a load of nonsense. One theory suggests that the war was started because Saddam had changed the dealing of Iraq's oil into Euros, thus undermining the US economy based on the Petrodollar. Indeed given that the first thing the US did when it took Baghdad was grab the oil ministry and change the trading back to dollars, seems to be one of many things bring more questions than answers about the whole affair.

So as to the question of whether the US/UK should pull out, I'm undecided. On the one hand, the Iraqis don't really want foreign occupiers in their country, and I doubt the soldiers want to be their either. Indeed the continuing presence of the US/UK forces seems to be accomplishing nothing.

On the other hand, if they withdraw and cede to Al Queda, won't they just be emboldened to step up further their campaign of Jihad against the "infidel" West? In addition to the civil war that may ensue.

Having said that, I once read an editorial/article stating that if the goal was to win the war on terror, the forgotten war in Afghanistan was still up for the taking, yet it only has a fraction of the allied presence that's in Iraq. This made a certain amount of sense.

Assuming that there are no remaining questions other than terrorism, the question of whether the US/UK should stay in Iraq therefore comes down to 3 key questions:
1: What happens if they stay?
2: What happens if they go?
3: Could the forces be better deployed elsewhere?

Manic Moran

At the risk of confusing the woods for the trees (i.e. local effects need not reflect the greater situation), an excellent Yon* dispatch this week.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/desires-of-the-human-heart-part-ii.htm

NTM

*Mike Yon is about the only embed who really embeds, living with, and going out and about with soldiers not in the Green Zone.

NTM

flogen

I don't think a withdrawal is the answer - I had no support for the initial invasion but I think the fate of Iraq is now at the door of the US, and as they've allowed a civil war to start there it's their job to resolve it... The US can't abandon Iraq just because the country didn't go along with their ignorant plans.

What should the US do? Hard to say - it's not going to be easy, that's for sure, but I think securing the involvement of other Islamic states might help them change the (understandable) perception of this being war being nothing more than a white christian power trying to dominate an arabic islamic country.

Scigaithris

gbh wrote:

So the question is, Is the US presence in Iraq helping stem the violence or leading to its increase. And also does the ever worsening situation confirm beyond any shadow of a doubt that the US decision to invade Iraq was the worst tactical decision by a US government in generations and that those who planned it must accept entirely the blame.

Is this the right question? The US invaded Iraq twice under the two Bushes? They never completely left after the first invasion? No fly zones since the first Bush? US fighters over Iraq for the past decade? Military enforced restrictions over oil for the past decade? Putting aside all the political rhetoric (and excuses), the US has been acting in its own self-interest: OIL? A world resource that is scarce and in great US demand, with Iraq being a major source?

With current President Bush a former Texas oil man, who received millions from the US oil corporations for election and re-election (indirectly through Political Action Committees to elect him)? With US oil corporations now proclaiming the highest profits in their history? Any connection? The real questions that need to be addressed... How does the US plan (to continue) to control Iraqi oil, and how will that affect the stability of the Middle East?

InFront

I don't doubt that outside intervention is required, that Iraqis aren't ready to secure their own country, I'm just not convinced that the US - or certainly the US on their own - are the best people to do it.

Four years later, aren't people starting to realise that that they are simply not good enough?? If they can't do the job, they need to let people in who can do it. But the US as a ruling force are not planning on going anywhere - because whatever about war, peace and democracy, to leave the region without their influence would have made their Excursion to Mesopotamia fairly pointless.

Lirange

InFront wrote:

If they can't do the job, they need to let people in who can do it.

As tits up as things are the moment ... I don't think anyone has the capacity to do the "job."

Brains without brawn? Brawn without ...

Tea drinker

InFront wrote:

I'm just not convinced that the US - or certainly the US on their own - are the best people to do it. .

Who do you suggest? an EU force? a Middle east force? No matter who goes in they will be seen by somebody (a substantial number of somebodies at that) as the enemy. I have no clue who can help. It's been said here before to let the civil war run it's course, but hey, I can't agree with that either. What's the least worst solution?????

InFront wrote:

Four years later, aren't people starting to realise that that they are simply not good enough?? If they can't do the job, they need to let people in who can do it. But the US as a ruling force are not planning on going anywhere - because whatever about war, peace and democracy, to leave the region without their influence would have made their Excursion to Mesopotamia fairly pointless.

Well, yes, the political corruption has weakened the US military, and they are not in much of a position to do anything. It's too late anyway, the country should have been secured years ago.
I thought for a while the policy was to go in an ruin the country on the cheap (as a message to the neighbours) but on reflection, it was arrogance and incompetence.

I do look forward to some kind of treason trials - at least it's nice to dream. In theory, cheney and some of his gang (at least) could be executed, as this is one punishment for treaon during wartimes.

edanto

Tea drinker wrote:

I do look forward to some kind of treason trials - at least it's nice to dream. In theory, cheney and some of his gang (at least) could be executed, as this is one punishment for treaon during wartimes.

Well, I suppose we could follow the precedent of the Nuremburg trials and try (and possibly execute) people for 'planning and waging an aggressive war', which is more of less the charge that hung the Nazis.

As to the pullout, yes they should be gone.

If the only current reason for not pulling out is the risk of losing face against a faceless terror group, then that's pretty pathetic. The violence is Iraq is a local matter, one which the Iraqi police/army, or if necessary, a UN peacekeeping force should be trying to defuse.

So, the country is in civil war (according to TIME magazine, it's because Sunnis and Shia's 'hate each other - but that requires ignoring the fact that Iraqi society was mixed before the invasion), why in the world would it be a good idea to keep a force in the country that most Iraqis think are just there to steal the oil?

What right has America got to be there? What reason?

wes

edanto wrote:

If the only current reason for not pulling out is the risk of losing face against a faceless terror group, then that's pretty pathetic. The violence is Iraq is a local matter, one which the Iraqi police/army, or if necessary, a UN peacekeeping force should be trying to defuse.

This reason is used to justify the so called Global War of Terror. The rethoric has to be kept up. Also keep the people of the US scared, they have a slogan they use "Fight them over there, so they we don't have to fight them over here", which is pretty dumb as the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism. Also the conflict is a Civil war for the most part, exacerbated by foreign forces i.e. US/UK Soldiers and Al Queada.