An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Should We Withdraw from Iraq?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
31 Responses to “Should We Withdraw from Iraq?”
I agree with Cole on this, though I think we should keep forces in Kurdistan, and keep Special Forces in Iraq to continue with army training. I’m not sure that threatening to pull out will succeed in getting the major parties to come together. As Cole’s own excellent reporting has shown, Iraq is much more complicated than simply Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds. It seems just as likely that all-out slaughter will ensue. But the status quo isn’t working either – surge or no surge. There is just no serious movement on the political front, so all minor security gains are short-lived.
You don’t even have to read the rest. If you agree with the validity of that statement, then we should stop doing that, or withdraw.
The US made the mistake of going into Iraq,and in so doing they have unlished terrible violance , Us has lost 3000 soldiers while Iraq has lost over 500,000 mostly civilians. In my view US should now stay untill the job is done.
Yeah man, “by your experiance”. You’re 19 years old. lol
Let me be clear. I don’t give a damn about “making things better” in Iraq. I don’t give a damn about Iraq. I want our people OUT of Iraq yesterday. Ths little adventure in ignorance is destroying out nation. Period.
I’m have become one of the “get out now crowd” in the last few months, but Cole’s logic seems a bit wonky to me….
According to Cole…
Sunnis, rebel, Shia/Kurds would have negotiated with them, but we suppressed the rebellion so it was smaller than it would have been, so the Shia/Kurds were able to “avoid” compromise. Our suppression has allowed resentment to fester, escalating the violence.
It seems to me, that if the only thing keeping the Shia and Kurds from negotiating with the Sunnis was the level of violence, then the ensuing escalation would have solved that problem and they would be willing to negotiate now.
I guess you could get around my objections by saying that the level of violence still isn’t high enough, but that boils down to a strategy along the lines of “If we let them kill each other more, they’ll find a solution”. Would the violence have to push the government to the edge of total collapse in order for the Shia/Kurds to come to the table? Are we willing to bet that they will recognize that tipping point and act in time?
It seems to me that any plan for withdrawal that aims to ‘help’ the Iraqi people is doomed. Selfish issues of self-interest are all that really seem to hold water, and I’m ok with that.
Rereading my last paragraph made me think. Maybe the lessen from this war should be that you can’t really help other people, they need to help themselves…. That’s an ugly lesson. I hope I’m wrong.
Kevin You make a point. Its the point I have been making.
Pulling out of Iraq is wrong. The area will be engulfed in a sunni Shia civil war that might involve saudi, jordan, lebanon, syria, iran, iraq, and on and on and on.
The key for success is for the Usa to redeploy within Iraq to prevent the influx of “freedom fighters” and allow them to work it out themselves. Whatever happens. Happens.
Its two religous groups. They despise each other beyond measure.
However a presence of the USA is needed in this area to keep the area stable why Iraq finds its own equilibrium.
Nobody- Why is pulling out of Iraq wrong and redeplyment not? What will redeploying achieve that pulling out won’t?
You must think this thing will be over within your life time if only we get out of the way and let them fight it out. No way.
White Agent said: “Why is pulling out of Iraq wrong and redeplyment not? What will redeploying achieve that pulling out won’t?”
Simply that…Redeployment is in US interests.
I think Elrod, Kevin H and Nobody have a point.
The Kurds have long been allied to the US. They have ethically cleansed large swathes of their territory…it would be very hard for al-Queda or the Sunnis to strike at US forces in Kurdistan. There are substantial oil fields in the north. Plus, with forces in theatre, the US can influence the path of the expected civil war at minimal cost to itself.
The US presence induces “political infantilism” among the Iraqis. No reason to act adult or talk as long as Daddy is in the room, and he can be wheedled or blackmailed into intervening in the squabbles.
“You must think this thing will be over within your life time if only we get out of the way and let them fight it out. No way.”
Of course it can. Look at the Balkans in the 90s. They had to fight and slaughter themselves into exhaustion before anyone was willing to talk.
Things have settled down since the Dayton Accords. And the Balkans was one of the world’s fiercest ethnic conflicts stretching back centuries.
The Kurds also have a secular democracy and (relatively) liberal society. [It's hard to separate propaganda from reality completely, in Michael Totten's recent interview they claimed they welcomed peaceful Arabs but that's different than what I've read.]
Regardless of their flaws, they have by far the best model in the region outside of Turkey and Israel. I think we need to redeploy and protect the Kurds with the goal of getting them and the Turks to reconciliate and form a regional partnership. Instead of having radical Shiites and Sunnis being the only voices, the Turks, Kurds and hopefully Lebanese (and of course Israelis) should band together and push their interests.
The fact is that the Kurds seem to be relatively good people that want to create a modern society like Bush wanted for all of Iraq. They want us there (for selfish reasons sure, but it’s in our interests as well) unlike the bulk of other Iraqis and are planning for a bright future that is not based on sectarian goals.
Of course it can. Look at the Balkans in the 90s. They had to fight and slaughter themselves into exhaustion before anyone was willing to talk. Things have settled down since the Dayton Accords. And the Balkans was one of the world’s fiercest ethnic conflicts stretching back centuries.
That is one of the real concerns about pulling out, actually. No one who interacts with those people on a regular basis (and we have some in our company) think that it is over. It is in a truce, at best. It may be 10 years, 3 years, or 50 years, but at some point in time it will boil over again. They hate each other, plain and simple, and are not rational about it.
Perhaps there is no difference in Iraq. Perhaps we are now stuck in a Devil’s Bargain, and either choice leads to calamity. Go one way, we are stuck forever fighting against the very people we are trying to help; go the other, anarchy and slaughter reign, plus we lose immeasurably strategically on the world stage, and in numerous ways.
I have said it before, I thought (and still think) it was the right decision to invade and eliminate Saddam, but we have totally screwed the pooch in the occupation and transition.
Ultimately, though, I cannot see leaving quickly being the right thing for Iraq or the US. I just don’t think we have either the stomach or a current vision to get us and them out of this predicament.
I find it disturbing that Jeb is so easily persuaded by pond scum. I hope he (or at least his readers) learn how to discern who is hoodwinking whom, before it’s too late.
Look, Jeb, Iraq isn’t going great. But, it is important to finish the job there, because leaving early will only strenghten our enemies. Of course, with so many Democrats working for the enemy, it might not make much difference either way. But the blame for that lies with them, not Bush or the “neocons.”
Is General Odom “working for the enemy” as well?
“Ths little adventure in ignorance is destroying out nation. Period.” — “WhiteAgent”
No, W.A., it’s the Democrat front of the Leftist fifth-column that’s bringing that about.
If they would start working for America’s success, and stop their obstructionism, things would rapidly improve. Unfortuantely, they are so invested in defeat, that isn’t likely any time soon.
Apparently so.
Benedict Arnold was a general, too. And, except for the little matter of treason, he was also a pretty darn good one.
Don’t look at the trees, mikkel, look at the forest.
And the undermining of America goes on from within the innermost sanctum.
For those who have studied ancient history, they will perhaps recognize history’s repitition, wherein a mighty nation undoes itself, may they fail this time.
For more on the “Muslim Brotherhood” and their, uh, ‘friends’, see here.
yonason links to Pammy at AtlasShrugs, LOL the KoolAid drinkers are out again. Check the RNC or Hannity for your latest talking points:-P
This area can achieve peace. However equilibrium must be allowed to take hold and Im afraid that is wholesale civil war in Iraq. Sad but there it is. Its gonna happen.
The sane, wise thing for the USA to do is not pull out but to redeploy our forces away from the battles that will rage and to protect the borders in efforts to prevent influx of these so called “Freedom Fighters” into Iraq.
What the antiwar seems to be raging against I guess is the deaths of Iraqis. Yet it is Muslims killing Muslims. Not Americans killing all these people. Car bombs are not detonated by Americans. So I fail to understand why redeploying our troops into defensive and interdiction modes is so offensive to them.
We can do this and still cut the troops about in half and give our forces a much needed rest and break. All this and still maintain a presence in the middle east that will hopefully prevent a civil war that engulfs the entire Middle east.
This is beyond saving Bushs legacy. The antiwar has already destroyed that with a great deal of help from him and his cronies. To me this is about saving America’s legacy and ensuring your kids and grandchildren have a better place to call Earth.
It is perfectly acceptable for the left to want to tackle Global warming 100 years before it happens. Why is it not okay to tackle Terrorism 100 years before the Jihad becomes a worldwide civil war?
Ill make a deal with you. I will fight against Global warming if you fight against Jihad terrorism.
“yonason links to Pammy at AtlasShrugs, LOL the KoolAid drinkers are out again” — rudi
Can you say “ad hominem?”
Yes, I reference people I have found to be reliably accurate, not people who present clever but meaningless theoretical nonsense. Sometimes my refs are wrong, but it’s a lot less often than those on the Left and as far as I can determine, it is never deliberate (if I thought it were, I would stop referencing them).
When I say Juan Cole is a liar (or at least amazingly deluded) I can back it up, as I have above. When you attack my references, you just call them names. That says a lot about the quality of your arguments.
So, come on, Rudi, give me something factual. Go ahead, make my day.
Juan Cole is an academic pro-Arab who is hated by the Right for his views. He publishes acadenic articles that are evaluated by his peers, Pammy does webvideos with her kids LOL. To use Pammy as a link is just as biased or absurd as Michael Moore. CaptainsQuarter, Volokhl Conspiracy or Balkinaztion are respectable Right leaning sights, Pammy and LittleDebbieSchussel are just embarressing to the Goreosphere.
And another thing, Rudi, do you thing the Muslim Sheikh I reference is also a “KoolAid drinker?” Do you question his knowledge of the “Muslim Brotherhood” which is a terrorist organization, and with whose leaders the Democrat leadership is conspiring with against our nation?
If you have some deeper knowledge of Islam or world history than Sheikh Palazzi, by all means enlighten us.
Just stop the name calling, unless you can CLEARLY show WHY it’s appropriate. You see, when I call some of the Left’s people “KoolAid drinkers” it’s because they have a demonstrably long history of being unreliable, and often deliberately so. On the other hand, when someone uses that term solely because that’s the only way he thinks he can discredit his opponent, that’s simply puerile.
Rudi
“He [Juan Cole] is blindly anti-Israel to the point of supporting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, an apologist for radical Islam, and someone who despises America and its citizens.” (link)
Jeff Weintraub is relatively kind when he says
Cole is an anti-Semitic conspiricy theorist who’s statements are frequently at odds with the facts, and apparently with malice of forethought.
AND YOU TRUST THIS MAN WITH YOUR MIND?!!
yanson, do you really think the little slide show of Nazis shaking hands with Muslims, and throwing in a few random shots of 9/11 mean anything more than this or this? They are all meaningless.
Now who’s making ad hominid attacks? If you don’t like his article point to where he is at odd with the facts in that particular article. Just because he was an idiot before doesn’t mean he’s an idiot now.
(The others are also reliable but for the moment I’ll only consider what you will accept.)
So, let’s see where that takes us.
volokh?
Balkinization? – couldn’t find anything on Cole there.
Captain’s Quarters?
So, that’s two negative, and one which (conveniently for you) provides no information.
The sum is definitely negative. There may not be enough info there to get a complete sense of the malice that Cole exudes, but there is sufficient to see it is definitely there.
If what I’ve provided up to now doesn’t change your mind, I see no need to waste any more time trying.
KevinH
“little slide show”???? Your two OUT OF CONTEXT pictures are a “slide show” that wouldn’t even fool a bright grade-schooler. Sheikh Palazzi has tons of material with references. His much more extensive “slide show” is just visual IN CONTEXT supporting material. And his collection of references is the most complete on the web. Evidentally you didn’t bother looking at any, or couldn’t understand those you did. One has to have standards for scholarship. When someone doesn’t, it makes it a lot easier for a Juan Cole to fool him.
“Now who’s making ad hominid attacks?” I backed everything up with references. I wasn’t ‘just calling names’.
“If you don’t like his article point to where he is at odd with the facts in that particular article. Just because he was an idiot before doesn’t mean he’s an idiot now.”
You are missing the point. If he has a pattern of dissembling, he is worse than unreliable. I can’t trust him, even if he is accidentally correct at times. I don’t have time to check EVERYTHING he says. And if something he says is wrong, or deliberately missleading, I might not pick up on that. It is not wise to trust someone who is often really wrong. It is foolish to ever trust a person for whom truth isn’t their gold-standard, even if they can be shown to be correct about some things.
Final, to Kevin H, and others who think as he does.
Would you go swimming in alligator or piraña infested waters? You know, maybe there aren’t any around THIS time. If you wouldn’t, then why would you rely on material written by someone with a history of spreading falsehood as truth. If you think you are smart enough to catch him when he’s wrong, you are fooling yourself.
No, your saying the article under discussion is worthless because of the author.
You seem to have plenty of time to make thoughtless rants….
So obviously, you don’t trust this administration….
NO, I’m saying his opinion is worthless because it is wrong, and HENCE because of his resulting bad reputation, BASED ON HIS PENTIENT FOR EXECRABLE MATERIAL, I don’t accept anything he says. Are you really that unable to make the connection, or are you just hoping you can fool some of those who read what you write into not seeing it?
Read the links I provided for the comment you don’t like.
http://decision08.blogspot.com/2005/07/weekly-jackass-number-thirty-five-juan.html
— sorry, the first link didn’t get enterred correctly, and should have been —
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17422
(…as well as ALL the others I have provided in other comments). They have the facts I base my assessment of him on. Deal with what they say before you make any more superficial criticisms.
ok, for the last time (really):
(a) – Juan Cole disseminates demonstrably fantastically false material, some of which he should know is false.
(b) – I don’t trust him, because of that.
(c) – Because I don’t trust him, I don’t accept any of what he writes because I cannot rely on him to be truthful.
As to the Bush administration, it’s one thing to be wrong because of honest mistakes (yes I believe his mistakes, and he has definitely made them, are honest ones) and another to be deliberately and/or maliciously wrong, as is the case with Cole based on all the sources I trust.
I’m sorry if that escapes you. It really is a straighforward and fundamental concept.