Gee, do you think that’s what motivated Al-Qaeda to destroy the World Trade Center in 2001, before these things ever happened? No, there is a sizable percentage of the world that hates America because of what America is, not because of what it does – people who are willing to act violently on that hatred.

Does it sound like a wild fantasy to you? Do you honestly think it would be wrong to condemn Japan in those circumstances?

It doesn’t sound like a wild fantasy to me, yet I don’t think I could condemn Japan for this. The reason why is that you are asking Japan to risk its national existence in exchange for preventing its attacker from possibly dissolving into chaos.

Chaos is the morally preferable outcome to genocide. The pre-20th century European tradition of warfare was different, I know – the conqueror would be held responsible, if only because the conquered territory was a future source of tax revenues – but I think the four-year chaos of postwar Germany was far preferable to the warfare of 39-45. If the French had had the balls to attack Germany in ‘35, that would have been even better – the generals wrote they would have removed Hitler (destroying the democratically-installed Nazi government) and instituted military rule instead. Germany is proof that democracies don’t always work right the first (Bismark) or second (Weimar) time.

The truly interesting result of the survey is that these Dutch want the U.S. to withdraw even though they are convinced genocide will be the result. What, exactly, are they afraid will happen if the U.S. remains?

No, no, and no, but Michael, the point that you are not getting here is that the world already hates America because we invaded and occupied Iraq, and because of everything we did related to that: demonizing Muslims, legalizing torture, detaining people arbitrarily with no evidence and keeping them in prison camps indefinitely, abolishing habeas corpus, setting up a gulag of secret prisons in Eastern Europe, beating, torturing, and sexually humiliating Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, forcing our way into Iraqi homes like storm troopers, screaming at and terrorizing the people living there, pulling out drawers and throwing their possessions all over the place, and really the list goes on and on and on and on.

The world already has many more terrorists because of the Iraq war; and chaos in the Middle East is a reality NOW because of the Iraq war. It doesn’t matter what we do at this point as far as world opinion goes, because all the choices are horrible, and there is no choice that will make things better and get the world to like us again.

I’m also more than a little puzzled as to why world opinion is so very, very important to war supporters now, when it was completely irrelevant and of no concern whatsoever in the lead-up to the war.

But I agree with you.
I don’t think the US can fix Iraq.
We can only apply an assortment of band-aids, here and there.

The surge is the current band aid, and I would like to wait to see if it sticks.
But eventually, we have to admit we can’t do whaat we can’t do.
Eventually, we have to pay some attention to holding our own society together.

The problem is Michael, and you just brushed over it, that we can’t sustain these troop levels indefinably. Yes, I’ll admit, we-started-this-war with only a small minority (you know, the “Surrender Monkeys”) who opposed it. This Administration’s hubris and poor planning got us into this mess, but do you trust it to get us on a path to redemption? I certainly don’t, nor the next administration whomever that will be.

Secondly, Iraq can not be stabilized by a military force alone. There MUST be a political component to any sustainable stability in Iraq. The Iraqi’s have no desire to get along with each other and seem to want a all-out civil war. How do you propose we get the three factions to work together instead of killing each other?

Democracy doesn’t come pre-packaged:

The United States of America was borne of the bloodshed freely given by it’s hopeful citizenry; it was not something that was handed us by some other established country, or some other nation who was our occupier’s enemy…

Now we have an equally mad King George who wishes to deliver “freedom and democracy” to a country that has never known it, doesn’t really appear to relish it, and will not practice it once we have decided we can’t afford to remain there diligently trying to shove it down their throats. One third of them, the Sunnis, just want us to get out of the way so that they can reestablish the Bath party and reclaim their little mafia fiefdom. Another third, the Shiite, want to get revenge for the oppression by the Sunni, and establish an Islamic State that has no resemblance whatsoever to a democratic, secular state that respects human rights. The last third, the Kurds, just want to remain out of the way, having, beneath the radar, established their long sought after Kurdistan, and hope they can count on the United States to protect them from the Turks, which we won’t.

GTL Article

Michael – For almost 30 years I lived in countries outside of the United States being in charge of International operations. I’ve lived in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Israel, Italy, Belgium. England, Argentina, Brazil with shorter stays in about a dozen other countries.

When I talk about American exceptionalism as viewed by many it is our economic vitality, entrpreneurship, our cultural attributes etc. I also speak of the last 30 years attitudes towards America, not JUST during the Bush/Iraq era. So being only 23 years old, perhaps you were too young to know attitudes pre-Bush. LMAO back at you!!!!!!!!

PS – rather than make snippy comments why don’t you repond to specific points like exactly how the US is suppossed to “fix” Iraq.

Entrope: no not at all – do you think it is in America’s strategic interest to have the world hate her, to have many more terrorists, to have chaos in the Mideast, etc.?

That depends. Europe “hated” us for bombing Libya in the 1980’s too among many, many things we did. The US cannot base its foreign policy solely on what the rest of the world thinks, though obviously it should be a factor. As others have said, the US will be hated no matter what it does at this point.

It’s American blood and treasure being expending in Iraq, not European with very few exceptions. American exceptionalism is certainly a problem, but perhaps Europe should look at the stick in it’s own eye and examine it’s own exceptionalist tendencies and arrogance.

Ultimately, what happens in Iraq is a decision for the US to make and my point is that it should be made based primarily on solid and identifiable US interests. I might agree with many of the strategies put out by the political left in America if their strategic reasoning wasn’t completely divorced from American interests. They haven’t even gone so far to identify American interests in the region that need preserving and defending – instead their strategy is largely justified because it is different from Bush’s or appeals to their anti-war base. An abrupt departure or more of a middle plan (like the abortive attempt with the supplementals recently) may be valid options, but their proponents argue for them not in terms of American interests, but in terms of satisfying domestic political politics.

My point is not to make yoou all agree with me on Iraq, it merely to make you all think about something that’s being ignored.

We are in our 5th year and we have the best minds in our think tanks and pundit class who from what I have read don’t have a clue how to RATIONALLY solve the problems in Iraq. If someone comes up with a logical plan with dates, milestones and implementation tactics, I will sign on wholeheartedly.

Domajot – have you seen a rational plan anywhere? I am of the opinion that Iraq is beyond our ability to fix. If we stay and try to muddle through all we are doing is wasting blood and treasure without making things better. I would like it to be otherwise but nothing I have seen gives me any confidence in our abilities. If we leave the terrible consequences will emerge. but once that is over, stability will, I believe, return to Iraq as it finds it’s natural equilibrium. That equalibrium may involve 3 countries, one country or confederation with outside countries or some other permutation that is unknown at this time.

Remember, the US is not G-d. We cannot fix everything. We are strong but not omnipotent. Iraq, I believe, is a task beyond our grasp.

Most Americans believe in American Exceptionalism and so does much of the rest of the world, even though they might not like it.

LMAO – John… no the world doesn’t think that at all. The world thinks that America is arrogant and that it is this arrogance that destroyed Iraq.

Lynx: exactly. Fascinating to see that the two people living in Europe agree but that Americans think they know better.

Entrope: no not at all – do you think it is in America’s strategic interest to have the world hate her, to have many more terrorists, to have chaos in the Mideast, etc.?

Absent from almost every one of these internet debates, and shockingly absent from congressional debates is the fundamental question of what America’s foreign policy interest is, how it is best served and what course of action would be best for that policy. What worries me most is that our political elite and the next President will compound the gross errors of the Bush administration by founding a policy based on something other than American strategic interests. Sadly, that looks like the road we’re on now and historically, it could be a recipe for disaster.

Another, better, argument on the subject.

The USA invaded Iraq without considerding the consequences. The public backed the invasion based on EMOTION, not reason.

The worst thing it could do now is to end the invasion the same way – based on emotion..
Neither this post, nor yesterday’s, nor any commenters supporting your view have presented an analysis of what the consequences of NOT withdrawing might be based on REASON.

As I said yesterday,the FACT is that the US will be blamed, no matter what happens, no matter what we do. World blame is just not a valid argument, no matter what decision one favors.

The possible consequences of withdrawal have now been laid out in vivid, emotion-laden detail. To make decisions, though, we need to put away our tear-stained hankies, and assess the consequences of not withdrawing, but staying indefinitely.
1. What are the possible challenges arising in the region while we stay re Iran, Syria, the Saudis, etc.
2. What will be our mission if new conflicts arise (Kurds-Turkey, etc.)
3. How will this affect our ability to deal with other international crises
4. How will we maintain and support the forces necessary (costs include equipment and MEDICAL care)
5. How will this affect civilian life, in view of an already fed-up and fractious public
…And that’s just for starters….

PS. I also took an informal poll of my friends and family. 100% of them said that since the US has been emotionally traumatized and emotionally manipulated ever since 9/11, it is extremely important to let rational assessments lead now.

Wapo has an article on the front page, detailing how Adm Hayden at the CIA predicted that the failure of the Iraqi government was inevitable back when the ISG report was issued. He might as well have come out and said that the surge had no chance to succeed, because that seems tohave been his real meaning.