Perhaps it is Now Time to Leave Iraq

[Saturn]

January 17, 2005 issue
Copyright © 2004-2005 The American Conservative

A Time for Leaving

American security and Iraqi stability depend on a prompt handover.

by William R. Polk

From childhood, we Americans are deluged with slogans. We often select our breakfast food, our soap, and our toothpaste by jingles and catchphrases rather than by reading the labels. So we fall easily into accepting evocative expressions in place of analysis even when it comes to national security. Our parents were sold on the slogan that the First World War was the “war to end all wars,” although the 20th century had more of them than any other in history. We went into Vietnam fearing the “domino effect,” although the struggle there had little relationship to events in any other Asian country. We were rushed into the war in Iraq by the assertion that little, poor, remote Iraq was at the point of attacking mighty America, and now we are bogged down there allegedly by a ragtag faction of Ba’athist diehards.

Seldom do we hear hard-headed analysis of what is happening, what is possible, what the alternatives are, how much each will cost in lives, treasure, prestige, and security. When I was the member of the U.S. State Department’s Policy Planning Council responsible for the Middle East, I had the duty to try to understand the reality in the problems we then faced, to comprehend the forces at work, and to identify what could be done. Now as a private citizen, I ask: what is the reality of Iraq, what do we face there, and what can we do?

[ . . . ]

Complete article at http://www.amconmag.com/2005_01_17/cover.html

 

[Borealis]

By all means, America should abandon the people of Iraq just as they abandoned the people of Vietnam. Let them get slaughtered by the militants, insurgents, and terrorists who are so utterly opposed to democracy that they have murdered tens of thousands in their merciless pursuit of theocratic dictatorship.

After all, why should we care about those people? They're not worth anything to us unless we can get their oil, right? They're just a bunch of towel-heads. What do they matter?

I'm just going to refute a couple of points in what you posted; I'm going to ignore the rest of the article, because I've got better things to do with my time.

Our parents were sold on the slogan that the First World War was the “war to end all wars,” although the 20th century had more of them than any other in history.

People all over Europe (moreso than America) believed this was a true statement, because never before had anyone seen that sort of vast waste and carnage on an industrial scale. People could not believe that anyone would want to return to that kind of battlefield. And indeed, they tried desperately to avoid returning to it, going so far as to give Hitler three countries before they finally recognized that he had to be stopped.

We went into Vietnam fearing the “domino effect,” although the struggle there had little relationship to events in any other Asian country.

Tell that to the Cambodians. Actually, this statement is the most accurate one in the bunch (which isn't saying a lot). The Communists were limited to Vietnam and Cambodia for the most part...BECAUSE America had gone over and fought them so hard. America won that war on the ground; it was the war at home that defeated them. Still, they managed to prevent the Soviets from installing puppet regimes throughout Southeast Asia, a noble and worthy feat.

We were rushed into the war in Iraq by the assertion that little, poor, remote Iraq was at the point of attacking mighty America,

Bovine fecal matter. This guy's been reading the mainstream media too often. I've said it before: show me proof that Bush stated Iraq was an 'imminent threat.' So far, no one has, because it doesn't exist. He never said it. As for rushing to war, sixteen months is rushing? How long is not rushing supposed to take?

People like this are the reason people like the terrorists think they can get away with creating another Vietnam: these people desperately want one so they can relive their 'glory days.'

What a total joke.

 

[Saturn]

Read the whole article.

 

[psalms 91]

end times will come to pass i think that iraq is just a piece of the puzzle

 

[Scribbler]

I have to agree with you, Borealis....
3 million men, women, & children lost in Cambodia, ENTIRE cities emptied & marched to the camps and we cry about losing 58,000 soldiers. We never will know what would have happened if we'd stood idly by. Funny how "America's" involvment is forever slandered, yet Comminist meddling remains some sort of phantom.
And "rush into war"? It takes my breath away how this phrase has entered the lexicon.
4 years of "Resolutions condemning", and Bush "rushes into war".
I find it curious that European nations list America & Israel as "the biggest threats to world peace", yet it's not us they spend millions preparing for terrorist attacks from.

As for Iraq, I don't know that things will be brighter. We try to install democracy in a region with no history of it. I pray things will improve, but make no mistake,
Hussein WAS interested in nations beyond his borders.
He DID slaughter at least 1 million of his own people, many for being a different race,
He DID possess WMD or was on his way to obtaining them in direct violation of the UN
and DID ignore peace overtures he signed himself.
Sounds like somebody else whose name escapes me...

 

[praying]

Perhaps it is Now Time to Leave Iraq

Well I don't agree with that because we have made a mess but perhaps we should never have gone there in the first place I will say.

 

[MoodyBlue]

By all means, America should abandon the people of Iraq just as they abandoned the people of Vietnam. Let them get slaughtered by the militants, insurgents, and terrorists who are so utterly opposed to democracy that they have murdered tens of thousands in their merciless pursuit of theocratic dictatorship.

After all, why should we care about those people? They're not worth anything to us unless we can get their oil, right? They're just a bunch of towel-heads. What do they matter?

Tell that to the Cambodians. Actually, this statement is the most accurate one in the bunch (which isn't saying a lot). The Communists were limited to Vietnam and Cambodia for the most part...BECAUSE America had gone over and fought them so hard. America won that war on the ground; it was the war at home that defeated them. Still, they managed to prevent the Soviets from installing puppet regimes throughout Southeast Asia, a noble and worthy feat.

Bovine fecal matter. This guy's been reading the mainstream media too often. I've said it before: show me proof that Bush stated Iraq was an 'imminent threat.' So far, no one has, because it doesn't exist. He never said it. As for rushing to war, sixteen months is rushing? How long is not rushing supposed to take?

People like this are the reason people like the terrorists think they can get away with creating another Vietnam: these people desperately want one so they can relive their 'glory days.'

What a total joke.

Strange how the Iraqi people are not exactly embracing the American presence in their country. You would think they would rise up and help our troops to crush the insurgents. Oddly enough, this is somewhat similar to what happened in Vietnam. We were fighting a war there that their own people didn't seem to want to fight.

You are correct that President Bush didn't claim any imminent threat from Iraq. However, his justification for invading Iraq is certainly questionable.
Saddam Hussein was your garden-variety petty dictator, but he was no Adolf Hitler. He likely could have been contained/restrained by other means.

 

[Scribbler]

As for no evidence that Saddam & bin Laden having no ties, I beg to differ. Iraq's army went on "High Alert" (the US equivalent of battle stations) just days before 9/11. This would be just a coincedence but for the fact they hadn't been there since the end of Operation Desert Storm. Why did they do this? What did they know?
Anti-War critics strongest argument (& the article's author reverts back to it), is the difference in Idealogies of Hussein & bin Laden. That someone could use so weak an argument shows their fixation with stopping the war has closed their minds. Two words, freind. Roosevelt. Stalin.
Finally, the last argument we hear is "There are no WMD's, because we can't find them". I won't entertain the fallacy of this argument. Go to Snopes.com. photo gallery. See the photos of 3 dozen plus jet fighter buried in the sand. Connect the dots.
Thank you for you time.

 

[Borealis]

I am sick to death of hearing people talk about 'containing' Saddam Hussein.

HE WAS CONTAINED! The UN resolutions, the no-fly zones, the American troops in Saudi Arabia...that was containment.

And what did that containment give the people of Iraq? The Oil-for-Food scandal that saw the UN and Saddam get rich while the people starved; rape rooms and torture chambers; Uday and Qusay's daily 'Who Shall We Rape Today' antics; mass graves; gassed Kurds; funding of suicide bombers...

Is that your idea of an acceptable containment? Not mine. Right now, he's in 'acceptable containment.' Before that, he was no different than a Mafia crime lord running his business from inside a prison cell, except for the body count.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

Strange how the Iraqi people are not exactly embracing the American presence in their country. You would think they would rise up and help our troops to crush the insurgents. Oddly enough, this is somewhat similar to what happened in Vietnam. We were fighting a war there that their own people didn't seem to want to fight.

You are correct that President Bush didn't claim any imminent threat from Iraq. However, his justification for invading Iraq is certainly questionable.
Saddam Hussein was your garden-variety petty dictator, but he was no Adolf Hitler. He likely could have been contained/restrained by other means.

how strange is it? these folks have watched America cave to the liberal whining and pull out of vietnam 30 years ago as well as iraq 10 years ago leaving the civilians defenseless against the enemy we had been fighting previously. as a civilian i'd be a little leery of supporting a country that's gaining a track record of starting with good intentions and pulling out because some folks at home didn't have the intestinal fortitude to finish what was started.

also, if Hussein is garden variety you must consider Audrey II a regular houseplant

 

[TheTempleTeam]

Great posts Fineous_Reese and Borealis.

America needs to stick this one out, you can't run in, 'liberate' a country and then leave it.

 

[Vylo]

these folks have watched America cave to the liberal whining and pull out of vietnam 30 years ago as well as iraq 10 years ago leaving the civilians defenseless against the enemy we had been fighting previously. as a civilian i'd be a little leery of supporting a country that's gaining a track record of starting with good intentions and pulling out because some folks at home didn't have the intestinal fortitude to finish what was started

Or perhaps they don't want us installing a puppet government in their country and calling it a "democracy". What you are saying doesn't make sense, if they wanted us to finish what was started, they should want us there, not want us out.

 

[Letalis]

[/font]

Or perhaps they don't want us installing a puppet government in their country and calling it a "democracy". What you are saying doesn't make sense, if they wanted us to finish what was started, they should want us there, not want us out.

Didn't I see a post here about a news article that stated that something like 80% of them want us to stay? Maybe it was a dream.

 

[Vylo]

Nope. Never seen that figure. Seen the best figure (most in favor of US) I have seen is that ~60% (forget exact number think it was 67) think that overall it was worth removing Saddam from power. I also seem to recall 70 % of them wanted us out now that Saddam is gone.

 

[MoodyBlue]

Great posts Fineous_Reese and Borealis.

America needs to stick this one out, you can't run in, 'liberate' a country and then leave it.

I agree we need to finish the job, now that we are in there. The question is, should we have gone in at all? Not sure what compelling reasons we had to do so. But hey, while we are at it, there are quite a few more dictatorships we should be taking on, like North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, any number of African nations. Putin may not really be an ally, shouldn't we be concerned about Russia? And don't forget about the Chinese.

 

[MoodyBlue]

how strange is it? these folks have watched America cave to the liberal whining and pull out of vietnam 30 years ago as well as iraq 10 years ago leaving the civilians defenseless against the enemy we had been fighting previously. as a civilian i'd be a little leery of supporting a country that's gaining a track record of starting with good intentions and pulling out because some folks at home didn't have the intestinal fortitude to finish what was started.

also, if Hussein is garden variety you must consider Audrey II a regular houseplant

It wasn't a few whining liberals that led to the U.S. pull out of Vietnam. It was your average American citizen that wouldn't accept the needless bloodshed any longer, that forced the retreat. Nixon was elected largely on his promise to get America out of Vietnam.

Audrey II - one awesome blossom!

 

[FrancisIsMyBulldog]

As much as I HATE this war..

How can we leave now? We would leave a gigantic mess if we left now. We have to at least help the country get stabilized so it can function and we have to stop the insurgents. If we leave now how many more people will be kidnapped and beheaded? If we left now what kind of goverement would take the place of Hussein's. In my humble opinion it would be one much worse.

We should never have gotten our bum's involved there in the first place. But now we have to clean up the mess we started.

 

[praying]

I am sick to death of hearing people talk about 'containing' Saddam Hussein.

Calm down Borealis don't get your skivvies in a bunch.

HE WAS CONTAINED! The UN resolutions, the no-fly zones, the American troops in Saudi Arabia...that was containment.

And what did that containment give the people of Iraq? The Oil-for-Food scandal that saw the UN and Saddam get rich while the people starved; rape rooms and torture chambers; Uday and Qusay's daily 'Who Shall We Rape Today' antics; mass graves; gassed Kurds; funding of suicide bombers...

Is that your idea of an acceptable containment? Not mine. Right now, he's in 'acceptable containment.' Before that, he was no different than a Mafia crime lord running his business from inside a prison cell, except for the body count.

The question that then begs to be asked is what made Saddam any different from any other dictator at the time and since are we going to go jumping in and overtrowing all of those dictators and freeing the world for democracy? An admirable pursuit but not a realisitic one. Which then leads to the question of why Sadaam then? It's like a viscious circle.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

The question that then begs to be asked is what made Saddam any different from any other dictator at the time and since are we going to go jumping in and overtrowing all of those dictators and freeing the world for democracy? An admirable pursuit but not a realisitic one. Which then leads to the question of why Sadaam then? It's like a viscious circle.

there are indeed a lot of dictators around, i think you typo'd and/or meant to put more in that question though mhatten, or i'm just not understanding what you said

Iraq seems to be a good staging point for liberating folks from other dictators. it allows us to remove forces from Saudi Arabia (removing that plank from OBL's wishlist) and still be present in the region. it protects our oil interests. and, oh yeah, it removes a power mad dictator that folks blame the US for putting into power. there's a lot of chatter about how folks need to take responsibility for their actions, if anyone wants to lay Saddam at the feet of the CIA and USA then don't pipe up when we go in to fix the problem.

what exactly is a "puppet government"?

 

[Fineous_Reese]

speaking of intestinal fortitude, today's Federalist Digest just chimed in through email and had this quote from the first President of the USA:

"We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising
and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new
difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion
our Efforts to the exigency of the times." --George Washington