For some time, no matter how strong their opposition to the war, very few politicians have said (out loud) the USA should leave Iraq sooner rather than later. One of the accepted maxims of the past two years plus has been..We made the mess, we have to fix it. On the face of it, it makes sense. We’re Americans, we messed up, we’re the leaders of the free world and we live up to our responsibilities. We can’t just walk out of Iraq and leave the millions of civilians to whatever will come next. So let’s take a close look. (crossposted at Dkos but diaries stay so short)
What would happen if we left? Seems likely the various major factions will fight and civil war will break out. Hundreds if not thousands of Iraquis will die every month. Most likely a theocracy similar to Iran would emerge for much of the country. Or a dictator who would hold power by brutal force. Now what exactly would be so different than the current situation?
Many people have said we need to build a real coalition and bring in Arab partners to help maintain security and allow the Iraquis time to be able to handle their own security. Let’s get one thing straight. To the Arab world we are the invader, the oppressor. Any government, Turkey and Jordan and Saudi Arabia included would be asking for instant mass demonstrations if they sent troops to support the Americans. What would we do if we were in their shoes.
None of the analysts, on TV or in government have said we can leave within the next two years and more likely five. Who really knows? What if we’re there for ten years? The situation certainly hasn;t gotten better over the past two years. We’ve had more casualties in the forst two weeks ofthis month than the entire month of June last year. One of the most dangerous routes in Iraq runs from the airport to Baghdad. Six miles and there are attacks and bombs on pretty much a daily basis.
So what if we’re there long enough to lose 10,000 service people and 50,000 wounded? Will we elect a President who is bigger and tougher and promises to fix the problem. How do we fix the problem?
What if we left? We announce we’re going to leave and just like we did in Vietnam, we leave. We left there on short notice. What if Iraq becomes a theocracy? We’ve existed with one in Iran and Europe gets along with Iran more or less.
The likely answer will be..the MidEast will explode. Everything will go to hell in a handbasket. Will it? Isn’t it already there? Do the American people really want to stay in Iraq and occupy it for however long it takes to achieve what Karl Rove said is ‘total victory’? What does ‘total victory’ look like? It’s possible withdrawing may look better inside 5 years than ‘total victory’. Your turn.
The greybeards and pundits played a similar tune in Vietnam, predicting civil war if we withdrew. Didn’t happen.
I think there’s a false dichotomy being set up here with the “we fix what we broke argument or everything degenerates into chaos.” The United States, I believe, does have a moral obligation to mitigate the damage it is caused. Keeping troops on the ground, however, is obviously not mitigating the damage. American troops occupying Iraq are the cause of the instability in Iraq. When we say that keeping troops there is necessary to provide security and prevent chaos, we ignore the fact that, in Iraq, there is no security and chaos is the norm. It’s hard to know how much worse it could get.
Other options? What about the possibility of peacekeeping troops from say, the Arab League, or some other international entity agreed to by representative Iraqi leaders. I think that the funding for the peacekeeping should come from the United States – with no strings attached. Think of it as reparations. Would the public chafe? Maybe a little, but I think that a lot of people do feel we have a moral obligation to help put Iraq back together, and I also think that compared to the amount of money going into maintaining an occupation and building facilities for a permanent U.S. presence, paying for invited peacekeepers would be a dream.
These peacekeepers may be able to provide what the U.S. can’t – a real security under which the difficult negotiations between Iraqis on their future can occur. Could a theocracy develop? Sure, it might. But I think before we fall back on our knee-jerk reaction against “Iranian-style theocracy,” we should note that despite the conservatism of the ruling clergy, Iran does have an emergent, very vibrant, indigenous civil society that has grown since the overthrow of the U.S. Shah. This sort of civil society is precisely what Iraq needs to develop, and I think that a foreign occupation does nothing to help this flourish.
Just some thoughts.
Not sure if you read my whole diary. The Arab League won;t save us even if we’re leaving. Read again..we’re the invader, any gov’t in that region that comes to ‘help’ will probably be overthrown or at the very least ‘mobs in the streets’.
I did read your whole post. It appears that I myself wasn’t clear. The operative part of that sentence was “some other international entity agreed to by representative Iraqi leaders.” We would leave. We would have no say whatsoever as to what entity would provide peacekeeping troops for the operation, nor would we have any say as to the conditions under which they would operate. We would, however, have to pay for the forces operating expenses (which, again, I believe would be a bargain compared to the alternative). We hand them a check, and that’s all there is.
Also, I don’t see the current Iraqi government as “representative Iraqi leaders.” Elections held under an occupation are by definition not representative.
This leaves the question, would neighboring nation-states contribute to such an effort? If invited in by a truly sovereign Iraqi government, yes. An unstable Iraq brings problems to every government in the region.
Does that clear things up? Or did I manage to further muddle them? Oh – and I know this is pie in the sky thinking given the current political realities. But it is an alternative.
Any US troop presence in Iraq will never be seen as friendly even if it is cloaked in the “peacekeeping” cover.
Should the US stay or go? Well, I hate to say it but the discussion really is futile. The US already has plans to stay for a very, very long time. Look at the bases that are being built there. The only question up for debate is the number of troops present.
Which is exactly why we need regime change at home.
Of course, what we’ll most probably get next is a Democrat who promises to end the war, but then is unwilling / unable to do so until things totally collapse.
As far as the war goes, the scenario would be:
Bush = the neo-LBJ
Next Democrat = the neo-Nixon
On other fronts of course, Bush is the neo-Nixon.
Except on the environment. 🙁
I think we should go. I don’t think the situation will get any better with us there, and people on all sides will continue to needlessly lose their lives, and limbs.
We just really have no business there in that country. Didn’t have any business invading, don’t have any business occupying the country, and I really don’t think anyone in the current admin or congress (with any power) is serious about stablizing the country, even if we weren’t viewed as evil occupiers.
Time to go.
We should go, and go now. Unfortunately, BushCo has very long range plans there. They have 14 permanent Military bases to build and occupy for the “forever future.” The contracts already have been awarded, they have no plans to leave, ever.