QOD: Should the United States leave Iraq?

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

On Tuesday, 11 soldiers were killed and 70 in the month of October. The violence is getting worse and all indications point to Iraq turning into Civil War. So when should the United States pullout of Iraq?

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

My answer

Next 6-12 months. A phased withdraw of troops is the key. Normally, I would want to stay until the job is done but there are two problems with this. The first is with the Iraqi government. The Iraqis will remain dependant on the U.S. for security as long as we are there. It seems to me as though the Iraqi government has no interest in becoming independent for security and that is something that along could keep us bogged down in Iraq longer than we need to be. The problem is it is coalition forces and Iraqi civilians paying the price for the Iraqi government not stepping up to the plate.

The other problem is the inreasing secretarian violence. Iraq is headed into a civil war and it is not our job to mediate this. It is fixing to be a ugly mess.

My solution is to just give the Iraqis the option of splitting the land into 3 seperate, independent states. The Sunnis do not wan to live under radical Shi'ite oppression and the Shi'ites do not want to live under the Sunnis.

Shi'ite governments do not believe in democracy, human rights, womens rights or anything we have fought for to make possible in Iraq and the Sunni's (who typically take a far less adical approach) have no interest in having womens freedom's and children's freedoms taken away.

 

[Railroad]

On Tuesday, 11 soldiers were killed and 70 in the month of October. The violence is getting worse and all indications point to Iraq turning into Civil War. So when should the United States pullout of Iraq?

We shouldn't leave until we've accomplished all of our objectives there.

Having said that, I think we should send additional people and hardware in there to get the job done right, and get it done quickly.

With NO WARNING.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

We shouldn't leave until we've accomplished all of our objectives there.

Having said that, I think we should send additional people and hardware in there to get the job done right, and get it done quickly.

With NO WARNING.

I think we need to focus on the possibility that we may need to deal with Iran or North Korea militairily.

I'd have no problem sending more troops in if we ere routing out insurgents but we clearly aren't. It's Shi'ite armys that answer to Moqtada al-Sadr (the militant this Iraqi government allows to play a political hand) and Sunni insurgents. It's not al-Qaida and it's not Saddam Hussein.

 

[Bustem' Down]

First of all, the media wants you to think that it's an on going never ending bullets flying hell over there, but I have a friend and a cousin stationed there and neither have fired a round or had one fired at them.

Second, I picked stay the course only because my choice was not on there. We should never leave. Why on earth would we give up the strategic advantage of having a base of operations in the middle of an area that we are going to be involved in for decades to come?

 

[port air]

I would hope in the next 18-36 months. This may be impossible at present troop levels and also the rate of escalating violence in the region. It will take no less than 24 months to work in a safe exit plan to protect both the Iraqi people and our own troops. Leaving sooner will only leave the country in a turmoil which we have created. I am not saying things were better before we went in, but that we should not leave it in a lesser state. I have lost too many military friends over this war to leave it unfinished.

 

[dck4shrt]

Next 6-12 months. A phased withdraw of troops is the key. Normally, I would want to stay until the job is done but there are two problems with this. The first is with the Iraqi government. The Iraqis will remain dependant on the U.S. for security as long as we are there. It seems to me as though the Iraqi government has no interest in becoming independent for security and that is something that along could keep us bogged down in Iraq longer than we need to be. The problem is it is coalition forces and Iraqi civilians paying the price for the Iraqi government not stepping up to the plate.

The other problem is the inreasing secretarian violence. Iraq is headed into a civil war and it is not our job to mediate this. It is fixing to be a ugly mess.

My solution is to just give the Iraqis the option of splitting the land into 3 seperate, independent states. The Sunnis do not wan to live under radical Shi'ite oppression and the Shi'ites do not want to live under the Sunnis.

Shi'ite governments do not believe in democracy, human rights, womens rights or anything we have fought for to make possible in Iraq and the Sunni's (who typically take a far less adical approach) have no interest in having womens freedom's and children's freedoms taken away.

Shouldn't we have thought about the consequences of handing the country over to the majority shiites (the ones who don't believe in democracy, human & womens rights, etc, etc) before we invaded the country and gave it to them?

I do think that the Iraqi goverment is dependent on US forces for security, but I'm of the opinion that the Iraqis do have an interest in become independent, but that it can't be done. Corruption and infiltration from insurgents and militant groups is rampant. The security forces are more loyal to their own factions and religions than to the government (even the non corrupt ones), and I don't think that problem can be fixed. I still say that Iran really pulled a number on Bush with this whole deal, but of course you can't blame Bush for anything around here...

 

[Railroad]

I still say that Iran really pulled a number on Bush with this whole deal, but of course you can't blame Bush for anything around here...

And assuming for a moment that Iran did pull a number on PRESIDENT Bush, how is PRESIDENT Bush to blame for it?

 

[Mikeinsmd]

The other problem is the inreasing secretarian violence.

Damn those violent secretaries....

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Shouldn't we have thought about the consequences of handing the country over to the majority shiites (the ones who don't believe in democracy, human & womens rights, etc, etc) before we invaded the country and gave it to them?

I do think that the Iraqi goverment is dependent on US forces for security, but I'm of the opinion that the Iraqis do have an interest in become independent, but that it can't be done. Corruption and infiltration from insurgents and militant groups is rampant. The security forces are more loyal to their own factions and religions than to the government (even the non corrupt ones), and I don't think that problem can be fixed. I still say that Iran really pulled a number on Bush with this whole deal, but of course you can't blame Bush for anything around here...

oh yea, lets give it to the suicidal and roadside bomb sunnis...

 

[dck4shrt]

And assuming for a moment that Iran did pull a number on PRESIDENT Bush, how is PRESIDENT Bush to blame for it?

When he makes a decision about policy (or lack thereof) shouldn't he be held accountable for the outcomes of those decisions? The poor execution of the Iraq war is his administrations fault and that country's present state of affairs are his administrations responsibility. IMO if they couldn't prepare for all possible circumstances then they are to blame.

 

[dck4shrt]

oh yea, lets give it to the suicidal and roadside bomb sunnis...

you're eff'd if you do and you're eff'd if you don't...another item that should have been leveled with to the American people BEFORE the invasion.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

you're eff'd if you do and you're eff'd if you don't...another item that should have been leveled with to the American people BEFORE the invasion.

I agree they've mishandled the war but in his defense, the "crystal ball war predictor 3500" was broked, thereby preventing him from breifing us on the results before the invasion.

 

[dck4shrt]

I agree they've mishandled the war but in his defense, the "crystal ball war predictor 3500" was broked, thereby preventing him from breifing us on the results before the invasion.

I know no one can guarantee an outcome to far simpler situations, but the possible outcomes were not discussed at any length, and the potential ramifications of those outcomes were not even considered. I can guarantee you some crank down at the NSA ran through every possible scenario (insurgency, civil unrest, terrorist infiltration, roaming death squads), yet no one bothered to take a look at what might happen; especially given the variables that we could actually control (adequate force levels, border security, decision to disband the Iraqi military, etc).

 

[PsyOps]

On Tuesday, 11 soldiers were killed and 70 in the month of October. The violence is getting worse and all indications point to Iraq turning into Civil War. So when should the United States pullout of Iraq?

The date is August 26, 1944. The US (with their allies) just completed one of the bloodiest and most important battles of WWII. The entire Normandy Campaign took 81 days; it took 29,000 American lives, 11,000 British, 12,200 French, and 5000 Canadian lives. Cameras were on the beach giving us real-time documentation of the carnage. Dead bodies everywhere, body parts and blood filled the beach and ocean. Men screaming from the pain, other men crying from the death and intense combat. All being reported back to Americans by CNN and FoxNews. Americans outraged at the death and destruction question the validity of what we are doing. Politicians start casting disparaging comments towards Roosevelt and his failed war policy. They are outraged that so many Americans are dying. They are calling for immediate withdrawal from Europe.

Can you imagine?

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

The date is August 26, 1944. The US (with their allies) just completed one of the bloodiest and most important battles of WWII. The entire Normandy Campaign took 81 days; it took 29,000 American lives, 11,000 British, 12,200 French, and 5000 Canadian lives. Cameras were on the beach giving us real-time documentation of the carnage. Dead bodies everywhere, body parts and blood filled the beach and ocean. Men screaming from the pain, other men crying from the death and intense combat. All being reported back to Americans by CNN and FoxNews. Americans outraged at the death and destruction question the validity of what we are doing. Politicians start casting disparaging comments towards Roosevelt and his failed war policy. They are outraged that so many Americans are dying. They are calling for immediate withdrawal from Europe.

Can you imagine?

Normandy and Baghdad are two totally different birds...

 

[Kerad]

The date is August 26, 1944. The US (with their allies) just completed one of the bloodiest and most important battles of WWII. The entire Normandy Campaign took 81 days; it took 29,000 American lives, 11,000 British, 12,200 French, and 5000 Canadian lives. Cameras were on the beach giving us real-time documentation of the carnage. Dead bodies everywhere, body parts and blood filled the beach and ocean. Men screaming from the pain, other men crying from the death and intense combat. All being reported back to Americans by CNN and FoxNews. Americans outraged at the death and destruction question the validity of what we are doing. Politicians start casting disparaging comments towards Roosevelt and his failed war policy. They are outraged that so many Americans are dying. They are calling for immediate withdrawal from Europe.

Can you imagine?

Comparing the invasion of Iraq to America's involvement in W.W.II is absurd.

 

[Railroad]

When he makes a decision about policy (or lack thereof) shouldn't he be held accountable for the outcomes of those decisions? The poor execution of the Iraq war is his administrations fault and that country's present state of affairs are his administrations responsibility. IMO if they couldn't prepare for all possible circumstances then they are to blame.

Who says it was executed poorly? You? And your credentials that make you such an expert are?

The Administration WAS prepared for all PROBABLE circumstances; they were even prepared for people like you.

 

[Railroad]

I know no one can guarantee an outcome to far simpler situations, but the possible outcomes were not discussed at any length, and the potential ramifications of those outcomes were not even considered. I can guarantee you some crank down at the NSA ran through every possible scenario (insurgency, civil unrest, terrorist infiltration, roaming death squads), yet no one bothered to take a look at what might happen; especially given the variables that we could actually control (adequate force levels, border security, decision to disband the Iraqi military, etc).

I'm so sorry, I didn't realize you were a senior security official and thus were there to see all of this happening. I thought you were just dck4shrt.

 

[Railroad]

you're eff'd if you do and you're eff'd if you don't...another item that should have been leveled with to the American people BEFORE the invasion.

I agree. Let's get on TV and tell the enemy ALL our plans, give them plenty of time to prepare for us.

Let's manage the army by committee, shall we? We'll have a daily national-TV strategy meeting where somebody tells the world what we're considering doing, and then we let the hand-wringing go on for an hour or so. This way, for the enemy, there won't be as much guesswork involved with selecting and killing American targets.