For those of you who want us out of Iraq....

[PinkMartini]

(And I mean this in the most genuine way possible - I don't talk politics with anyone IRL so I honestly have no clue. And I'm really trying to get some sort of 'hold' on the Iraq situation)

For those of you who want us out of Iraq does the worry of Iraq becoming this terrorist meca not concern you? I realize CC is mostly liberal so I thought it the best place to ask.

So if someone could explain to me what they believe will happen if we were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, I'd be appreciative.

Thanks. (And I hope I'm not opening up to be eaten alive by posting in here :o )

[Delta]

It might all be moot anyway: Bush's efforts to negotiate a long-term U.S-Iraq pact may remove troops as an '08 election issue for Obama, Clinton. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/91651)

Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.

[Linz]

Well we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place.

[imagirliegirl]

Well we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place.

Pretty much.

Now that we are there it's a total clusterphuck. I don't know what would happen if we pulled out tomorrow, I doubt anyone does. But I do believe we need to get out for a lot of reasons.

[lightview]

I think the US become involved in Iraq has made it more of a "terrorist mecca" since as the war continues more terrorists groups are entering Iraq. Regardless of this, I do not think we cannot leave Iraq until we try to stablize the situation.

[mpc863]

i agree that we should have never gone to Iraq in the first place. My biggest fear of an immediate withdrawl is that we repeat the same mistake that we made in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It's not so much about creating a terrorist mecca. It is about cleaning up the mess we made. Maybe it means that we help to make sure they have access to water and electricity. I don't think we should be their police force.

[PinkMartini]

Thanks for the replies thus far.

And I realize some of you don't think we should've gone to Iraq in the first place, but I'm not really looking for posts like that. I'm looking for people to explain why they think we should withdraw tomorrow and what they think will happen if we do. Or why we shouldn't withdraw tomorrow. I'm trying to learn some things here :) Thanks guys

[PinkMartini]

I think the US become involved in Iraq has made it more of a "terrorist mecca" since as the war continues more terrorists groups are entering Iraq.

Really? Wow I had no idea.... From what I've heard (and of course this may not be true - thus the reason why I started this thread) withdrawing immediately would make it a safe haven for any & all terrorist groups...

Anyone have any links that they could share for me to learn more?

[LyLMyssChaos]

I don't think an immediate withdraw is a very good idea. The region is extremely unstable and if we just up and leave without having the proper supports in place it will leave Iraq highly susceptible to a complete takeover by another terrorist group. That would completely erase our reasons for going there in the first place.

I also do not agree with claims that some candidates have made, such as "when I am elected, I will guarantee that we will begin to withdrawl within 60 days of my inauguration." I think it's a VERY bad idea to tell the opposition, exactly when we will be vacating. That simply tells them to reserve their efforts until we are gone, then attack.

[imagirliegirl]

Really? Wow I had no idea.... From what I've heard (and of course this may not be true - thus the reason why I started this thread) withdrawing immediately would make it a safe haven for any & all terrorist groups...

Yeah thanks to the powers that be a lot of people are so afraid of terrorism that throwing in the words "safe haven for terrorists" is enough to make them think staying in Iraq for the long term is the only option.

The American media is very heavily influenced by political powers and I think it's good to remember that when watching the news.

[nylons73]

This is what I know about the Iraq situation.

Saddam Hussein was indeed a bad, bad man, but he held the country together. He was in the political and religious minority (Sunni Muslim, Bath party) but he managed to curb sectarian violence by basically gassing or beheading anyone who posed a threat or dared to challenge him. Best way to unify the country? No. Effective way to unify the country? Yes.

When Saddam was basically 'removed' by the US, all heck broke loose over there. The Sunnis, who had been in power, suddenly realised that they were only 20% of the country and were in for a rude 'recalibration' of power. The Shiites, whom, despite being the large majority of the country had been very much oppressed (and frankly murdered) under Saddam, welcomed the US with open arms. They couldn't wait until they were free to retaliate against all of the Sunnis whom had been doing unspeakable things to them for all of these years. The Kurds (in the North) who had also been put down (and gassed) by Saddam, were also pleased to see the US, because they also now had the free ability to 'settle their scores' ---so to speak.

Iran, seeing Iraq turn into an unstable mess, has been sending in operatives in droves, to try to make things more unstable. A stable Iraq is bad for Iran. An unstable Iraq is delicious. In addition, Syria (to the West) are mostly Bathists and want a piece of whatever they can get in there. Lebanese operatives are also coming in to fight for one side or the other (or just to fight for a particular terrorist group.) You have so many people in the country at this point, it is hard to figure out where they are all from and whom they are in allegiance to.

There is no way, IMHO, that the United States Military can possibly control this situation. I spoke to a young Marine, just back from Iraq, last year, and he said that it's just one huge cluster. They'll go into a city to subdue insurgents and half of the residents there are trying to kill them for one reason or another. They're fighting Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians, and all the while all of these groups are fighting (in some sense of the word) each other.

We have to get out. This is a centuries long battle that is not going to be solved anytime soon. I don't know exactly what will happen when we get out, but I do know that trying to subdue sectarian violence that has been going on since Islam's inception, is not something that the US should be trying to do. We f'd up big time going in there, and we are going to f'up even more if we stay and try to figure out whom we are fighting over there and why. My best idea would be to split the country into thirds (kurds, shiites and sunnis,) and get three separate people in power in each of these areas.

[lightview]

Here some excerpts from various articles on the web when i googled Iraq War and terrorism

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html

New York Times (2006)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

Per Zfacts.com

http://zfacts.com/p/652.html

Iraq War making us less safe from terrorism
Iraq makes us less safe — CIA, FBI, DIA, etc.
The entire US intelligence community reported in April that in Iraq a new generation of terrorists... [is] breeding resentment of US and support for global jihad...[and] fueling the spread of the jihadists. They would never have said this if it were not true.

1. Before Cheney's Iraq war: The 9-11 commission reported that it found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.
January 22, 2007, al Qaeda it vastly stronger in Iraq: Now the US is fighting the Omar Brigade of Al Qaeda in downtown Baghdad, not to mention the mayhem in Anbar province. In short there is now a vast "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Iraq: Qaeda TrainingAll our intelligence agencies agreee on 6 points:
1. Iraq war is shaping a "new generation of terrorists".
2. is "breeding deep resentment of US".
3. is "fueling the spread of the jihadist" movement.
4. is "attracting new recruits and donors" to Al Qa'ida.
5. Al Qa’ida in Iraq might "lead to external operations".
6. Iraqi fighters are a potential "source of leadership for jihadists".

J.

[BlackMagicRose]

This is what I know about the Iraq situation.

Saddam Hussein was indeed a bad, bad man, but he held the country together. He was in the political and religious minority (Sunni Muslim, Bath party) but he managed to curb sectarian violence by basically gassing or beheading anyone who posed a threat or dared to challenge him. Best way to unify the country? No. Effective way to unify the country? Yes.

When Saddam was basically 'removed' by the US, all heck broke loose over there. The Sunnis, who had been in power, suddenly realised that they were only 20% of the country and were in for a rude 'recalibration' of power. The Shiites, whom, despite being the large majority of the country had been very much oppressed (and frankly murdered) under Saddam, welcomed the US with open arms. They couldn't wait until they were free to retaliate against all of the Sunnis whom had been doing unspeakable things to them for all of these years. The Kurds (in the North) who had also been put down (and gassed) by Saddam, were also pleased to see the US, because they also now had the free ability to 'settle their scores' ---so to speak.

Iran, seeing Iraq turn into an unstable mess, has been sending in operatives in droves, to try to make things more unstable. A stable Iraq is bad for Iran. An unstable Iraq is delicious. In addition, Syria (to the West) are mostly Bathists and want a piece of whatever they can get in there. Lebanese operatives are also coming in to fight for one side or the other (or just to fight for a particular terrorist group.) You have so many people in the country at this point, it is hard to figure out where they are all from and whom they are in allegiance to.

There is no way, IMHO, that the United States Military can possibly control this situation. I spoke to a young Marine, just back from Iraq, last year, and he said that it's just one huge cluster. They'll go into a city to subdue insurgents and half of the residents there are trying to kill them for one reason or another. They're fighting Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Syrians, Lebanese, Iranians, and all the while all of these groups are fighting (in some sense of the word) each other.

We have to get out. This is a centuries long battle that is not going to be solved anytime soon. I don't know exactly what will happen when we get out, but I do know that trying to subdue sectarian violence that has been going on since Islam's inception, is not something that the US should be trying to do. We f'd up big time going in there, and we are going to f'up even more if we stay and try to figure out whom we are fighting over there and why. My best idea would be to split the country into thirds (kurds, shiites and sunnis,) and get three separate people in power in each of these areas.

This is an excellent summary of what we have done to Iraq. This is a mess we will be dealing with for a long time. Thankyou George W.!

We made a mess that we cannot possibily clean up. We need to pull our troops out as soon as possible. I do not know how the next President(s) are going to deal with it. It is scary, but uncontrollable.

[kristin]

Keep in mind the aforementioned summary was taken from the New York Times, not exactly an unbiased review IMO.

I do not feel we should rapidly withdraw troops. We still have troops in Korea and that wasn't exactly a successful war either. I think pulling out of Iraq abruptly will destabilize the entire region - just hearing about what's going on with Iran right now scares the crap out of me.

Kudos to Pink Martini for starting this great thread - It's a really interesting topic. But kinda like throwing yourself under a bus with this crowd, no? Brave girl! ;)

[Niobe]

nylons73 did an excellent job of summarizing the crappy situation we've created.

Yes, Saddam was a murderous dictator, and that is generally a bad thing. But he was a murderous dictator because being one was a darn good way to keep the current mess in Iraq from happening. And horrible as he was, I'm still not convinced that it has really been an improvement in the daily lives of the general Iraqi population to have taken him out of power.

And we knew that, btw. Our government knew exactly what taking Saddam down would do to the internal stability in Iraq. According to Dick Cheney - at the time - that was why the first Pres. Bush didn't take Saddam out of power during the first Gulf War. Why did Cheney support it this time? I really don't think he fell for the WMD lie. Well, actually I think he created the lie, but even if he didn't, I don't think he ever would have believed it, and I don't think that's why our government wanted the war in the first place. I think that was the easiest lie to sell the American public on, to garner support for the war. And it definitely wasn't to "liberate the poor oppressed Iraqi people" either, since civil war isn't a great liberation tool. So why'd we do it?

So what do I think would happen if we pulled a Saigon on the country and just helicoptered our asses out tomorrow? I think a civil war would break out. A lot of Iraqi citizens will die, probably more then we've killed, probably more then Saddam would have killed. And that sucks.

But I think there's a damn good chance that same civil war would break out 10 years from now, if we spent that entire time with the same level of troop involvement, trying to suppress random sectarian violence in that country while feebly trying to solve a conflict that we really don't understand and that has been playing itself out for a thousand years.

And we can't sustain that. We don't have the money or the troops to keep this war going, even if we did have a chance of ever solving this problem. But I don't really believe there's money or troops enough in the world to solve the problems in Iraq, not without slaughtering the whole population. The civil war is coming. I haven't seen a lot of sign that the various faction leaders actually want a peaceful resolution to this.

Maybe we can work some serious diplomatic mojo, but I think there's a good chance the resettled Iraq will have deep resentment towards America - I also think that's our own damn fault. But I don't think we should keep our troops standing, and falling, in the middle of the inevitable, trying to buy time forever.

[PinkMartini]

Kudos to Pink Martini for starting this great thread - It's a really interesting topic. But kinda like throwing yourself under a bus with this crowd, no? Brave girl! ;)

LoL Kinda. But I'm hoping that the wonderful gals of CC will see my genuine attempt at learning and not be too harsh on me ;) So far so good!

[IrishEyes]

And we can't sustain that. We don't have the money or the troops to keep this war going, even if we did have a chance of ever solving this problem.

I'd love to pull them all out right now. But I'm conflicted because yes, we broke it, we should fix it. But I get pulled back to what Niobe said above. This surge is going to have to end soon because we're running out of troops. There are guys who have been over there 3 tours! And the money that's going into Iraq is sorely needed here. What is the fix????

[nylons73]

Keep in mind the aforementioned summary was taken from the New York Times, not exactly an unbiased review IMO.

Just to clarify. Just before you posted, BlackMagicRose complemented me on my summary of the situation (thanks btw! :). ) When you mean "aforementioned summary" I hope you don't mean mine. What I posted didn't come from the NYT. It came from my brain. ;)

[keska]

I think the major problem in terms of terrorism is the magnet effect. Right now, Iraq is drawing all sorts of people who have issues with the U.S. and, to some extent, the West. They get training and combat experience there. If we leave, the people who have gone there to join in political resistance against us no longer have that draw. That's a lot of people left with nothing to do but find another target. People who spend years fighting abroad don't just go home and reintegrate peacefully.

[Niobe]

I think the major problem in terms of terrorism is the magnet effect. Right now, Iraq is drawing all sorts of people who have issues with the U.S. and, to some extent, the West. They get training and combat experience there. If we leave, the people who have gone there to join in political resistance against us no longer have that draw. That's a lot of people left with nothing to do but find another target. People who spend years fighting abroad don't just go home and reintegrate peacefully.

Wait, are you saying we should stay and continue to attract more anti-American fighters to be trained in Iraq by killing our troops? :confused: Your last two sentences are leaving me confused as to the intent of your post.

[ysolde]

OK, I am a complete cynic (esp. wrt the ME). Ther is no way in heck we can withdraw tomorrow. The best case scenario is for us to heal our relationships with our friends in Europe, those who have a better relationship in the ME, and build up a true coalition, one which can slowly replace predominantly US forces with predominantly European forces in Iraq.

I think part of what may be going on is that we need a really strong and friendly Iraq because SA is closer to the edge these days. The Wahabbi influence (which has been around since when? The 18th century? Back then they thought the Ottomans were the infidels!) are really working against the al Sauds. And with an ever-shrinking supply of oil, and an ever growing gap between the haves and the have-nots there, I think it won't be long before the al Sauds are booted out and SA becomes a very scary Wahabbi theocracy. Thus, we will absolutely need a Western-friendly Iraq to act as a counterweight.

[MrsBeckyLP]

Thanks, nylons, for your summary, and Niobe for your addition!

I may be just as naive as PinkMartini on this topic (sorry for calling you naive!), so thanks for being brave and starting this thread. It's an eye-opener.

[miel]

Well, it isn't like one nation can justifiably continue to occupy another nation just because they want to prevent terrorism. By that logic, the U.S. should take over large parts of the world--as terrorists are coming from all over. I realize some people want the U.S. to do this but if they do, then I don't think they are getting the point that terrorists can continue to flourish under a military occupation, as they have in Iraq and many other places.

The U.S. army does not prevent Iraq from being a terrorist mecca. If it continues to be unstable, that will result in a host of problems--one of which will be terrorism. The Iraqi people have suffered horribly because of terrorism and are continuing to suffer. I wish the U.S. had been able to bring stability but why assume this is possible?

[ginadc]

I think it will be a mess if we pull out, but it's a mess now. I don't see our presence genuinely making things any better over the long term. The "surge" has quelled some of the violence, but it hasn't achieved its aim of creating an opportunity to address the political situation and work toward bringing real stability.

As far as Iraq becoming a terrorist mecca...it already is. It wasn't before, but it is now, and we made it that way. Our presence is just a rallying cry for extremist factions in the Muslim world. Frankly, I wish there were something we could achieve by staying, because we brought this disaster upon the people of Iraq, and it's our obligation to try to fix it. But I don't see how our continued presence does that. Sure, people will always be able to come up with examples of locals and politicians who say, "Oh, thank goodness for the American troops, they did X," but broadly speaking, I think we're making things worse, not better.

[phoenics]

I'd love to pull them all out right now. But I'm conflicted because yes, we broke it, we should fix it. But I get pulled back to what Niobe said above. This surge is going to have to end soon because we're running out of troops. There are guys who have been over there 3 tours! And the money that's going into Iraq is sorely needed here. What is the fix????

What pisses me off is that *I* didn't break a d@mn thing. George W Bush and his Administration did. It sucks that they won't have to really deal with the mess they've made and that likely, a democratic president will have to and probably fail in the process. Meanwhile, we've wasted a ton of money and lives over there and our educational system is collapsing.

It's so unfair.

I can honestly say I hate W for this.

I just want us out. I believe we made terrorism worse by going in there. I also believe that our government fell down on the job in catching and finding Osama. It's like Iraq was this huge diversion from finding Osama and wasn't 9/11 the main reason why there was this 'war on terror' in the first place?

Clusterphuck is right.

[pocket]

It’s no surprise that I agree most with Miel here.

First of all, what exactly do you mean by terrorists in Iraq? And what do you mean by terrorists? Mostly I think that what we have in Iraq are people who are fighting Americans because we invaded their country and people who came to Iraq to fight Americans because we invaded another country. Does that seem possible to you? How do you think we would react if we were invaded and occupied by another country? I think we would organize into militia groups and reject the government that was sanctioned by the occupiers. Terrorism is a technique, not a group of people.

I really question the premise of the Iraq war and the idea that it was ever possible to transform another country’s government by invading them. I think the neoconservative ideology is flawed from the ground up, is based on assumptions that I don’t think are true assumptions, and that we made a big mistake by basing such an expensive and dangerous foreign policy decision on neoconservative ideology.

At this point I don’t really think that there is much benefit to the US is staying in Iraq. We may have broken it, but how exactly are we fixing it by continuing to occupy? I think that GWB doesn’t have the political clout to mandate a long-term troop commitment to Iraq. That will be seen as an extra-constitutional move and I just don’t think he has the support to pull it off. Even I can think of several ways that a new Administration could reject it outright without encountering blowback. I even think it would be pretty popular and would really galvanize the anti-war movement. It’s one of the only things that would make it possible for Congress to use their purse-power without suffering for it politically.

It’s not that I think the US doesn’t face threats from terrorism. It’s that I think those threats aren’t coming out of Iraq. Iraq is a distraction that bleeds away all of our money, and all of our attention while international jihadists consolidate their power in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is where the real threat is coming from.

Plus, as Miel says – it’s just wrong. Is that the kind of country we are now? Torturers? Occupiers? We are just going to run around invading any country that some idiot eggheads tell us is a threat to the American way of life?

[pocket]

I also want to say that my job is to find and hire experts in international affairs and policy and law. People who have made their life's work the transformation of developing and transitional countries. We did a lot of work with Afghanistan's constitution and elections etc. And the people they relied on to make Iraq are mostly idiots selected for their ties to the Administration. It's like they weren't even trying. I think they went in there so full of pride about their neoconservative revelation. what they have built is not sustainable. It's like the Vichy government. A sustainable government wouldn't need another country's military to keep control of their country.

[PinkMartini]

I may be just as naive as PinkMartini on this topic (sorry for calling you naive!), so thanks for being brave and starting this thread. It's an eye-opener.

LoL No, it's very true. I am naive on the topic. And reading these responses really is an eye opener :)

[villanelle75]

I think if/when we leave, there will be a giant mess. There will be backlash. There will be pissed off Iraqis who feel abandoned and who think we created a terrible situation and then bailed and left them to fix it. I think some of them may end up being recruited into terrorism because of that.

Unfortunately, all those things are happening as we stay. It's a mess and there is backlash and anger over our presence. Many are pissed off that we are there and that has created a great opportunity for terrorists to recruit. It's the same damn thing.

So looking at possible outcomes, it seems to me like a wash, which means we have to use other rationale to decide our course of action. It seems very wrong for us to be occupying and running a country that should be a sovereign nation, especially when we've had years and been unable in that time to help them, so we can't use that as a justification. And it is costing our economy dearly. And continuing to erode what is left of our standing with allies. Once you factor out the outcome-based thinking because it is a wash, I can't think of a single reason we *should* stay.

I want it to be different. I want there to be a way for us to make right what we've done, and to leave stability in our wake. I want to be able to make life better for the Iraqi people. I wish that staying there would do that. I want that to be the right answer--that we stay until things are put back together. But it won't happen. There is no good answer. There is no good solution, no matter how much we want it. We have to make this decision based not on what we wish or what we hoped for 5 years ago, but on where we are today, and where we are is a place where there is no great outcome. There isn't even a good or decent outcome. We have to swallow our pride and chose the least shitty of all the possibles.

It is time to start the process of withdrawing. I don't think we need to get everyone on a plane tomorrow, but it needs to start, and it needs to happen efficiently.

[Delta]

It sucks that they won't have to really deal with the mess they've made :confused:
And the people they relied on to make Iraq are mostly idiots selected for their ties to the Administration. It's like they weren't even trying. I think they went in there so full of pride about their neoconservative revelation.I can confirm this, though I would not call them idiots. Overeager and in way, way, way over their heads, yes. I know people - recent college grads and the like at the time - who went over with Paul Bremer. They had no business being there whatsoever. It was quite stunning and a sign that they (the administration) truly didn't know the extent to which Iraq was a shell of a country.

[pocket]

They sent children.

It doesn't matter how smart you are on paper - though I am pretty scathing about some of the "universities" these people went to. If you are 27 years old, the proud holder of a BA in communications and you don't have the self-knowledge and humility to understand that the world is a complicated place, it's almost criminal negligence on the part of the morons who sent you there.

[phoenics]

:confused:


Bush and his administration are not the people who will have to clean up this mess... the next administration will.

Since you seemed confused.

[PinkMartini]

Awesome! Thanks for the replies ladies. And thank you for not eating me alive ;)

I appreciate it and have learned quite a bit about the situation...