Exactly Red, The world didn't end when we pulled out of Vietnam. We can't solve their internal problems, and Cowboy W was warned about this by Colin Powell (you break it, you own it) Call me a "cut and run" if you want, but this is a quagmire, pure and simple. I'm more of a "never should have went in the first place" Iraq was never a serious threat to the U.S. That was fast becoming obvious once the weapons inspectors got in and couldn't find anything. So, we pulled them out, as they were screaming for more time. If it was obvious to me, it damn should have been obvious to the U.S. goverment.
It's not a "cut and run", that's just a discredited neo-con catch phrase. We won the war in 21 days! One wins an occupation by ending it and leaving. It's not about saving "face", what a load of crap. We haven't lost anything. How can you lose a war in which you win every battle? We've proven to any potential enemy that we can take down your country within weeks and we can stay as long as we want to. Staying indefinitely doesn't prove the point any better. All it does it weaken our readiness for the next conflict . . . which is going to happen and possibly very soon.
A solution is something that resolves a problem. Your "solutions" would cause Iraq to noise dive into turmoil. We have to remain commited to Iraq until it can provide for its own security. If we do that Iraq can become a stabilizing influence in the Middle East, and if that happens it will be worth the sacrifices that have been made. #1: By giving a time line for withdrawal we would be playing right into the hands of Al Quida. #3: To turn over security to anyone but the Iraq military and security forces would not be wise. Iraq cannot stabilize with independent militias in control of segments of the country. #4: Most Iraqis are grateful to the U.S. for overthrowing Saddam and promoting democratic reforms. True, they would love to see the day when we leave, but most say U.S. troops provide a valuable function and should not leave now. #5. What is happening in Iraq is not a civil war; it is a very limited conflict between the Iraqi government and a single private milita. #6: So having withdrawn from Iraq, you want to go back in? #7: Having withdrawn from Iraq, you now want to attack Iran?
I agree, just as long as all that is done after the Iraqi's are able to control the insurgents on their own. They should have been able to do so already.
How much of the taxes you and I pay, and the money we borrow from donor countries, will Iraq need for stability? Iran is a much more powerful and stable country and will remain on Iraq's border once we pull out. The weaker a western friendly Iraq is, the stronger Iran is. Our economy is weak and I'm surprised so many are willing to gamble so much on foreign interests when our domestic situation is dangerously shaky. It really seems like a lack of perspective.
By surrendering, which is what we did in Vietnam and what we will do here if we don't see this thing through. More Americans died on the roads in 2006 (a single year) in California than KIA in Iraq in the five years combined since 2003. The death toll rhetoric is the last, best hope by the surrender crowd to avert catastrophic success in Iraq.
Why? We've given them five years and they crap all over us. Why do you love these ragheads so much? If it was important to go there and destroy their government and country, then why the hell must we rebuild it for them at our expense and with damn little of their help? It can't be done without their cooperation and they ain't cooperating. The Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds are intent on killing each other and taking their land and they will just have to work this out. It ain't our fight. We have dozen of bases all through the middle east. We can stop Iran or anyone else from invading Iraq easily without actually having to babysit their civil war. Sad, delusional pipe dream of the neo-con republicans. There isn't a democracy anywhere in the Arab world, including our "allies". They gave democracy to the Palestinians and they promptly elected Hamas! How exactly? The Sunni chiefs are already fighting Al Qaida right now. The Shiite insurgents are not connected with Al Qaida and they don't get along. Muqtada al Sadr is not sharing any power with foreign terrorists. He's going to try to take the high ground in order to be the next Iraqi strongman. When his Shia militia take it to them, Al Qaida will be the first victim in the All-Iraq civil war. The military is years away from stability and the security forces are completely infiltrated with Shia militia. They are NOT going to be able to control Iraq in the foreseeable future. If this is a goal, it is a foolish and unreachable one. Iraq is going to be governed by whoever is strongest when the fight is over, probably al Sadr. Whether we leave next year or in 50 years, there is going to be a fight when we leave. It ain't out fight. The war is over and we won it in 21 days. Saddam is dead and the WMD's were imaginary. One wins an occupation by ending it and leaving. It's over. What the hell are we waiting for? That's exactly how thirteen British colonies became the United State of America. They have to want it themselves. They have to fight for it themselves. Then they will have earned it. Most Iraqis don't give a damn about anything except tribal loyalties. Where is the evidence of this gratitude? We've taken 35,000 casualties from these loving, grateful Iraqis! They looted their own country, they sabotage the oil production, and they hide the insurgents among them. If Saddam was so damn bad for them, why didn't they start this insurgency against him? They got nothin' we need and we don't owe them a damn thing. You are seriously misinformed, sir. Nobody said that. I say the notion that we must keep ground troops in Iraq to defend it from Iran is nonsense. We could crush such an attack with airpower and with troops safely stationed in friendly Kuwait. The Iraqis are not going to settle their problems until we are gone.
