There’s a lot of different points of view on the Iraq War among liberals, even among Democrats in Congress at the moment over what is the proper course of action to take on the Iraq mess.
- Some are advocating that there’s nothing we can do to improve the situation and an immediate pull out is the best option.
- Some are advocating that we can’t pull out right away because that’d cause a power vacuum but we still need to get out as soon as possible because there’s nothing more we can do to improve the situation. They recommend a phased withdrawal starting relatively soon if not immediately.
- Some are saying that as much as believe we shouldn’t have gone in we’re stuck until we can ensure the government and security situation is stable before we can withdraw.
There’s even some arguments and divisions within those groups over specifics. What’s the right path? I think we all probably wish the third option seemed feasible and soon as that would be in the best interests of the Iraqis as well as the U.S. But it’s hard to find too many people who believe it is feasible, let alone any time soon, except among some absurdly optimistic folks.
The first option just seems too naive. Am I wrong? There was an article in the New York Times not to long ago talking about the disasters every time U.S. forces pulled back and left Iraqi security forces in charge. It seems doing this on a massive scale could cause a huge bloody mess that would make the current problems seem tame and possibly turn the public against the idea or at least against the people who pushed the idea afterwards.
The second option may be the only feasible one, but even that is a tough pill to swallow. I know some conservatives think liberals take bliss in the idea of pulling out of Iraq but there are obvious consequences to our military’s image, our nation’s image, and a great uncertainty about the fate of the Iraqi people that doesn’t make it an easy decision. Ideally we wouldn’t be in this position… either by not being there in the first place or by Bush managing the post-war situation better so the security sitution would have allowed for a phased withdrawal to have already begun.
I’m torn on the issue myself between group two and three. They both have me convinced and yet the downsides to both are just too much.
July 18, 2007 at 7:56 am
I think it is naive to believe that our presence in Iraq is preventing more deaths than it is causing. As long as we are there, working with their government, Iraqis will see their government as an illegitimate tool of the occupiers. Our troops and the forces we train will be targets.
The Iraqis want us out. We should respect their request. There are a lot of desparate Iraqis with no jobs, no clean water, no electricity, and no food, who are taking it out on our troops. Once we leave they will be able to go back to work rebuilding their infrastructure.
July 18, 2007 at 10:17 am
Yes. the Iraqis would like us to leave – eventually. Leaving too soon will create a burden on indig security forces that most are not ready for. There are a handful of Iraqi units that are capable of handling missions, but they are too few. That training must continue. The Iraqi PM has said as much. Progress is being made with the surge and with tribal leaders pledging support to the government and coalition forces to help hunt down AQI. Leaving now could be potentially disasterous to the current government.
It would be incredibly naive to think that once we leave all will go well. Iran would love to see us leave sooner rather than later so they can continue to keep Iraq off balance by feeding the sectarian strife as they seek to be the leader of the ME, and AQI will not stop their attacks once we leave.
Btw, none of the Democratic Prez hopefuls is even advocating a complete pullout, and as a result they will remain targets. That will not satisfy the MoveOn, Kos, or Sheehans of the Democratic party.
July 18, 2007 at 11:27 am
The reality for Republicans is that they view Iraq largely the same way Bush does, in that, we need to stay until the situation is in more capable hands, but that we would eventually leave. That is the most reasonable alternative, and the risks of leaving too soon are terribly great. I, and every conservative I know, would like to see us hand over day to day raids, patrols, etc to the Iraqis as soon as they are able to do so and then set up shop in Kuwait for the future training of Iraqis forces. To set arbitrary timelines without considering the consequences is done for purely political reasons.
As far as Paul goes he is more libertarian even though he calls himself a Republican. His foreign policy outlook is more isolationist.
July 18, 2007 at 3:34 pm
We need to leave Iraq, starting now. It will take almost two years to get out. There is no upside to staying just as there was not upside to invading. I would suggest a shift from Iraq to Afghanistan/NW Pakistan for some of our troops in support of the coalition forces going after those responsible for 9/11 etc. I would leave no troops in Iraq or permanent base.
Congress, yes both parties, seems enamered with Bush et al’s fear of reprisal and are out of touch with the majority of Americans’ wishes for us to leave Iraq. As such, any withdrawal action will not happen in the near future.
July 22, 2007 at 3:10 am
Fixing a bug… comments moved:
I worry that the Iraqi Security Forces and police will be overwhelmed if we leave and the problems that are making the Iraqis desperate will only continue and possibly get even worse. Without Americans to blame who but themselves to turn on, which they’re already doing for the most part. Most of the attacks aren’t against us it seems.
If we pull out and it turns into a full scale civil war or genocide (as if its not bad enough already but I’m talking much much worse) the American public will be seeing this and remember who did that to the Iraqis. Remember how Bush Sr. got blamed for abandoning the Shi’a in 1991 to the slaughter? This time it’d be all over the TV and Dems would be getting the blame during a Presidential campaign year. I think you’d quickly see any advantage gained due to Bush’s missteps lost.
Perhaps I’m wrong but I just don’t see the violence stopping just because we’re gone. I just see fewer people helping to stop it. The cause is still there whether we’re gone or not.
*****
I forgot to address your point about the Iraqis will. You’re right. If the Iraqis want us to leave we’ll have to leave. I think we’ll be seeing a more definitive vote in the Iraqi Parliament to do just that soon and we’ll have to abide or look like hypocrites. But I also think such a mandate would get Democrats off the hook for the security issues that result. “They wanted us to leave, they wanted to handle this on their own, we’ll assist if they request it blah blah blah…”
If we try to pull out before it may appear more like abandonment. Or as many conservatives depict it, retreat. If the Iraqis demand it through their government such an image can be avoided.
*****
Ghost 4-6, what’s their alternative on the other side of the aisle? Ron Paul?
July 28, 2007 at 10:48 am
Hola faretaste
mekodinosad
December 20, 2007 at 11:51 am
very interesting. i’m adding in RSS Reader