Comments on "Troops Out Now" Just as Bad as "Stay the Course"?

Troops out now = immediate horrifying, mindblowing bloodbath.

I know it's fun for liberals to say "we didn't want this war, let's just get the fuck out", but the fact is, WE STARTED IT. We broke Iraq, and now we own it. We have a moral responsibility to fix it, whether we wanted the war or not. That's what responsibility means.

What needs to happen is what should have happened in the beginning: security on the ground. Make it possible for ordinary Iraqis to get to work, go to the market, walk around outside without being blown up. That's going to require a MASSIVE INCREASE in the number of troops. Like we should have done in the beginning.

The fact that some of our troops will die as a result means nothing. We OWE these people. We have an obligation to not just walk away as they are slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands.

We cannot continue to pretend that something called "the Iraqi military" or "the Iraqi government" is going to do this for us. They won't; they're PART OF THE PROBLEM. We need to build a force big enough to subdue Sadr City and all the other Shi'ite militia hotbeds, and we need to also put down the Sunni murderers. We need to put the people who are drilling each other in the head out of business, provide basic security, and enable the country to start rebuilding its infrastructure.

The alternative is a US-made Darfur, only with more guns and more bombs. It will be a bloodbath.

This is the tragedy of Iraq. It's not just that hey, it turned out kinda bad for us. It's that we are only halfway down the track of this disaster, and there are NO GOOD OPTIONS. We are fucked, and Iraq is fucked. Nice work, George. Now, and just beginning, we will start paying the price.

Well, what can we do? Say we impose martial law on the place. How long do we have to stay until Iraq is stable/self-sufficient?

Even that brutal sonofabitch dictator Saddam was doing a better job than we are. That sounds like a joke, but think for a minute. It's true. And it's horrifying. Iraq is a worse place to live now than it was under Saddam, and the best we can hope for is some kind of Saddam-like military state with slightly less animosity toward the U.S.

For starters, we can find all the people who know how to do this kind of operation, and rehire them. They were all booted out of the government and the military when Rumsfeld took over. "Nation-building", they called it, with a sneer. As part of the process, the people who built the new Iraq were all selected on the basis of their allegiance to President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld's theories, not their expertise. Expertise was considered to be IN AND OF ITSELF evidence of unsuitability.

The alternative to "cut and run" is "stay and die."

How long will it take to stabilize Iraq? 10 more years? 20 years?

How do you ask a man to be the last to die for Bush's lies?

the problem, andrew, is that you are talking about the last american man to die for bush's lies. to leave now would be catastrophic. it would create a less stable iran. or a more powerful afghanistan. i have no idea how to fix it, but we can't just ignore the problem.

Yeah Andrew, to cut and run is a case from running away from a mess you created.

And it wouldn't just be Iraqis who would be mad at us for leaving it that way. It's a great way to diversify the number of shit lists you're on.

Fix the mess however you can, then pull out.

Fnarf, we're in a bloodbath situation already. It's hell on earth. I don't see how staying will stem the chaos that is Iraq now.

We didn't wrap up Vietnam with a bow before we left. If we had waited until we had done that then we would still be there. We should not wait for an honorable, logical time to leave. We have no reason to be there.

I understand the "you break it, you buy it" idea, but that usually means paying once and getting the hell out of the store, not sticking around, breaking more stuff until everything in the store is destroyed.

Cutting and running from Vietnam was no help to the Vietnamese. However, had we stayed, Vietnam would not have been better off. Instead of the communists oppressing and slaughtering the Vietnamese people, we would have continued oppressing and slaughtering them.

Iraq is fucked whether we stay or go.

"Troops out now = immediate horrifying, mindblowing bloodbath."

To which you can add: "Stay in Iraq = immediate horrifying, mindblowing bloodbath."

The problem is not that one is worse than the other, it's that Bush got us in a position where there are no choices that don't involve a bloodbath.

The sad truth is that everyone is right and wrong about this. We do own this, we do have a moral obligation to fix it before we give up on it, yet at the same time, our very presence is causing the problems we seek to resolve. Hence, we have a moral obligation to get the hell out of there and stop making it worse. Meanwhile, we have an equally compelling moral obligation to use the full fury of all our armed forces to clean out the terrorists/generic bad guys we invited there, but just as compelling an obligation to NEVER do this.

Anyone who says there is an easy answer (or even one answer) to the Iraq problem is either stoned, stupid or a liar. Or a stoned, stupid liar. Americans must learn to deal in complexities and face difficult truths again and get away from our dependence on simplistic, slogan-based "solutions", or we're doomed to continually repeat the stupid decisions that have marked the last 15 or so years of our declining foreign policy.

So sez switzerblog, the foreign policy "expert" (actual foreign policy results may differ)

"The fact that some of our troops will die as a result means nothing."

this sort of comment is always appreciated form the non serving civilian. Fnarf, why has the Pentagon already hired you? You seem very capable of splathering the same shit we hear all the time.

A British Ministry of Defense poll
showed that 65% of Iraqi citzens support attacks on occupying troops and less than 1% feel that the occupation helps promote security. What good reason do we have to believe that we know better, and moreover that we should not respect their wishes? Are they not, after all, a free sovreign democratic state?

I don't think the people pointing to our current occupation as some bloodbath have an idea how much worse a US-pullout-caused bloodbath would look like. In fact, calling the current situation a bloodbath is Boston-Massacre-like hyperbole.

Nice one: we owe them. They are dying by the hundreds of thousands. It's OUR FAULT. That means you, and me, and everyone else. To say "well, as long as we get our boys out of there, it's OK" is just repulsive.

The British poll doesn't mean as much as it looks like it means. Basically the country is so polarized now that most Iraqis want us out just so they can kill their enemies without interference.

The Vietnam parallel is handy but not very accurate. The Vietnamese were fighting US. The Iraqis are fighting each other. This is much more similar to Bosnia and Kosovo.

The first step is a huge increase in troops: triple. Set them up to protect, neighborhood by neighborhood. The second step is a mission to the neighboring countries, very much including Iran, and Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. Beg them to help you establish order, but make it clear to them that the Iranians are not to help only the Shia, the Syrians are not to help only the Sunni, the Turks are not to secretly kill all the Kurds. It's time for some of those governments as well to cut the shit and GET REAL.

The third step is to start removing weapons from Iraq. The militias and insurgencies are incredibly well-armed, having their own caches as well as the contents of thousands of munitions dumps that the US was too short-sighted to guard. If this has to be a house-to-house search and confiscation mission, so be it. MELT THE GUNS.

Then we need to set up a proper government will ALL parties involved. Make it clear to them that bullshit will not be tolerated. General Shakir needs to be removed from command NOW. Maliki needs to understand that his power is ENTIRELY dependent on meeting OUR standards for fair play. Fuck democracy; we will build democracy as we can, AFTER the security is stabilized.

Yeah, gomez, it's a real block party there right now. 1,600 dead in a month in one city, not even counting the 100+ of our troops that were lost, is a bloodbath. I suppose if you want to attach descriptive levels of bloodbath-ness to it, you could call this a bloodsprinkling or bloodhandwashing and then feel like you've got a leg to stand on. A bloodbath is a bloodbath is a bloodbath. The reality is, we're not stopping the bloodbath from happening anyway. Kidnappings, torture and murder are SOP, just among Iraqis. Our troops, for the most part, aren't involved in any effort to prevent that, and the Shiite/Sunni violence occurs with no thought as to American troops standing in anyone's way.

For you or I or anyone to suggest that we know it would be appreciably better or worse without our troops there is, frankly, naive. We don't know, intelligence doesn't know, the Generals on the ground guess, but they don't know either. The whole thing is no longer in our control, and hasn't been for some time.

I sure don't know if we should stay or go, but anyone with two eyes in their head can see it's going to be an atrocity whether we're there or not. The question is no longer how we can do any good there, but how we can limit the damage that we cause. I just hope the intelligence and foreign policy committees actually listen to what they're told and think before passing legislation - that alone would be an improvement over our past actions and set us on a path towards...well, hopefully some good for someone. I think we should get out, but I'm not in Congress. Here's hoping these guys use some critical thinking before they make their decision, and don't just vote to bring the troops out because that's what "the base" wants...

“You broke it you bought it” is a powerful moral argument. The responsibility that comes from that is to *do the least amount of harm* possible.

FNARF, Gomez, et al you assume we have the *ability* to fix the mess we made. What is the basis for that belief? Why is our continued presence part of the solution?

Your belief strikes me as similar to the Western hubris that led us there, in another shade: Kipling’s White Man’s Burden—the Good Cop version.

I could get behind either a full pullout or a major troop reinforcement - hopefully this time with a true contingent of international forces, maybe Pelosi can get Bush to eat some more crow with France, Germany, & the other major UN players he was so quick to snub.

But Fnarf, you're basically saying "The way to solve the region's problems is to solve the region's problems. The cure for sectarian violence is stopping sectarian violence." I'm not convinced it's going to be that simple. If these groups have been at each other's throats for a thousand years, I don't see how we're going to turn that around in the next few.

Fnarf, I am not suggesting that WE pull out, only pointing out that non serving people such as yourself and I should not belittle the loss of life our troops have given. Armchair generals are the reason this sort of confrontation starts. Maybe if everyone who thought that this was a cause that life should be put on the line for actually volunteered their own we could avoid these situations

@ Fnarf: I agree with every point you make. You could not have put it better. Many people (liberals and conservatives) want the easy "lets get them out quickly" BS. But what people don't realize is that the last few American brigades to leave will be slaughtered to the last man. I have so many friends over there, that it makes me increasingly irrate to think that people don't understand the complexity that is military logistics, and the movement of personnel. Its not as easy as people think.

Also @imofftoseethewizard, I am sure that plenty of Kosovians would say they are tired of the military presence over there, and same with the South Koreans. But simply put, if we leave they will face civil war and more bloodshed and annoyance than with the US military/NATO/Etc there. Also, leaving Iraq now would mean that those stronger nations would just cut up Iraq and take pieces from it. We need to appeal to the Iraqi's that they need to be patriots first, and religious second if they are to keep their country.

It is not just our obligation that binds us to the Iraqis. We promised security to the region, however foolhardy, and we can't back out now. We backed out after the first gulf war, and look where that got us. We can't do it again.

My Plan: (matches Fnarf's) Get together people with actual credentials. Nation building experts, Middle East Historians, Military experts, etc. Give this group 6-9 months to come up with a plan, while increasing troops levels to at least double current level. Encourage, through diplomacy, all surrounding middle eastern nations to send troops, food, supplies. You can even appeal to the hard-liners by explaining that what Osama was/is mad about was/is US involvement in Middle East problems.

As a side note I have been to more military funerals than most. I have many friends still there, and think of them and their families as I write this.

I'll second A@15. It's dangerous to assume we *can* fix Iraq, even with an unlimited number of troops. In fact, I'd say it is a near certainty that we can NOT.

Maybe (maybe) with a 300-400k UN-force lead by a non-US, non-UK commander, with participation by Iran and Syria, and the creation of a de-facto independent Kurdish state in the north could one stabilize Iraq.

Are you proposing something like that Fnarf, or just more US-lead troops?

Anything US lead and without the full support of both Iran and Syria is going to be a bloodbath regardless.

Monique, and Nice One, I do understand the difficulties of troop logistics, and I grieve for every one of our dead. But you can't just say "we will condemn you to a million more dead to save our handful". We could have said that before we destroyed their country, but not now.

Hubris? White Man's Burden? Maybe. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think we can fix this, at least a little. We could have avoided this mess if our leaders had not made the worst series of decisions in US history, not just before the invasion but later; for instance when Bremer decided to disband the Iraqi army, but when people pointed out how stupid that was, he then decided to continue paying their salaries. Result: hundreds of thousands of trained ex-soldiers with massive quantities of weapons and a salary but no job responsibility and no interest in building Iraq.

It all boils down to security. Provide security and the sectarian thing will subside. The Shia don't kill the Sunnis because it's fun; they do it because they're afraid, and because their personalities have been destroyed. Give them security and they'll start focusing on making their lives better. Religion is a smokescreen for economic and cultural hopelessness.

Another thought: where are these additional troops coming from? A national draft? Good luck with that.

Trained and deployable troops are a limited resource. Is Iraq the place where US soldiers are likely to do the most good? What about NK? Or Darfur? South Lebanon?

The most important question to ask is what can we possibly accomplish in Iraq.

It would be far, far, FAR WORSE if we pulled out cold turkey right now. Far worse. It'd actually be a war crime for the US to just pull out and leave them twisting in the wind as is.

People have died and are dying, but it'd be far worse if we just left. Unimaginably worse.

Let me rephrase this in a way you'll understand:

What Bush did to Iraq is awful.

What you Troops Out Now zealots are suggesting we do is ten times as awful in scope as everything Bush has done.

It would likely lead to sanctions against the US and would incite far more world anger than we already have.

Gomez: I agree about Bush and that we have responsibilities towards Iraq. My questions stands, howeever: *How* could US troops help the situation?

I'd argue that the last thing Iraq needs is more US troops. What they need are well equipped and supported *UN* troops, lead by a commander that the Iraqi's all would accept.

Doubling or tripling troop levels? With what troops?

Troop rotations abroad work in three parts: preparation and training, serving abroad, then a recovery period. Thus even small peacekeeping missions like Kosovo take a far bigger bite out of US Army capability than it appears at first glance—roughly triple.

The reason reserves are being overused is because there’s not much left in the way of US military capacity as far as occupation ability goes. Troops aren’t a limitless resource.

Simply lecturing Turkey, Syria, Iran & Jordan about getting real—on our terms!—won’t work. Those countries know what their interests are, and they are not the same as ours. Giving them some carrots would help, but won’t work without the threat and reality that soon we’ll be leaving, because if we leave things will get worse for all those countries—it won’t be our problem, it will become theirs.

To take just one example: Syria is happy to foment violence in Iraq, because they can justify it as being anti-USA. Take the USA out of the equation and they’ll have to face the reality that disorder in Iraq could spread to Syria, and take their regime down.

Al Qaeda wants disorder in Syria more than just about anything, in order to get direct access to Israel. They’ll do anything to spread disorder there. If we pull up stakes and just leave in Iraq, the Syrian regime may well be fucked.

So I agree with FNARF and Monique that talking to those countries is a good idea, but I doubt a “help us” message will work—it’s got to be a “help us and solve a problem for yourself before it’s too late for you” message that I doubt can be made if we stay the course or raise troop levels.

The U.S. controls very little of Iraq right now. Many parts of the country are policing themselves already-- badly, but also in a way that shows what a hollow lie the current occupation is. Establishing a strong central state with a monopoly on the use of force (Weber's definition) would require a total and brutal military dictatorship to implement a counter-insurgency program that would rival the attrocities we committed in Vietnam. The U.S. occupation simply does not have the legitimacy to govern alone. But it has burned its bridges with the Iraqi people, except maybe the Kurds, who are establishing their own regional order. It needs to offer real concessions, not more troops, to bring real peace. Pulling the troops out is a nightmare IF it accompanies a punitive policy rather than an alternative plan for reconstruction, which means real money.

What the U.S. did to Vietnam was a crime. Knowing full well that the war was lost, we bombed the fucking place to smithereens, poisoned the environment, displaced peasants into cities of rubble, then withheld money to rebuild the country and imposed brutal sanctions that prevented others from providing any kind of capital that would have aided reconstruction. Then we blamed the communists for ruining the wasteland we created.

We did something similar, on a less intensive scale and by proxy, to Central America in the 1980s.

The U.S. would do the same to Iraq but for the oil. FNARF's alternative is a fiscal and human rights nightmare. American money would be better spent on a peace process with the insurgents and religious milias that gives them a real stake in helping oversee the rebuilding of the country, re-nationalizes the oil industry, and provides real jobs to a nation with unemployment levels that have created the conditions for civil war.

Hezbollah and Hamas thrive where Israel decimates and lays ruin, because someone has to provide a modicum of order where a real government is impossible. You want to rebuild without a slaughter? You need to deal with the order created by these sub-state organizations and militias, disarm them with money, power-sharing, and at least some freedom. In other words, cut the crap about the war on terror, as if all insurgents and militia members are terrorists, and recognize the humanity of people you're occupying.

I would support sanctions against the US. I know the Republicans think the worst for them is over, but I would like to see Bush pay for what he has done. That is not unpatriotic of me, it is simply realistic. Al Qaeda and all the various jihadist groups now have a much larger and richer country than Afghanistan to play in.

It really isn't funny, but my first thought when reading "sanctions against the US" was: finally a plan to help GM and Ford that might work. ;p

Monique,

Attendance at military funerals does not necessarily convey an authority in matters of foreign policy.

Iraq has already been divided up. The Kurdish north has been a de facto state since 1991. The rest is separating into a Sunni state and a Shia state, with ethnic cleansing in the mixed areas. The former will ultimately fall within the sphere of Syria, the latter Iran. There is nothing special about the borders drawn by the British and French subsequent to the retreat of the Ottoman Turks from the area after WWI. Iraq was and remains a European construction.

---

Fnarf,

You ask that governments "GET REAL." I ask the same of you. Our military is struggling to maintain the occupation with 160K troops; do you support a draft to raise sufficient troops?

---

The question remains unanswered: Why do you believe that you know better than the Iraqis? It's THEIR country.

We have to support Israel in going after Iran. The American airbases in Iraq will finally make if possible for America and Israel to control all the oil in the region and that'll bring peace.

It's fine for liberal peace-niks to whine about troups out now. But no one seriously would consider it. I'm a pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-capitalist Democrat and The Stranger has been on message throughout this war. Keep up the good work!

Let's see if we can get through this without resorting to name calling. Just because a person thinks there's no reason to be in Iraq doesn't make them a "peace-nik" or even a liberal. It doesn't even mean that they opposed the war in the beginning. People of all political persuasions are arguing that staying in Iraq is a poor policy direction today.

Yeah, hippies are annoying. Opposing the war in Iraq doesn't make you one, though.

Iraq occupation supporters,

A few questions:

1) Where will the 200,000 to 300,000 more troops needed to occupy Iraq come from? We've been told that our military is already near the point of collapse and many of our allies have already withdrawn or will do so soon.

2) How long will it take?

3) How much will it cost?

As an occupying force, history is not on our side.

We have to shit or get off the pot. And the only way we're going to shit is with a draft. We simply DO NOT HAVE THE TROOPS necessary to "impose order" in Iraq.

Great, good, okay, marginally bad, bad, really bad and horrific left the station a long time ago. There aren't any options for a happy ending. It'll probably get worse for a while when we leave, but as long as we occupying the country, it's not going to get any better; we'll just be prolonging the inevitable.

Announcing a pull out now should get surrounding countries to start contributing; if the prospect of a full-blown civil war next door isn't an incentive, then nothing is.

The Shia don't kill the Sunnis because it's fun

Are you sure about that, that none of them are looking for revenge? Judging from the amount of senseless violence in the world, it seems like a significant number of people think violence is "fun."

Listen up. Fuck the Iraqis. We knocked out their dictator, and now they can build their country with some financial aid and without our troops killing them or getting killed. Bring them home now, let the inevitable bloodbath occur earlier, rather than later, and we can stop spending money there and start spending it here.

Right on, Gitai.

Revenge begets revenge. These people have got to sort it out for themselves; all we can do is try to finance their reconstruction as a repayment for trashing their country, and get the hell out of their way.

Besides, now that we have a timeline, it's all of a sudden "oh shit" time for the other countries in the region. Now they know they've got to get their act together or it's really gonna hit the fan.

"Troops Out Now" vs. "Stay the course" is a false dichotomy. Murtha's not a Troops Out Now guy. From what I've heard all along, he's talked about a phased and careful withdrawal, or "redeployment". That's different from simply leaving, and allows for flexibility - if withdrawal isn't working, one can always send forces back in.

What's happening now isn't making anyone happy (except defense contractors and oil companies), and instant exit won't make anyone happy. Lucky for us Murtha doesn't advocate either of those.

Now that there are grownups in charge who might even listen to military experts, and Rumsfeld is out, there's a chance of developing other strategies. There's always a middle way.

Annie, this is simply foolish. There is no way that a continued American presence in Iraq can "fix" anything. To believe it can is to continue to completely misunderstand why things are going to badly there in the first place.

What exactly can the US do to "fix" things that it hasn't already tried and failed to do? And how exactly do you convince an occupied nation that their occupiers, who over 4 years have not shown any honest concern for your well being, have suddenly figured it out?

Annie's post, and those comments that agree with her, show that too many Americans continue to believe the basic fallacies that got us into this war, one of which is that the US can fix any problem it finds. The fact is, no, the US simply can't. The Iraqi people alone can "fix" this. We can only support them in that, not do it for them.

That's why withdrawing the troops is so damn important. It would be a clear and believable gesture that we are serious about helping bring about a free and democratic Iraq. We then work with other nations in the world to find ways to build up and strengthen those factions in Iraq that seek peace, that seek reconciliation. There are many.

Annie needs to sit down and reexamine her basic assumptions. This is not something the US can "fix" alone and continued US troop presence cannot possibly have any other outcome except more dead Americans and dead Iraqis.

We need to abandon the fiction that the US is all-powerful. I am frankly surprised a Stranger writer still believes in such fictions.

@imofftoseethewizard:

I dont think that any of us has an end all be all solution. Least of all me. That is why I advocated to have a group of *intellectuals* on the subject come together to come up with a plan. Maybe they will decide that immediate withdrawl is necessary...maybe they will say that aliens are the only answer, I dont f-ing know. All I know is that you, nor I, nor probably anyone who reads/responds to this blog can say what is best, despite how much we read the economist,take a class on the middle east, watch the news, or google about the history of the mideast. Anyone one of us could write a little wikipedia summary about it, so that really isnt the issue.

Although most US intervention has been absolutely horrible, Kosovo and Bosnia have been greatly helped by our presence along with NATO forces. The larger problem with Iraq (besides us going in, that was #1 mistake) was not the "what did we think we could help with" it was flagrantly ignoring our allies who could help us and going ahead anyway. I think that a unified force, mulitinational, with many more troops, could at least quell the violence long enough to get a government going.

But where can we get the troops? Yes, the military is very streched. Note the following are ideas, not without knowledge, but not with a high degree on the subject.

First off, they *could* stop the limited 6 month deployments for Airforce personnel. I dont mean pilots, I mean Airforce ground troops that are badly needed. Second, the US *could* pull out of its obligations in Kosovo and Bosnia. The Nato forces can take it on much easier then they can delpoy to Iraq to help us. Third, I am not against re-instating the draft. I also they think they should draft women. We wanted equal rights, therefore we get them. I would recommend a smaller required force in S. Korea, but due to the actual nuclear tensions in the area it would probably not be wise. Additional troops could be gained by improving relations with Europe, and talking with Moscow about sending a large portion of Russian troops. Once again, those are just ideas, thoughts.

I was not in this country when jack-hole Bush got re-elected, and I wasn't here when almost *EVERY* member of congress allowed monkey-boy to go to war. However I think its time that the poor uneducated south/mid-westerners stop bearing the burden of war. You may not like it, but your little protests here in the states did nothing. They have still done nothing. Once everyone has to pay for this war, then maybe we will see action. Then we can really decide to pull out. I am not saying that you/I/WE "let the war happen", but damnit there was lots of talk and no follow through. If I was drafted, I would fight and die even though I protested this war from the first moment it was spoken on the presidents lips. I would go to fight for the Iraqis since my country fucked them. However, I think the draft would put an end to this discussion pretty quickly.

37's got a good point, and I don't think any of the Troops Out Nowers bothered to read the linked article. They've already decided what they think and no one can change their minds.