Consequence of Pullout

Iraq Forum

There is a good chance that the Democrats will win control of congress in the mid-term elections. If they do, we will certainly pull out of Iraq soon. Democrats widely contend that it is our military presence in Iraq that is causing the violence there. If that is true, it stands to reason that our pullout will lead to peace.

But here is my question: If we soon pull out of Iraq and the situations does not improve, or gets worse, who’s fault will it be? Will it be the fault of those who decided to pull out, or those who decided to go in? Certainly we can all agree on the answer to this question.

How exactly could it get any worse? Terrorists still are not being rounded up ( well not the ones that matter), you have race wars going on, talk of the country being split in 3 which will turn Iraq into Yugoslavia 2, a government that has no control over it's people, and an army that could not fight it's way out of a paper bag. And all this si the coalitions idea of things getting better when we know it's getting worse the UK today said they are sending more troops to Iraq hardly a sign that we are ready to pull our or cut down on troops. Iraq is a tar pit and we are stuck either way.

Pulling out doesn't work.

......................

h@ts and lodgebo,

Go back and re-read my first post. I never said that it was not getting worse. I never said that our presence was preventing it from getting worse. In fact, the only position I took was the belief that we are highly likely to pull out soon while the violence is underway.

My point is about the people who want us out because they contend that it is our presence that is causing the problem. So if our presence is the cause of the problem, it follows that our exit will fix the problem. Now certainly you agree with that.

Firstly you were speculating that it could get worse if you pull out and I was saying that it could not get any worse, that is beside the point though.

As for what you are assuming it is never that simple and you know that. Firstly yes thare are factions in Iraq fighting US forces nothing more nothing less and most likely if the US go they will go and see it as a huge victory. Howevere there are other forces not fighting the the US but most probably caused by the coalitions arrogance, pig headedness and blindness to the problems the liberation of Iraq would create. Those that are against democracy in Iraq, the hardcore Sadamm supporters, and those there either in Iraq just for the hell of it, relgious ideology or those trying and make a bit of dough with a failed kidnapping. it is doubtful they will go they need a reason to go and right now they are not bothered with the coalition so they won't go and if the coalition leave they won't go because nothing will have changed for them.

See I know that there are elctions in the States and there are going to be activists and others trying to convince Americans about the rights and wrongs of Iraq but the problems is that neither one of your parties is offering a viable solution to this tar pit. Democrats want troops out and apparently all problems will cease well that is not true so that policy is flawed the Republicans want to stay the course but the course has been a disaster for the US economy and miltary recruitment and morale in short they can't beat the terrorists and that is the fact and nothing that happens between now and the elections can change that does not matter if Sadamm is found guilty and then OBL is caught it won't solve any of Iraqs problems only escalate them.

Cut-and-run? Is that what the defeatists want so the 'suiciders' win? Can we get past the Bush buzz word propaganda machine. It's like FOX News is breading millions of Manchurian candidates this November.

Whether the U.S. took out Saddam or a meteor dropped on his palace there was going to be a power struggle once he was taken out. Don't let the purple fingers fool you, democratic it ain't.

The Dubya administration has tried, failed, tried and failed some more to bring stability to the region and it has become increasingly worse. The problem you have identified in Iraq is the direct result of the piss poor management of this baseless operation. Now the right contends that if we don't clean up crap storm we started then it will get worse? Well look at the writing on the wall, it's worse. Hell, if we stay there long enough there won't be any Iraqi's left to worry about.

I have yet to see anyone even begin to formulate something close to a reason to stay over there, not to mention going over there in the first place.

And to cover up the mistakes the right tries to scare up more support my saying the left wants to cut-and-run. Sorry, that band-aid isn't going to hold.

-HECK!

The fact is Euclid is that Iraq is slipping in to a civil war and that has happend on our watch so either way we have faile the people we were meant to bring a better life to.

I agree with Heck it was poor management and we never had a plan B I thinkBush hioneslty thought that Sadamm would fall and he could drive through Baghdad and people would throw flowers at him. I think the coalition forget about the 6 P's rule - Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Proper planning means having a back up plan.

I was reading that some guy is going to recomend to Bush that troops pull out of Iraq ASAP. It's in a report due to be published soon.

Well, we were so worried about Vietnam falling to the commie's we had a whole big ol' war there. We left. Commies took over. Result: BFD.

Except Viet-freakin'-Nam didn't have any oil in it...

-HECK!

Just toi clarify Dannat ( head of UK army)( did nopt say that the British presence axcabrates the problems in Iraq he said the British presence in Iraq excabrates gloabl issues regarding terrorism.

It never ceases to amaze how so many blind right-winged devotees fail to acknowledge simple basic facts. Whatever the answer to peace in Iraq is, it’s painfully, painfully obvious that Bush is NOT it.

This entire Iraq fiasco is the biggest cluster-fudge (not for lack of a better word) and quite frankly I find it insulting that this idiot that got us stuck in this dilemma tells America to believe the notion that democrats would fail? My God, what more do you want to see?

What people now want is change and the best way to achieve that is not to continue with the bungling buffoon that landed us in this mess in the first place. All Bush has demonstrate during his tenure is one disastrous failure to the next, from 9/11 to this perpetual Iraq debacle. So what in carnation would ever posses a reasonably sound mind that we will ever, EVER see anything different with this clown in charge?

Agreed, oneofpeace. What's worse is the agenda of fear the administration uses to fuel their party. It's deplorable. It's like the Ike Turner syndrome. Get smacked around and come back for more.

-HECK!

Obvious to me.

-HECK!

Civil war is raging in Iraq. Sunni insurgents and Shia death squads (many in the police force) are fighting for supremacy and control. Ethnic cleansing, torture, kidnapping, terrorist attacks etc have become daily life for millions of Iraqis.

Bush's government didn't have or was never prepared to see the casualty figures it saw in Vietnam, so didn't send enough troops, and so the country has been left to slide into a living hell.

The only question for the US government now is what is the least worst scenario that American can aim for in Iraq? The Shia have the numbers and the government influence and power to win this civil war so should we back them to bring an end to it quicker? It did after all only took Saddam Hussein 6 months to bring the Shia uprising to an end after the first gulf war.

It's funny how blind everyone, with a disposition, becomes.

The question should be is this fight winnable? Right now we are doing the exact same thing the Soviets were doing in Afghanistan and Iran is doing what we’ve done to the Soviets, supply the enemy with weapons.

The fact that Bush’s appearing as nothing more than a liar is fueling the Al Qaeda recruitment centers, maybe the question should be how do we withdraw without sinking Iraq into a worse hell than currently exist there?

Seems like world leaders learn absolutely nothing about the past or believe they are the exception to the rule. Either way, it proves to be a disaster. Iraq is the epitome of this arrogance.

Until you win over a vast majority of Iraqi people then the mission is doomed. I think that is what H@ts meant by hearts and minds.

Euclid

Look Euclid. What else do you need to see regarding Iraq to realize it’s nothing more than a stalemate? How long would you suggest we stay in Iraq, until we win?

I don’t know what more you need to see. After 4 yrs, it’s obvious that this situation will persist and there’s no end in sight. Iraqis are not losing faith in our ability to provide them security. Without Iraqi support, we are nothing more than an occupying military force in their country.

All battles cannot be won on the battlefield with might, even Bush has now come to realize this. However, if this is not obvious to you by now, then I’m afraid you’re beyond hope here buddy.

.....

Bush can probably grease the wheels with the UN and lift or install sanctions that could make life easier or harder in Syria or Iran. Plus, never forget the proxy agression through Israel.

-HECK!

Interesting article in the Guardian (highlights below). In a nutshell, the journalist is saying we have nothing to bargain with with Tehran and they know it. If Bush and Blair "really want help in this part of the world they must start from diplomatic ground zero. They will have to stop the holier-than-thou name-calling and the pretence that they hold any cards."

"People here [Iran] feel that when it comes to Iraq and even Lebanon and Afghanistan, Britain and the US need them, not the other way round.

surely it's not that simple does'nt Bush have to sign this off, I think what we will see is a trade off. More intense anti terror op's but no more troops being sent in and when your platoon's tour of duty is over that is it, all the while you start giving the Iraqi army more responsabilities while making agreements with the international force and possibly seeing who will take over as the leaders of the task force ( most likely UK).

The thing to remember is that there is no such thing as a quick total pullout the US has been in Iraq for near 5 - 6 years and as a result moving the hundred of thousands of troops, heavy machinery, dismantling of bases will take 2 years at least ( it took the UK 5 yeasr to get troops out of N.Ireland) when you consider that as the US try to leave the terrorists will still attack also thedre is the issue of transportation yes you can use some navy boats but does the US airforce have enough large personnel carriers to move that number of troops quickly.

Well it's over in Iraq, but now it's on to Darfur with the Democrats leading the charge no less. Apparently it is OK to pick fights with impoverished militaries in impoverished countries if you are a Democrat stopping genocide. At least it won't be Bush doing it, so it should go OK.

Well I think it's acrime that Darfur has been forgotten and somethiung needs to be done but they won't let the US in. If the refused the EU and UN and grudgingly let in the AU what chance do you have?

Sweet jeebus, stay out of the Sudan. Why get in the middle of more Muslim on Muslim wars in the desert. Talk about a cluster you-know-what.

-HECK!

Well somebody has to go in there we can't idly sit by and let genocide take place can we.

Well let's stop it first and we can get the explanations later.