US Out How? The Moral Dilemma of Leaving Iraq

[Murky]

This is from a Mother Jones new feature set of articles.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/11/iraq-war-index.html

It started as Bush's war, but we all own it now—and it's time we took a hard look at what that means. Conversations with more than 50 experts, from General Petraeus’ advisers to antiwar activists.

Editors' Introduction: You Break It, You Buy It

Out Now, Ask Questions Later?: Six Challenges for Antiwar Activists

* The Next President’s Problem

Exiting Iraq: Now or Never?

* Armchair Exit Strategies
* U.S. Bases in Iraq
* Where the Candidates Stand (For Now)

The Logistics of Moving the Military Out of Iraq

* Getting a Tank Home
* Drop Your Weapons

Four Post-Occupation Scenarios

* Iraq’s Sectarian Breakdown

Civil War: Inevitable or Not?

* Lessons From Past Withdrawals
* Ethnic Cleansing in Baghdad

The Coming Iraqi Exodus

* Why the U.S. Won’t Help Iraqis Who Helped Us
* Uprooted: The Refugee Crisis

Why the U.S. May Not Leave Iraq

Al Qaeda in Iraq: How Dangerous Is It?

* Miracle in Ramadi?

Damned if We Do: America’s Moral Obligations

* How the War Has Affected a Typical Iraqi Family

A Glossary of Iraq Lingo

Charts and Maps

Interviews

 

[Ayatollah So]

If there were a sufficiently wise, courageous and powerful Shiite leader in Iraq, it would be possible to leave Iraq without a bloodbath. And it would be possible to stay without a bloodbath. Said leader would reach out to Sunnis, making crystal clear that they would get a fair deal under a unified Iraqi government.

But apparently, there is no such leader. Al-Sistani might be wise, but isn't powerful enough. Al-Maliki isn't wise enough. Etc.

So I expect things to get a lot worse when the US leaves, at least until the relative strengths of the various militias are proven in battle. At that point, peace negotiations can begin in earnest - though that still requires the leaders to have some sense.

If the US stays for several more years, the same outcome can be expected, with a slow bleed continuing in the meantime.

 

[Goldfool]

Does any body believe that maybe the US is prompting Turkey to invade Iraq from the North as part of their exit strategy.

 

[sourboy]

I could see that, but then Iran moves in as well... and that's not favorable.

 

[George2816]

Iran moving into iraq is better for the US and everyone else because US stops losing some of its military and people can stop blaming the US if/when Iran fails in iraq (If it does)

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74

 

[Goldfool]

Iran moving into iraq is better for the US and everyone else because US stops losing some of its military and people can stop blaming the US if/when Iran fails in iraq (If it does)

There is talk of the US attacking Iran as well if they feel the a nuke could be built there, this is very complex.

 

[George2816]

There is talk of the US attacking Iran as well if they feel the a nuke could be built there, this is very complex.

No country on this planet will allow an aggressive country to attack another country on lies. I don't care how many times the military or this president lies its still a lie. And if the US does use nukes on Iran no one would dare to side with the US and our "allies" would not be our allies anymore.

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74

 

[sourboy]

Didn't we attack Iraq on lies and everyone let us?

 

[George2816]

Didn't we attack Iraq on lies and everyone let us?

Sure but that will not happen again unless the mass majority of people are stupid(Hey thats what hitler said they were! I guess Bush and hitler are more alike then we think!)
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74

 

[BasketCase]

Iran moving into iraq is better for the US and everyone else because US stops losing some of its military and people can stop blaming the US if/when Iran fails in iraq (If it does)

A famous Romulan saying: "Those who want war will find causes, no matter how many you take away".

If you deprive radical Muslims of an excuse to fight, they'll simply do what they've already been doing for decades: make one up. Believe me, if they want to take potshots at the U.S., they'll find a reason, whether it's a legit reason or not.

The question of what to do with Iraq should be considered on its own merits. At what point should a dictator be deposed by external force? How many lives is it worth? How should you weigh peace versus freedom versus stability?


My two coppers: as long as Iraq remains a Democracy (or anything vaguely resembling same) it will have a problem with terrorism. We're approximately at a point where the violence is comparable to, say, England vs. the IRA. Can't do too much more than that, so at this point it's basically a judgement call on when to leave.

The recent bombing in Pakistan demonstrates the real source of the problem. Bhutto never invaded anybody, or had anybody murdered (that I know of!)--yet she was the target of a terrorist attack. Not because of what she did. Because of what she is.

 

[George2816]

A famous Romulan saying: "Those who want war will find causes, no matter how many you take away".

If you deprive radical Muslims of an excuse to fight, they'll simply do what they've already been doing for decades: make one up. Believe me, if they want to take potshots at the U.S., they'll find a reason, whether it's a legit reason or not.

The question of what to do with Iraq should be considered on its own merits. At what point should a dictator be deposed by external force? How many lives is it worth? How should you weigh peace versus freedom versus stability?


My two coppers: as long as Iraq remains a Democracy (or anything vaguely resembling same) it will have a problem with terrorism. The recent bombing in Pakistan demonstrates the real source of the problem. Bhutto never invaded anybody, or had anybody murdered (that I know of!)--yet she was the target of a terrorist attack. Not because of what she did. Because of what she is.

I hate to burst your bubble because you sound that nothing the USA ever does is wrong but doesn't the USA always make excuses up for attacking countries? (How many times did it say "we need to attack because communism is bad!?")

 

[Damnyankee]

I only see one solution to Iraq, a hard line dictatorship along the lines of Saddam. I would rather withdraw then do something so murderous as that, but it would be the only way. Basically, if America wanted to succeed, it would need to clone Saddam.

 

[George2816]

I only see one solution to Iraq, a hard line dictatorship along the lines of Saddam. I would rather withdraw then do something so murderous as that, but it would be the only way. Basically, if America wanted to succeed, it would need to clone Saddam.

SO we replaced a dictator with another dictator. DO you think the 3,000+ military that died and the 300k+ civilians that died would be happy that they died for nothing?

 

[RedRalph]

My two coppers: as long as Iraq remains a Democracy (or anything vaguely resembling same) it will have a problem with terrorism. We're approximately at a point where the violence is comparable to, say, England vs. the IRA. Can't do too much more than that, so at this point it's basically a judgement call on when to leave.
.[/B]

Ehhhmmm..... you may want to check a few of your statistics there brother

 

[bigfatron]

We're approximately at a point where the violence is comparable to, say, England vs. the IRA. [/B]

As often is the case with basketcase, we need to check the stats:

Total civilian deaths in the Troubles (NI only - mainland UK is approx 100): approx 1,829 over 30 years (1968-1997 inclusive)
Peak year 1972: 249
Average per year: 61

Total civilian deaths in Iraq: approx 75,000 (source, Iraq Body Count) over 4 1/2 years.
Peak year 2006: 27,000 (2007 to September, approx 20,000)
Average per year: 16,700

On an absolute basis the Troubles resulted in approx 2.5% of the total civilian death toll in Iraq to date.
On a per annum basis the figure is 0.4% of the Iraqi equivalent.

Just to overcome the argument about Iraq being a bigger place....

Given the relative populations (NI: 1.71m, Iraq: 27.5m), on a per capita basis the death rates are:

Northern Ireland: 3.6 per 100,000 per annum
Iraq: 60.7 per 100,000 per annum

Pretty much every measure (gfross deaths, per annum, per annum per capita, etc) gives us Iraq as being many, many times more violent than Northern Ireland. In fact the best year in Iraq so far is significantly more violent than the worst ever year of the Troubles.

Sorry BC, but you've misused your stats again...
BFR

 

[FriendlyFire]

The recent bombing in Pakistan demonstrates the real source of the problem. Bhutto never invaded anybody, or had anybody murdered (that I know of!)--yet she was the target of a terrorist attack. Not because of what she did. Because of what she is.

Uh Pakistan has radical muslim school which has exported terrorism for a long time. From the Spain bombing to the British bombing all were linked to Pakistan and men who were radicalised.

It like saying that terrorist attacks in Iraq (as it is now) because democratic iraq has never invaded anyone but that it is a democracy and no other reason whatsoever.

not the best example

EDIT: personally though it was in fact a classic terrorism the suicide bomb and assasination attempt. Assasination aimed at destablising the country elimate leadership and spread terror. Pakistain my friend is engaged in a low intensity warfare.

 

[Swedishguy]

Didn't we attack Iraq on lies and everyone let us?

I sure as hell didn't let you do that!

And why do you think everyone on the forums are yanks? What'cha say to that, wippersnapper?

 

[Photi]

Does any body believe that maybe the US is prompting Turkey to invade Iraq from the North as part of their exit strategy.

i was thinking more or less the same thing the other day. the difference in what i was thinking is that they could be either prompting turkey or not doing much to curtail turkey in the (neo-con) hope that turkey's action marks the beginning of a wider conflict. if the neo-cons could get a wider conflict, then they could use the US military for what it does best, and that is bomb people from planes and ships. a wider conflict could create sufficient fog-of-war to 'deal' with Iran and in their eyes (the neo-cons) create a sufficiently pro-american middle east. clearly an absurd plan, but so was the invasion of iraq.

 

[mrt144]

My two coppers: as long as Iraq remains a Democracy (or anything vaguely resembling same) it will have a problem with terrorism. We're approximately at a point where the violence is comparable to, say, England vs. the IRA. Can't do too much more than that, so at this point it's basically a judgement call on when to leave.

in scale or reasons? I hope to god you meant reasons.

 

[sourboy]

I sure as hell didn't let you do that!

And why do you think everyone on the forums are yanks? What'cha say to that, wippersnapper?

How did you go about stopping it?

And no, not even most American's are "Yanks" - though thank you for generalizing us.