When we first went into Iraq I thought our troops would be there for five to ten years. I have seen nothing to make me change my estimate. It takes a long time to pacify then and rebuild a county, and whether it was a good or bad idea to go invade in the first place is a totally moot point - we are there and have the responsibility to clean up the mess before we leave.
Even once we end our occupation of Iraq we will most likely keep at least 50,000 or so troops, and a lot of equipment stationed in basses leased form Iraq. America would totally collapse if middle-eastern oil was suddenly cut off, so we are going to put enough military assets in the region to make sure that it doesn't happen.
10 years. At current occupation costs, some $60 billion per annum, (and presumably rising to keep pace with any inflation), that's approaching two-thirds of a $trillion in that time frame. What will we have to show for such huge expenditure after ten years occupation? At current troop casualty rates (600 dead and at least 15,000 "medical evacuations" from Iraq in one year's warfare), that is some 6000 dead American troops and 150,000 injured veterans in 10 years time. Think of the medical and VA cost of caring for 150,000 veterans, added into that total. (The unrest may quieten down over there. On the other hand it may get worse). And how many terrorist incidents may the occupation trigger, not only in Iraq but in countless other middle eastern nations, and how many of these may happen in the USA?
And one more thing: We have an unequalled reservoir of scientific and engineering ingenuity and talent here in America. Imagine say, 25% of that prodigious sum of money going into a well-managed program of alternative energy research to wean us off (middle eastern) oil? Or are we too hidebound by tradition and vested interests? It is a national security NIGHTMARE to be dependent on unstable nations for a substance that is so vital to a big part of the American way of life, namely the freedom to travel where we want, and when we want in privately owned vehicles. It's time we did something radical about this sad state of affairs.
IMO (and i know many disagree) it's fairly simple. Many countries are more than willing to contribute to the stabilization of Iraq under the condition of a new U.N. resolution. Why? Because it's the only reasonable thing to do.
What is the main problem: the U.S. has lost so much of his international credibility that
1) no one want to be caught helping out a country that started this stupid war and that spitted on the international community
b) no one really believes they are reaching out, xcept for getting some money and troops. They don't even pretend to regret any of it.
The solution? Well, i'm not sure, but i would say getting rid of Bush would go a long way.
The US will still be doing the heavy work. The UN is not very effective if you have not noticed.
Well yeah, but that's not really the point. If the same soldier is first seen as a US occupier and later as a UN 'peacekeeper' (or whatever) that wouldn't b to bad in Iraq's process to independence. And If for every million the US pours into Iraq in the next 10 years another million from the international community is added, that won't be to shabby for the US deficit either. Not to mention the increased credibility of the new Iraqi gouvernement of the involvement of non-governemental agencies in Iraq. It's not because he likes it that Bush is touring the EU now and handing out freedom medals to the pope. Mayb he did learn something these last years, if only how to fake better.
It think it's pretty obvious that "the end of 2005" is when we'll see withdrawal. This is what has been alluded to in the coverage of the interim government installation. There has also been a lot of "Well, there may come a time where the new government wants to take on the security responsibilities themselves" talk going around from members of the Administration.
I'm starting to think that we may see withdrawal sooner rather than later. At this point, I think we shold leave as soon as Iraq's forces are able to defend the nation and provide security.
The US military been there now for 15 months. If we can't get out now, then what is the right time? If now isn't a good time, then is any time possible? Are US troops going to be there forever, at a cost of $5 billion + each month?
I have to agree with Kickaha and others here - it will take time till the dust is settled. Although I still think the war was pretty stupid (esp. the way it was carried out), pulling out early (hehe) is a way to make the situation worse, since then:
- a breakup along the kurdish/shiite/sunnite lines is possible with the nasty possibility of the destabilization of further countries with a kurdish minority (Turkey comes to mind).
- local powers like Iran will fan flames to gain influence
The region is too sensitive to cut losses and just leave. I shudder at what happens if Iraq goes down in a civil war and some guys successfully assasinate the Saudi ruling family. $100 per barrel of light crude, anyone?
[B]It think it's pretty obvious that "the end of 2005" is when we'll see withdrawal.
Oh really? What's the specific deal about the "end of 2005"? Why not half way through 2005 instead, saving us $30 billion?? The security situation at the end of 2005 may be worse than now. Maybe it will be better. If we pull the troops out at the end of 2005, won't Iraq will descend into full civil war, with the 3 main groups battling it out for power? Similarly, for any date anyone may care to mention, whether it's now, 2005, or whenever. It's looking as if we are there for keeps. We busted the place...now we own it. Perhaps the only thing that will hold the country together as an Iraqi sovereign state (without a US presence) is a dictator?
Quote:
This is what has been alluded to in the coverage of the interim government installation. There has also been a lot of "Well, there may come a time where the new government wants to take on the security responsibilities themselves" talk going around from members of the Administration.
Any government of Iraq that smacks of "Washington Puppet" will spell more trouble, and not just from the Iraqis.
Quote:
I'm starting to think that we may see withdrawal sooner rather than later. At this point, I think we shold leave as soon as Iraq's forces are able to defend the nation and provide security.
When you say "withdrawal", I take it that means the entire US military contingent? Anything less than that will be seen as "continued occupation" and will invite further unrest and retaliation. America is builing 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. That does not indicate "withdrawal".
.....
If we do pull the troops out right after the "sovereignty handover" (!), some chaos will happen for sure. Why are we so bothered by that? The various factions will be battling each other, rather than Americans. Would-be anti-American terrorists will find themselves with a new vocation. In the end, however, it will sort itself out. Perhaps the Iraqi's affairs should be settled by Iraqis. They will never accept a "solution imposed from on high by foreigners.
Because, in this instance, we are talking about a US withdrawl from Iraq, as stated by sjo.
The US is part of the UN. A US Pull Out doesn't necessarily mean all USians out of Iraq. It means US Authority out of Iraq. US Troops under UN authority would still constitute a US pull out.
The US needs to be putting on the "friendly face" of occupation. It needs to be seen to be genuinely helping Iraq's people, while giving some autonomy back to the people. This should have happened from Day 1.
At the moment it looks like another flash-point is building, and who knows what the consequences will be.
You are wrong, this has been happening from the beginning. Talk to some soldiers that have been there. They will tell you that. You can't base your position solely on the news. You will feel ill and think exactly as you do now.
We absolutely can't pull out of Iraq so soon after our initial savage thrust of our column inserted us in the country. Indeed, while I realize that pulling out entirely would be cruel and anticlimactic--and would no doubt lead to pain down the line--I am actually in favor of a *near* full pull out to be followed by insertion again. This process should be repeated until the Iraqi people are showered in freedom. It will take, as Bush has said on more than one occasion, as long as it takes for this process to reach its climax. We will not pull out until the job is done.
We absolutely can't pull out of Iraq so soon after our initial savage thrust of our column inserted us in the country. Indeed, while I realize that pulling out entirely would be cruel and anticlimactic--and would no doubt lead to pain down the line--I am actually in favor of a *near* full pull out to be followed by insertion again. This process should be repeated until the Iraqi people are showered in freedom. It will take, as Bush has said on more than one occasion, as long as it takes for this process to reach its climax. We will not pull out until the job is done.
I think that's a good plan.
Cheers
Scott
Nice innuendo. Though you do have to be careful Scott. With the number of un/under-employed people we have taking themselves entirely too seriously here. We might have someone claim you are creating a sexually hostile environment at their place of work. (which is most often home)
Knowing this crowd, I think they have been arguing that Bush was premature" in his actions in Iraq all along. You wouldn't want to change that opinion of him now would you?
We absolutely can't pull out of Iraq so soon after our initial savage thrust of our column inserted us in the country. Indeed, while I realize that pulling out entirely would be cruel and anticlimactic--and would no doubt lead to pain down the line--I am actually in favor of a *near* full pull out to be followed by insertion again. This process should be repeated until the Iraqi people are showered in freedom. It will take, as Bush has said on more than one occasion, as long as it takes for this process to reach its climax. We will not pull out until the job is done.
The US is part of the UN. A US Pull Out doesn't necessarily mean all USians out of Iraq. It means US Authority out of Iraq. US Troops under UN authority would still constitute a US pull out.
Not in this thread, stated by SJO herself, it doesn't. Please see post above yours for full details.
Wrong. The entire US army contingent doesn't exclude the entire UN army contingent. Unless you're being preverse.
Well, since SJO started this thread on US withdrawl, let's take her definition: "When you say "withdrawal", I take it that means the entire US military contingent? Anything less than that will be seen as "continued occupation" and will invite further unrest and retaliation. "
US troops, under UN command will still be US troops to Iraqis. They will wear US uniforms, use US weapons, wear US flags etc. So, as SJo stated, a withdrawl of the US contingent, means the entire US contingent. A US withdrawl, with US troops left behind under UN command, while legally might consitute a US withdrawl, few people would view it as a real US withdrawl, certainly not SJO or the Iraqis.
I think we'll leave anytime the government decides they want out and concocts a cover story to match. The administration has come out with a string of reasons for invading Iraq among them WMDs, Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, various UN resolutions, Saddam was a bad guy and liberation of the Iraqi people.
We could have declared that after we captured Saddam that we achieved our goal and that we were leaving. There would have been an uproar and some sort of peacekeeping force would have been put together. Probably no worse than what we have today.
The point is that without a clear goal it is hard to see a clear exit strategy. I know that lately Bush talks about democracy in Iraq but rhetoric aside, in the background all sorts of other things are going on. Perle and Cheney's hand picked guy, Chalabi, seems to be setting himself up as a strongman in Iraq. There are hints the Iranians have some sort of influence on Chalabi as well. The US occupation has put in place a variety of economic rules that the right wing idealogues in the US like but which don't really help the Iraqis. There is a strong chance that the country will devolve into civil war and little chance that it will evolve into a functioning democracy. In other words, I think it is a mess.
Even with our troops there something like 5,000 Iraqis are dying a month. This is far higher than the roughly 2,000 a month who were dying under Saddam. So much for the value of our security forces. I just don't see how we are going to force peace on those people at the end of a gun barrel. I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Not next year, not in ten years.
Comments
Originally posted by Res
When we first went into Iraq I thought our troops would be there for five to ten years. I have seen nothing to make me change my estimate. It takes a long time to pacify then and rebuild a county, and whether it was a good or bad idea to go invade in the first place is a totally moot point - we are there and have the responsibility to clean up the mess before we leave.
Even once we end our occupation of Iraq we will most likely keep at least 50,000 or so troops, and a lot of equipment stationed in basses leased form Iraq. America would totally collapse if middle-eastern oil was suddenly cut off, so we are going to put enough military assets in the region to make sure that it doesn't happen.
10 years. At current occupation costs, some $60 billion per annum, (and presumably rising to keep pace with any inflation), that's approaching two-thirds of a $trillion in that time frame. What will we have to show for such huge expenditure after ten years occupation? At current troop casualty rates (600 dead and at least 15,000 "medical evacuations" from Iraq in one year's warfare), that is some 6000 dead American troops and 150,000 injured veterans in 10 years time. Think of the medical and VA cost of caring for 150,000 veterans, added into that total. (The unrest may quieten down over there. On the other hand it may get worse). And how many terrorist incidents may the occupation trigger, not only in Iraq but in countless other middle eastern nations, and how many of these may happen in the USA?
And one more thing: We have an unequalled reservoir of scientific and engineering ingenuity and talent here in America. Imagine say, 25% of that prodigious sum of money going into a well-managed program of alternative energy research to wean us off (middle eastern) oil? Or are we too hidebound by tradition and vested interests? It is a national security NIGHTMARE to be dependent on unstable nations for a substance that is so vital to a big part of the American way of life, namely the freedom to travel where we want, and when we want in privately owned vehicles. It's time we did something radical about this sad state of affairs.
Originally posted by bunge
Why would the UN need to take control without US troops?
Because, in this instance, we are talking about a US withdrawl from Iraq, as stated by sjo.
What is the main problem: the U.S. has lost so much of his international credibility that
1) no one want to be caught helping out a country that started this stupid war and that spitted on the international community
b) no one really believes they are reaching out, xcept for getting some money and troops. They don't even pretend to regret any of it.
The solution? Well, i'm not sure, but i would say getting rid of Bush would go a long way.
Originally posted by Common Man
The US will still be doing the heavy work. The UN is not very effective if you have not noticed.
Well yeah, but that's not really the point. If the same soldier is first seen as a US occupier and later as a UN 'peacekeeper' (or whatever) that wouldn't b to bad in Iraq's process to independence. And If for every million the US pours into Iraq in the next 10 years another million from the international community is added, that won't be to shabby for the US deficit either. Not to mention the increased credibility of the new Iraqi gouvernement of the involvement of non-governemental agencies in Iraq. It's not because he likes it that Bush is touring the EU now and handing out freedom medals to the pope. Mayb he did learn something these last years, if only how to fake better.
I'm starting to think that we may see withdrawal sooner rather than later. At this point, I think we shold leave as soon as Iraq's forces are able to defend the nation and provide security.
Originally posted by sammi jo
[url]
The US military been there now for 15 months. If we can't get out now, then what is the right time? If now isn't a good time, then is any time possible? Are US troops going to be there forever, at a cost of $5 billion + each month?
I have to agree with Kickaha and others here - it will take time till the dust is settled. Although I still think the war was pretty stupid (esp. the way it was carried out), pulling out early (hehe) is a way to make the situation worse, since then:
- a breakup along the kurdish/shiite/sunnite lines is possible with the nasty possibility of the destabilization of further countries with a kurdish minority (Turkey comes to mind).
- local powers like Iran will fan flames to gain influence
The region is too sensitive to cut losses and just leave. I shudder at what happens if Iraq goes down in a civil war and some guys successfully assasinate the Saudi ruling family. $100 per barrel of light crude, anyone?
Originally posted by SDW2001
[B]It think it's pretty obvious that "the end of 2005" is when we'll see withdrawal.
Oh really? What's the specific deal about the "end of 2005"? Why not half way through 2005 instead, saving us $30 billion?? The security situation at the end of 2005 may be worse than now. Maybe it will be better. If we pull the troops out at the end of 2005, won't Iraq will descend into full civil war, with the 3 main groups battling it out for power? Similarly, for any date anyone may care to mention, whether it's now, 2005, or whenever. It's looking as if we are there for keeps. We busted the place...now we own it. Perhaps the only thing that will hold the country together as an Iraqi sovereign state (without a US presence) is a dictator?
This is what has been alluded to in the coverage of the interim government installation. There has also been a lot of "Well, there may come a time where the new government wants to take on the security responsibilities themselves" talk going around from members of the Administration.
Any government of Iraq that smacks of "Washington Puppet" will spell more trouble, and not just from the Iraqis.
I'm starting to think that we may see withdrawal sooner rather than later. At this point, I think we shold leave as soon as Iraq's forces are able to defend the nation and provide security.
When you say "withdrawal", I take it that means the entire US military contingent? Anything less than that will be seen as "continued occupation" and will invite further unrest and retaliation. America is builing 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. That does not indicate "withdrawal".
.....
If we do pull the troops out right after the "sovereignty handover" (!), some chaos will happen for sure. Why are we so bothered by that? The various factions will be battling each other, rather than Americans. Would-be anti-American terrorists will find themselves with a new vocation. In the end, however, it will sort itself out. Perhaps the Iraqi's affairs should be settled by Iraqis. They will never accept a "solution imposed from on high by foreigners.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Because, in this instance, we are talking about a US withdrawl from Iraq, as stated by sjo.
The US is part of the UN. A US Pull Out doesn't necessarily mean all USians out of Iraq. It means US Authority out of Iraq. US Troops under UN authority would still constitute a US pull out.
Originally posted by jwri004
The US needs to be putting on the "friendly face" of occupation. It needs to be seen to be genuinely helping Iraq's people, while giving some autonomy back to the people. This should have happened from Day 1.
At the moment it looks like another flash-point is building, and who knows what the consequences will be.
You are wrong, this has been happening from the beginning. Talk to some soldiers that have been there. They will tell you that. You can't base your position solely on the news. You will feel ill and think exactly as you do now.
I think that's a good plan.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
We absolutely can't pull out of Iraq so soon after our initial savage thrust of our column inserted us in the country. Indeed, while I realize that pulling out entirely would be cruel and anticlimactic--and would no doubt lead to pain down the line--I am actually in favor of a *near* full pull out to be followed by insertion again. This process should be repeated until the Iraqi people are showered in freedom. It will take, as Bush has said on more than one occasion, as long as it takes for this process to reach its climax. We will not pull out until the job is done.
I think that's a good plan.
Cheers
Scott
Nice innuendo. Though you do have to be careful Scott. With the number of un/under-employed people we have taking themselves entirely too seriously here. We might have someone claim you are creating a sexually hostile environment at their place of work. (which is most often home)
Knowing this crowd, I think they have been arguing that Bush was premature" in his actions in Iraq all along. You wouldn't want to change that opinion of him now would you?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Nice innuendo.
What innuendo? Surely you're not suggesting that there are people here who believe Bush is guilty of premature Iraq-invasion are you?
Originally posted by midwinter
We absolutely can't pull out of Iraq so soon after our initial savage thrust of our column inserted us in the country. Indeed, while I realize that pulling out entirely would be cruel and anticlimactic--and would no doubt lead to pain down the line--I am actually in favor of a *near* full pull out to be followed by insertion again. This process should be repeated until the Iraqi people are showered in freedom. It will take, as Bush has said on more than one occasion, as long as it takes for this process to reach its climax. We will not pull out until the job is done.
I think that's a good plan.
Cheers
Scott
Poetry.
Originally posted by midwinter
premature Iraq-invasion are you?
Originally posted by bunge
The US is part of the UN. A US Pull Out doesn't necessarily mean all USians out of Iraq. It means US Authority out of Iraq. US Troops under UN authority would still constitute a US pull out.
Not in this thread, stated by SJO herself, it doesn't. Please see post above yours for full details.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Not in this thread, stated by SJO herself, it doesn't. Please see post above yours for full details.
Wrong. The entire US army contingent doesn't exclude the entire UN army contingent. Unless you're being preverse.
Originally posted by bunge
Wrong. The entire US army contingent doesn't exclude the entire UN army contingent. Unless you're being preverse.
Well, since SJO started this thread on US withdrawl, let's take her definition: "When you say "withdrawal", I take it that means the entire US military contingent? Anything less than that will be seen as "continued occupation" and will invite further unrest and retaliation. "
US troops, under UN command will still be US troops to Iraqis. They will wear US uniforms, use US weapons, wear US flags etc. So, as SJo stated, a withdrawl of the US contingent, means the entire US contingent. A US withdrawl, with US troops left behind under UN command, while legally might consitute a US withdrawl, few people would view it as a real US withdrawl, certainly not SJO or the Iraqis.
We could have declared that after we captured Saddam that we achieved our goal and that we were leaving. There would have been an uproar and some sort of peacekeeping force would have been put together. Probably no worse than what we have today.
The point is that without a clear goal it is hard to see a clear exit strategy. I know that lately Bush talks about democracy in Iraq but rhetoric aside, in the background all sorts of other things are going on. Perle and Cheney's hand picked guy, Chalabi, seems to be setting himself up as a strongman in Iraq. There are hints the Iranians have some sort of influence on Chalabi as well. The US occupation has put in place a variety of economic rules that the right wing idealogues in the US like but which don't really help the Iraqis. There is a strong chance that the country will devolve into civil war and little chance that it will evolve into a functioning democracy. In other words, I think it is a mess.
Even with our troops there something like 5,000 Iraqis are dying a month. This is far higher than the roughly 2,000 a month who were dying under Saddam. So much for the value of our security forces. I just don't see how we are going to force peace on those people at the end of a gun barrel. I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Not next year, not in ten years.