Iraqi genocide: A case against trying to stop it

My persective on the whole Iraq mess is a bit different from most people. In 1990-1991 I was living in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, Desert Storm. I did not want it and I believed it was not really necessary because we could have gotten Kuwait from Saddam, or most of it without firing a shot. There was also the mystery of our messages to Saddam before the conflict. Then Saddam was demonized by BushI and company to sell the war. Not a bad portrail of him but we put ourselves in a box. Then the war and the crippling horrific sanctions for 12 years. We were in a box still because no one was going to un-demonize Saddam. Saddam was about to bust out of the situation and the sanctions and boycotts were about to collaspe, so for this and other reasons Bush II invaded, post 9/11. Again, he and we were trapped by past events. I do not know if Bush thought Iraq had WMD or not, but reading the statements by Democrats in the late 1990's it seems like almost everyone thought he was about to get them.
But even if we knew he did not have them, geo-politics demanded the invasion of Iraq. And I mean that in a bi-partisan, or non-partisan way.

And we are still trapped by past events. Every intrusion leads to more and more involvement. I remember well a comment someone said a few days after Iraq invaded Kuwait in september 1990, "this is the beginning of the end of the world"! Remarkably this comment is yet to be disproven.

"Every intrusion leads to more and more involvement. I remember well a comment someone said a few days after Iraq invaded Kuwait in september 1990, "this is the beginning of the end of the world"! Remarkably this comment is yet to be disproven."

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't have to be. What would likely happen if we left Iraq tomorrow morning? Either the three major factions would get serious about sitting down and working things out to their mutual satisfaction, or the Shia would begin to kill the Sunis in earnest and the Kurds would move toward formalizing their own Kurdish Republic. The latter scenario is so fraught with peril for all involved, it is not without reason to suggest that saner heads would prevail and the first option would work itself out, all without our help.

With not much doubt, if the three parties in Iraq don't find some kind of working federal solution, the sectarian violence between the majority Shia and the minority Sunis would ecalate to the point where Saudi Arabia would likely intervene on behalf of the Suni and Iran on behalf of the Shia. That would be the classic lose-lose solution, and both the Saudis and the Iranians know that. Meanwhile in the north, Turkey has already said that it will not tolerate a Kurdish national state, and has mobilized its army in the region to keep Turkish Kurds from getting any nationalistic ideas of their own. The Turks would make short work of the Iraqi Kurds, and they, the Kurds, know it.

So if Bush & Co. were really sincere about wanting a stable Iraq, they'd be gone tomorrow . . . except that would mean that Bush would have to admit error, and as events have proven, he'd rather see all hell break loose everywhere than ever do such a thing.

What can one say? I remember Vietnam and what a mess it was. Today Iraq is shaping up to be a thousand times worse. What is it about our leaders in Washington that we end up in these situation?

It would be very easy to let myself think "yeah, that's it!" whenever I hear these grammatically correct theories explaining how the U.S. is some mysterious group of unsophisticated imperialists with hidden motives. The problem is, only the grammar makes sense.

The fact is the U.S. is the one exceptional nation in this world that represents "freedom" to billions of poeple. If your own personal freedom has never been threatened, it's quite stylish to ridicule the so-called U.S. cowboy who clumsily tries to defend freedom around the world. But this cynicism is an ugly and lazy habit.

Jack,

I think you might be a tad optimistic. The shia may not completely exterminate the sunnis, but Iraq may end up sunni free through a combination of ethnic cleansing and emmigration which could cause a serious humanitarian crisis. It could also spread to a greater conflict in the region. Syria and Iran could end up in conflict. Remember, other sunni nations are deeply worried about a really strong Iran, enboldened by America's surrender. I believe a chaos would ensue that will dwarf the current conflict. It could be a Pandora's box that could send the area spiraling out of control. Plus, can we really just stand by while another Rwanda or Yugoslavia ensues. What then? We'll just shrug our shoulders and say "oops". Plus, how can anyone who claims to be a faithful Christian that this web site promotes it contains, face his maker and say indifference to genocide is acceptable.

Plus, how can anyone who claims to be a faithful Christian that this web site promotes it contains, face his maker and say indifference to genocide is acceptable.

Well, I don't think it's going to be genocide, but even if it were, explain, please, how the United States military could possibly stop it. Rieff is right -- we'd have to keep troops there for many, many years, and even then it might not succeed. Surely when we're asking our soldiers to put their lives on the line, it is immoral to do so if there is no chance of success in the mission.

If I had the answer to that question, I would be running for President. I know there are no easy answers, but again to stand by and do nothing is unacceptable to me as a citizen and a child of God.

It is not within the power of the United States to stop every horrible thing.

That's what the UN was for right?

The UN is an organization to promote anti-semitism and despots. It is completely worthless and a waste of time and money. Just look at the nations on the so called Human Rights Commission.

David Rieff's mother was Susan Sontag. Enough said?

Richard Nixon once described our nation's status, if we just pulled out of Vietnam, as that of a "pitiful, helpless giant." That description may apply even more so if we allow a post Iraq withdrawal bloodbath (whether it constitutes a genocide or not.) Due to the extreme partisanship of the nation, we seem unable to make war. Therefore, the beginning of the disassembly of the American empire should commence. If one looks at other problems related to our national health, situations like, illegal immigration, substance abuse, trade deficits, or anything else the "pitiful, helpless giant" description doesn't seem too far off the mark.

I respectfully point out the logical fallacy in comparing Iraq to Rwanda or Yugoslavia: in both latter cases, the killing started and continued under an existing regime; in Iraq, the US invasion made the killing possible.

I do not, of course, ignore what the Bathists under Hussein were doing while in power, but they were ordinary tyrants. They were not systematically killing Shiites, at least not anywhere near the numbers necessary to call it genocide. If there could possibly have been even one good reason to invade Iraq, the Sunni oppression of Shiites could not be one of them; there were and are plenty of regimes doing much worse to many more people in their countries.

TP, the US can win in Iraq, but the current strategy is not the way to do it; that boat has long since sailed. The way to win is not politically supportable, and will not happen.