After Iraq is over

For once, we are in agreement. I think your idea is the best option available to us. I would add we should take a good, healthy dose of national repentance over what we've done to that poor country while we're waiting for the killing to stop.

Best thing we can do, I think, is to withdraw to enclaves and set up refugee zones, and let the violence play itself out. And offer passports to all Iraqis who helped us, and who would certainly be killed for that after we left.

I can't believe the choice is really so binary: admit total defeat or keep troop levels at their current levels "indefinitely."

"Indefinite" is a funny word, anyway. It's always easy to be definite when one is throwing in the towel, whether on a marriage or on any other situation. But remaining involved will always necessitate some level of uncertainty: how much more will I have to give? How much more will I have to sacrifice? When will the struggle end?

I'm not qualified to make military strategy, but I do believe that if we continue to be engaged, at whatever level is practical and wise, which will vary over time, we will be able to achieve a better outcome than can be achieved by simply telling Iraqis to stick your finger down your throat and get it over with. One one thing I can be definite: as a voter I'll never cast a ballot in favor of unalloyed defeat.

Thanks for these comments. Let's keep this tone going -- I don't know the answer to the problems in Iraq, and find big problems with almost anything anybody on either side (or *any* side) suggests.

I tend to be naive and I know I'm undereducated about the current situation in Iraq, but isn't it possible that if we could hold out a generation or two (a big if), we'd find that the youth of Iraq are no longer interested in fighting their grandparents' battles? If we could present the case for democracy to the young, while simultaneously enhancing opportunities for education and ensuring that basic needs are met, it seems like there would be little motivation for a new generation to dredge up old conflicts.

I'm not sure it's practical or even possible, but it seems like at least one potential scenario that could result in a real shot at lasting peace.

And you're not supporting Ron Paul for president why? He's the most crunchy con of the four or five candidates left. I saw something here once I think about the racism charges -- certainly you researched that more and saw Dr. Paul's own comments on this at his website?

As we memorialize the 4,000 of our own brave men and women, we tend to overlook the self-sacrifices Iraqi security forces have already been submitted to, with no let up in sight see www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2008/mar/12/iraqinvasion

Rod: "We have made it absolutely clear to the Iraqis that they don't have a blank check to delaytheir reconciliation" but this was preposterous from the get go. The major two branches of Islam (Shia and Sunni) split within two generations of the death of the Prophet (PBUH) and have NEVER reconciled in 1300 years. And we helped them craft a Constitution that is silent on which Shariah jurisprudence they are to operate their civilian affairs under. What makes us think we can make these people do anything?

Turkey is only now debating what rights the 20% of their population who are Alawi Shia have in a secular state that permits no Shariah law to overrule their Constitution (as Iraq's does) yet proscribes Sunni Islam textbooks in its public schools. And its endemic ethno-centric nationalism oppresses Kurdish political expression. Is it not the height of presumption for us to question Iran for "meddling" in affairs on their own doorstep while turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia funding their Wahabist perversions _on_the_other_side_of_the_globe in madrassas in Indonesia...?

This will not be a mere "civil" war...
its going to be a Mesopotamian conflagration akin to Europe's "Hundred Years War"

This is not an either-or choice. Staying does not guarantee we avoid a civil war. Leaving does not guarantee one. I think there will be one whenever we leave, but its impossible to predict.

Mistakes I think we make here are 1: The Iraqi's wishes are seldom considered. We spend a lot of time talking about what WE should do but its all conditioned by the Iraqi response.

2: The Iraqis arent stupid. They may have an ineffective army and police but they have been playing politics a long time. They play for keeps. We argue over an extra 3% on marginal tax rates. They kill each other. We have been and will probably again be on the wrong side of some argument.

3: The Iraqis, indeed the whole middle east, are different than we are. I would wager that not many of us still see seethe over losses to the British 230 years ago. They dont forget and hold grudges forever.

4: They have a long history of civilization there. They know they depend on oil. There are strong forces at work to keep them from engaging in total warfare.

5: Iran is a larger country than Iraq and a more unified one. Iran has its own problems but if we fight them we can be sure that they will pull together. We would not be facig the fractured army that Saddam had. Iran is next door to Iraq and Shia routinely cross the borders on pilgrimages. No matter what we do Iran will end up as a dominant influence on Iraq.

6: Bin Laden had hoped for a war of attrition in Afghanistan. They beat the Soviets there and thought they could beat us there also. The war in Iraq was a gift. How well was he going to do recruiting soliciting donations to fight in Afghanistan? Baghdad is a special city in Arabic History (Imagine London, Paris or Rome). Al Qaeda, which may be losing influence, and other terrorist groups have their job made easier as long as we are there. Also, it disrupts our economy and our armed forces. Al Qaeda has no economy to run.

7: Our military usually gets it right eventually. Our politicians have shown no such proclivity. This war requires a political solution.

When to leave requires an act of faith as there is no logic to tell you which course to take. It is clear Bush isnt leaving. I think I would prefer a gradual pull out whcihever candidate is elected.

Some thoughts:

0. I'm not sure what US interest would be served by setting up refugee enclaves. Green cards for Iraqis who helped us are a different story: Honor aside, hanging one's allies out to dry is an excellent way of discouraging others from allying with you.

1. Regardless of our reasons for withdrawing, if the perception throughout the world (particularly the Mideast) is that we were defeated in Iraq, then attacks upon US interests at home & abroad become more likely. We must be prepared to retaliate - harshly and often, if necessary - in response to any such attack. As with Somalia, withdrawal will suggest to our enemies that America is a paper tiger. We must be willing & able to demonstrate that wounded lions are still dangerous.

2. On the topic of terrorist attacks...note that terrorists can't attack our homeland if we can slam the door in their face. Securing our ports, airports, borders, etc., would help in this regard.

3. So long as we are dependent on foreign oil, our economy's inherent dependence on reasonably cheap energy sources will render oil-related interventions in our national interest. For those who oppose such interventions, energy independence is a necessity. The potential for an Iraqi civil war to destabilize the Gulf is another also militates in favor of such a policy.

4. While Iraqi civil war would have unfortunate humanitarian effects, one wonders whether American national interests might be better served if Islamists, being preoccupied with a Shia-Sunni war in their own backyard, thereby found themselves with less hatred to spare for America.

A civil war might be just the solution. Pick the side we want to win, arm it to the teeth and pull back and let it wipe out everyone else.

I see the fact that the legitimate Shia-dominated government is using force against fellow Shia militants as a good sign. This is step away from tribalism and toward rule of law. If someone threatens the elected government - whether they be Sunni or Shia - that government needs to step in on behalf of its citizenry. I have no illusions that Basra will look like Berkley (I pray not!) by the end of 2008 or even 2018 but the only way that we extricate ourselves from this massive troop commitment is for the most powerful entity in Iraq to be it's duly elected government (as, btw, it is in all stable democracies). If that government maintains friendly relations with the US, so much the better.

As to al-Qaeda; I think the facts on the ground, as reported by most who know what they are talking about, are that they have lost the "hearts and minds" campaign for the average Iraqi's support. It has made some strange bed fellows, but at this point nearly all factions of Iraqi society are seeking to rid their nation of that scum.

I'm not sure that it is in our interests, or the Iraqis', to prevent a civil war. Some societies need to fight a civil war to sort things out, one way or the other. Ours certainly did. Whatever else the American civil war may or may not have accomplished, it certainly settled the slavery issue once and for all -- the issue which had dominated and divided national politics for at least the previous half century. Think what a disaster it would have been for this country had Britain and France intervened to recognize the Confederacy, in the name of preventing or ending the war. For that matter, the English civil war of the 17th century permanently settled the question of whether the monarch or Parliament would be supreme.

Some wars need to be fought. Who would be willing to have ended World War II on terms that left the Nazis in power in Germany, even if doing so had saved millions of lives?

If the Iraqis want to fight a civil war, who are we to stop them? After all, they are the ones who have to live with one another. Perhaps they need to fight a civil war in order to resolve some of the issues that are splitting their society. If we really believe in democracy the way we say we do, it isn't our job to tell them how to settle their problems, even to the extent of preventing them from fighting a civil war, if that's really what they want -- or need -- to do.

Re: "Perhaps they need to fight a civil war in order to resolve some of the issues that are splitting their society."
The example of liberty that the "united" States and the European "union" both claim as the pinnacle of civilized societies, their juridical solidarity (unity in diversity) is NOT served by a mercantilist military industrial complex... As discredited as he is, Rumsfeld apparently can still get the media to pay him to lecture us on expanding NATO...

What grace enabled us to forge the solidarity that strengthens us in the face of our enemies? Our religious convictions enabled a patient forbearing that wrought peace from the ashes of horrendous civil strife, What lessons can we offer about a path to liberty that avoids the destructive diversions of economic resources (human and natural capital) of war?

The Pope's remarks to our Ambassodor to the Vatican indicates faith in such an approach:

"I take this occasion to express my hope that patient and transparent negotiations will lead to the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons and that the recent Annapolis Conference will be the first of a series of steps towards lasting peace in the region.

Could the parties at Annapolis be encouraged to explore what solidarity they can forge in their region from a common cultural, economic, security, juridical framework?

Instead of Rummmy bribing the Caucusus states to openly diss Russia and take it on the chin for us if our ill-advised rhetoric fans the flames, offer them a real political choice. Align with NATO or build an ASEAN-like regional power nexus. Repair or remediate the social obstacles that impede growth, accelerate development on a par with the Asian Tigers, and reclaim the patriotic pride of the Ancient Civilizations whose relics scatter the land (would we not all love to come visit and spend our tourist dollars? As soon as they've pacified the blood lust that drives them to wage war... by recognizing Universal Human Rights and granting freedom of conscience, something Islamists seem unwilling to do...)

These circumstances will not be resolved with mere "political compromise" (even in the unlikely event that GW's surge would actually achieve its stated aim) - the region must integrate within "a global juridical culture" (the Pope's words) that calls for a firm commitment, hope and generosity "inspired by highest ideals of justice, solidarity and peace." Only thus can the region's leaders gain legitimacy amongst their citizens, when the liberty to truely flourish (as for example the South Koreans, who a century hence where largely an isolated illiterate pastoral people, have) is not seen as contrary to pursueing national interests but integral to enjoying that pursuit.

Readers, war is not the answer here...

And here's 3 maps to illustrate the Islamic "cuius regio, eius religio" quagmire

* the most easterly extent of the Arab League: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AL.GIF [_Iraq_]

* the most westerly extent of ASEAN: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ASEAN_members.png [_Bangladesh_]

* the watershed of rivers that flow into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_NATO_countries.png [_Turkey_]

We willingly marched into this in 2002 to spread Liberty... via Democracy, what were we thinking? were we crazy? This musselmanish patchwork that stretches from Gibraltar to Java is a mess that the hegemons in Mecca wish to stifle under an infantilizing Autocracy ala Sunni wahhabism ... and we meekly buy their crude oil to finance their nefarious policies...

(The Chinese prudently sat that one out, settling instead on Sudan, sacrificing countless thousands of Dafurian souls to meet their voracious appetite in the global petrochemical economy... while they oppress the Uyghurs whose homeland sits on the largest domestic oil deposits in the Kaklamakan desert, which resources in Tibet-like fashion the non-native ethnic Han exploit in self-enriching "capitalist free enterprise")

A regional cooperation treaty could bind Israel, Iraq, Iran and India with the various 'stans (Pakistan, Afghanstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Dagestan) and the Caucasian nation states and/or autonomous regions of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, Adygea, Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia.

(And incidently, while you have your tongues twisted with that lot, keeping tongue in cheek, should Mongolia feel a little isolated from wither ASEAN or NATO perhaps they ought to be invited to join too ;-)

You think McCain has a hard time keeping his Sunni and Shia separate - get the State Department Diplomats to give him an education on how they keep track of the actors in that region and I'll begin to believe we're winning the war on terror...

Its fantasy land ...

Meanwhile while we wait and see what transpires, the Christians in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the Northern Euphrates Plain may want to apply for immigration visas to whichever philadelphic (brotherly love) Christian nation will take them in, because the simmering cauldron they call home is still suspended over the flame of Western geopolitical mercantilism: the price of oil has long since outstripped their human rights, no amount of Jizyah exacted by the OPEC cartel can ensure their security now...

Is this article available on any site that doesn't require a sign-in?

Try one of these:

www.mtholyoke.edu/~jwestern/ps62/edward_n_luttwak.htm

www.harpers.org/archive/1999/11/0060717

www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_cfr_11.htm

Citation on Saudi Wahhabita influence in Egypt:
www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11865&geo=&theme=&size=A

"Cleveland, you may take this as rhetorical if you wish, but you continue to boggle me: at no point in their history has al-Qaeda been the political ruler(s) of a nation. They have always depended on the governments of friendly nations...al-Qaeda committed the crime, but could not have without the direct support from the sovereign government of Afghanistan. Saying they were one and the same is ignoring documented facts. Will you at some point claim that al-Qaeda is ruling Pakistan?" Franklin

Franklin, I never said al Qaeda and the Taliban were one and the same. It is indisputable that they were not. But, apparently, I gave al Qaeda more "credit", if that's the word, for the pre-9/11 staying power of the Taliban, and it's ability to hold Afghanistan together, than you.

It's irrelevant to my above stated prediction, but I viewed the religiously fanatical Taliban as the civil (uncivil, really) and religious authority of Afghanistan--the throne, if you will--with al Qaeda as both the financial power behind the throne and the international leadership of the various "go anywhere and die for Allah" movements known collectively as al Qaeda (the Chechens being only loosely united). Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said, "We took down the Taliban [Note: not al Qaeda] in the fall of 2001, in 34 days with 100 men." So much for the Taliban government without al Qaeda to prop it up.

You ask if I will at some point claim that al-Qaeda is ruling Pakistan?

Old buddy, they already DO rule those vast mountainous portions of Pakistan where even the Pakistani Army fears to go. And it's indisputable that they are causing trouble in the cities. Why do you think Obama said he would invade Pakistan when he becomes your president? Surely not to kill Taliban remnants.

Anyway, Franklin, the crux of your disagreement with my March 28, 11:09 PM comment seems to be that I implied that, if my scenario played out as I saw it after we surrendered in Iraq, al Qaeda's new, improved version of the Taliban would try to cut our Gulf oil supply routs--perhaps with the nukes still missing from the old USSR, or from Pakistan, or North Korea, or who knows where. Perhaps they would be aided by Iran and/or Syria. Regardless, I stand by that prediction. Whatever remained of Iraq after our surrender, would be a figurehead country, ala the Taliban government, with al Qaeda being the power behind the throne. If I am wrong, Iran will be the power behind the throne.

I hope you are not still boggled. If you are, hold your nose and start a Pennsylvanians for McCain movement so we don't surrender in Iraq or invade Pakistan.

Good night and good luck.

Well, I think Henry Kessinger said something to the effect that All wars eventually end as either 1)people will get tired of killing each other or 2) there will be no more people from the opposing side to kill. Thus, as others have alluded to, if the Shite Muslims in the South want to kill the Sunni Muslims in the Central area, and vice versa, then let them have a go at it. I could care less at this point as why should American soldiers die for those ungrateful barbarians. The U.S. should demand that Iraqi Christians who are threatened be given the opportunity to get safe refuge to Western countries and let the Jihadist go at it. I have no problem saying this but at this point Shite Jihadist killing Sunni Jihadist seems like a winning proposition. Geopolitically, it might be in the U.S. interest to let the Iraqi Sunni's win, as they were the support for Sadam's Bathist party, who to this day it has not been shown to have been associated with Al-Qaeda. Thus, we should arm the Sunni Iraqis with the intention of them defeatig the SHite Iraqis, who are getting milatary and financial and political support from Shite dominated Iran. In summary, a Sunni controlled Iraq could serve as a counter balance to Shite dominated Iran. The irony of this policy is that minus Sadamm, this is what you had before the U.S. 2003 invasion.

Good day

"In summary, a Sunni controlled Iraq could serve as a counter balance to Shiite dominated Iran. The irony of this policy is that minus Saddam, this is what you had before the U.S. 2003 invasion."

St. Domenic, if we leave the Sunnis lose because (1) Iran would not let the Iraqi Shiites win, and (2) the more numerous, now armed Shiites would overpower the (thanks to Saddam) really, really detested Sunnis; they used to be just detested.

"Sounds like a lot of work to create a counter balance to Iran. Funny how a counter balance may not have even been needed if the CIA hadn't setup the Iranian coup d'état in the 50's." Peter

Uberliberal Jimmy Carter pulled the plug on a civilized Iran; the Shaw of Iran was pro-U.S.. And Clinton, had he not been ministering (as Hillary put it) to Monica et al., and had he not cared more about his polls than our security, bin Ladin, while he was attacking America at home and abroad, would have been very easy to deal with, and with international approval to boot. Hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives would have been saved. Our security problems were dumped on Bush, instead, who some people insist on blaming for finally biting the al Qaeda bullet. Strange times!

"Should taxes be increased to pay for this?" George Sorwell

No. Our current taxes are adequate to provide all the self defense we need. They are unconstitutionally diverted to bridge-to-nowhere ear marks and social problems, the latter being caused to a great extent by The Great Society-type tax money in the first place.

I can't believe that so many of you act as if the Iraqis themselves have no capacity for rational thought. If YOU were in Iraq, if YOU were an Iraqi, would YOU just be itching for MORE "war" and violence?

Over the course of the last few years, we have witnessed the Iraqis themselves becoming far more immunized against the message of the radicals. Whole regions of Iraq, despite the pressures of tribalism, nationalism, religious indoctrination, and threats of, AND CARRIED OUT assassinations, the people eventually figured out who their enemies were. And it wasn't us.

Sadr has limited appeal. He's going to try now and then to see how much influence he wields. All of them (anti-liberal democracy) have got to know by now that they're now the ones racing against the clock of inevitability, not us. The tide turned, and the people understood AND CHOSE whom they wished to be governed under and who they wanted patrolling the streets, and they did so not at all lightly, but under immense duress and pressure to NOT choose what they did. These decisions are not reversed easily.

But to claim that we're enforcing our views on them, or ideology upon them, at the barrell of a gun is absurd. Or that if we ever leave, the people are just itching to have a civil war. Heck no. Not to say that some aren't, just to say that the vast majority have got to be so unbelievably sick of the continued violence that they'll have a clear choice to make, and it'll be the same, rational, reasonable, and enlightened decisions that American liberals are so utterly incapable of making - that our way is better than those wild-eyed screaming nutcases.

About the time we commenced operations in Iraq, I read a number of different commentaries about Iraqis and the culture there, and each of them said we'd have to hang around somewhere between 5 and 10 years, and if we made it that long, we'd have crediblity with the common man, and we would prevail, not just by force, but also our notion of a liberal democratic people. I have been heartened to see that these views have proven to be quite correct so far.

While the "fight" is fought with guns, there's an ideological struggle going on. This ideological struggle eventually plays out. It takes a lot longer, but to the vast majority, it eventually becomes reasonably clear that the radical ways lead to hurt. That's why, for the most part, you can't mass recruit violent radicalism here. We look out over the world and say "why on earth would I want that here???"

It may take a year or two, it might take a generation, but the road is inevitable. People will choose peace and justice over radicalism. American liberals may have given up faith in what their country was founded upon, but those who have to make the choice, will choose, because the outcome is so obviously better.

Cleveland, we have an understanding on the al-Qaeda semantics, if not an agreement.

I am willing to stipulate your position on taxes only if you add into the blame mix three Republican administrations who ratcheted up the national debt, for which we are now servicing the interest to the tune of well nigh half the defense budget. In very rough numbers, what that means is cutting in half the national debt would free up enough funds to increase defense spending by 25%. Interesting numbers, wouldn't you say?

Franklin:

Well, I don't think I was advocating war. I was actually advocating the U.S. get out of Iraq, retool the Miltary to fight Al-Qadea, and those countries that harbor those guys. In other words, get out of Iraq. If the various Muslim factions want to kill each other, why should we loose American Lives and Treasure over that. And as for as the economic angle, I don't think this War has benefitted the Economy, in fact, one can argue that the consequences of it with instability in Global markets, currencies, oil, etc, it is actually putting a serious hurt on it.

Again, I neither a pacifist nor a War monger, but I believe in the principles laid in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church (pragraphs 2307-2309)with respect to War and Peace Issues: I have provided the relevant paragraphs for non-Catholic readers among the forum.

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Regards and Good Day

Domenic (please forgive me, I have difficulty appelating anyone with "saint"),

Thank you for making a personal response. I would only add that while our economy can measurably (and with some valid argument) be seen as hurting from the military actions in Iraq, there continues to be those who personally profit from it. Since our primary business model is an elite at the top (consisting usually of executives and investors, not always a different group), and since we can further track an endless stream of stories back into the shadowed past, consisting of spouses left behind to deal with declining fortunes and poverty while defense contractors rake in big bucks, I must reiterate my query: is this the America we want? Is unbridled capitalism the engine best suited to support the waging of war?

We explicitly recognize the necessity of war, right there in the debate leading up to and the aftermath of the creation of a national defense. An examplar of my question: a country that wages war should not be creating a new batch of millionaires in the process. We should not have to declare martial law for defense suppliers to offer quality munitions and other supplies at very little more than cost. A grateful government might then be prompted to reward such patriotism, the details of which I shall leave to the reader's imagination.

For the semanticists reading this and possibly scratching their heads, I allow no caveats in my uss of "war". War is the correct label for the entire spectrum, from the special ops unit dropped in the Afghan mountains in search of bin Laden, to the divisions that invaded Iraq (both times) and everything in between.

Here's a thought: making a profit from war is unAmerican.

Although not directly apropos...while in Iraq, it was a bit strange to hear about contractors (not Blackwater guys - I'm talking on-base civilian workers for KBR & the like) getting paid six figures when they rarely (if ever) left the wire. I could only imagine what their employer was raking in.

That being said...while I'm well aware of the gross asymmetry between the war contractor who rakes in millions, and the grunt who gets himself blown up for a (relatively) mere pittance, I'm more inclined to try and limit war-related profits rather than eliminate them entirely. In theory, nationalized war industries could mimic private efficiencies, but in practice, I have my doubts. OTOH, for better or worse, private industry isn't going to produce arms without some promise of profit. A better approach, IMHO, would be to limit war profits (via regulation, taxation, or both) to some reasonable rate of return (as was once done with public utilities). Ditto something like the WWII Truman Commission. I'm not sure how this might be done in practice, however.

Not only can we not fix the problem, we may be blocking a solution from emerging. While we are there, no one can come to power in Iraq who does not support us. Those who do support us reliably will tend to rise in the national government, even if they don't have deep popular support. (In fact, it is precisely those groups without firm popular support who will want us most to stay, as they cannot have power without us). If the forces that are most likely to lead to national reconciliation want the U.S. out, then our continuing presence blocks them from rising to power.

This is the classic problem with colonialism and puppet governments.