Out of Iraq?

Something like 600,000 Iraqis have died since the war started already, and I cant really see any benefit the US military has in the region. I mean the main argument is that the US is keeping the country from tearing itself apart, but isnt the US the main reason for the strife in the first place? At least remove one antagonistic force that has no justifiable reason to be there first, then move onto the next problem.

There is of course the fear that Iran will replace the US's presence in Iraq, so...I dont know. An author called Reza Aslan has a theory that all this post 9/11 terrorism isnt east v west, but basically a conflict within Islam; various sects are battling each other for supremecy, with the west simply caught in the middle. With that in mind, its probably best for the US to just get the hell out of Iraq.

What gets me is something like what I heard on BBC world service radio the other day, an American soldier was basically venting at an Iraqi woman at a debate, saying the Iraqis should be thankful for the US desposing of Saddam, but for the Iraqis its just empty words from a man who's trained to kill, not debate. We all know the timeline and the lies and excuses that led to the US in Iraq, the Iraqis dont have anything to be thankful for.

I really cant see the US leaving Iraq though, its too important for the US to have a permanent presence in that very strategic spot, for the next century anyway.

Well, Hillary Clinton in a recent New York Times Interview gave a middle of the road option.

Here are some of her quotes.

I don't know if I agree that fewer troops would work, but she seems to want to fix the problem instead of just abandoning it. That Iraq is complicated and there is no easy fix.

Cognizant, you hit the nail on the head. There is bitter hatred and prejudice between Shiite and Sunni organizations. A Muslim friend of mine compared it to the Catholic/Protestant conflict in Ireland, or the Serbs/Croats. The ferocity of the conflict between religions is so bloody because the "Iraqis" have basically been lumped together by conquerors over the centuries, and under Saddam were so integrated that now, you have rivals on the same block that constantly attack each other (This article gives a very intimate perspective on this situation).

If we pull out entirely, the peaceable Iraqis that see us as, at the very least, a source of street patrols, will be left to fend completely for themselves. But we are indeed the reason for the disastrous state Iraq is in, not just for the invasion , but for the utter mishandling of the aftermath and single-minded power grab at the oil. Our presence politically and economically is disastrous for any fledgling order in that country, because our administration cares about exactly one thing in the reconstructed Iraq: US control of oil revenue.

But if we pull out entirely (which I support as an alternative to "staying the course"), the human cost will be huge. Some people see it as natural and necessary for territorial settling, but since we catalyzed this disaster, it would seem to me that the best possible alternative would be for the US to make its number one priority helping Iraq partition itself into federal regions, and legislate the fair division of oil revenue to each region according to population (I just wrote this in another thread, but here it is again). There will still be fighting and horror, but at least there may be some hope of attaining peace.

That's just my armchair opinion.

Yeah, its an interesting point, there really isnt much of a patriotic spirit in Iraq as most people identify themselves with sects of Islam above anything else, except for the Kurds who uniquely identify themselves with their race more than religion.

Thats a good point, but I think the US presence is the source of so much rage, I mean a random Iraqi walking down the street probably sees a US soldier and feels his blood boiling, its easy to blame everything on Americans. If a force has to be there to keep equilibrium then make it U.N or something.

I think that is probably the best plan I've read really, just split the country up and give each major group their own piece. I mean it sounds like a disaster the way I just typed it, but at least it will seperate the groups, which is what they want (well most want heads seperated from bodies these days).

I can tell you now though, if Kurds get their Kurdistan, Turkey will not be pleased. But screw 'em I say!

Here's General Petraeus's most recent letter to his troops.

Prior to his current posting, Petraeus met with spectacular success in those areas of Iraq that were in his AOR. If there's such a thing as America's last, best hope in Iraq, it's this guy.

Unfortunately, his #2 is a general named Odierno, and Odierno is a complete jackass.

Bottom line: if Petraeus's application (finally!) of classic counterinsurgency strategy deosn't work, we are well and truly fucked.

That's a perfectly understandable reservation, Ben.

I think that the Administration doesn't have enough political capital to tell General Petraeus what to do. Of course, it *can*, legally, but it can also expect to get shellacked by both sides of the Congressional aisle if it tries. Petraeus has buckets of credibility on the Hill: what he wants, he pretty much gets (And he wanted more troops. I think he'd like about a hundred thousand more than the President gave him, but I also think he's a realist.).

It was a good letter, and he seems like a good general, but I read things like this...

" MOSUL, Iraq, March 29 (Reuters) - Policemen who took part in the reprisal shootings of scores of men in northwest Iraq this week were arrested but then freed again to prevent unrest, the provincial governor said on Thursday.

Hours after truck bombs killed 85 people on Tuesday in a Shi'ite area of Tal Afar, up to 70 Sunni Arab men were shot dead in a town which only a year ago was held up by U.S. President George W. Bush as an example of progress towards peace."

... and I'm dubious about Petraeus's chances. The generals and US forces in Iraq have, with a couple of obvious exceptions, not been the problem. Their good intentions, character and solid expertise have been thwarted at every turn by the administration that doesn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, doesn't care, and doesn't listen to the people who do or to the generals. Remember Shinseki?

I read a gut-churning story in the New Yorker a few years ago about how chaos way far up the chain of command was negating all of the rebuilding and stabilizing being done on the ground. The soldiers would gain the trust of the Iraqis with whom they were working, only to see those same people and projects abandoned by the administration. I know it sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking now, but a lot of knowledgeable people were saying it back then. This administration has done the wrong thing at every opportunity. How is it possible for the right thing to ever happen while they're in power?

That's a perfectly valid concern, yt, and one I happen to share. It isn't just the administration any more, either. I think the American people are tired of this war. If credible people said, "No shit: we can win this thing if you give us seven years," the public response would be, "Forget it, jackass. You had your chance."

If you really want to get your blood boiling, by the way, I recommend Fisaco, by Thomas E. Ricks. Ricks is a respected journalist who really tears into the enterprise at all levels. It's a sobering read, and it's also a fun one: Ricks is clearly mad as hell, and he spares no one.

Thanks for the recommendation, FC. The title alone makes it sound like a must-read.

The American people would call credible people, jackasses? I hope we haven't fallen that far.

The really sad part is that this is moot, because there aren't any credible people willing to say that it can be won in 7 years.

From some blog:
The NYT reports Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who teaches at West Point, as estimating that the US military should have a big presence in Iraq for 5 to 7 years, while partnering with and building up the Iraqi military.

No, I haven't read it. Currently, I'm working on Herodotus's History and trying to finish up some night school projects.

I look forward to getting more reading time this summer.

Pull the troops back to Kurdistan, continue training the Iraqi army, engage Iraq's neighbors.

I don't think stabilizing a free and independent Iraq was the point anyway. It's just the platform for an American projection of force. Something about permanent military bases being built in a sovereign nation.

That doesn't make sense, Zhukov. Projection of force is not an end in itself.

According to PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses, "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".

There you have it. PNAC, and therefore many of the architects of this war, think permanently occupying the middle east is an essential element in terms of American interests in the region. Whether such an occupation makes sense to you or not, whether you agree with those interests and believe they justify occupying the region or not, the people who started this war want a permanent military presence in Iraq.

The US already has significant, long-term military commitments to the region.

But here's the thing: military commitments have no intrinsic value. They have value only insofar as they advance the national interests of the nation making them. Consequently, Zhukov's casual, "Something about permanent military bases being built in a sovereign nation" makes no sense.

I knew what he was talking about.

Regarding permanent military bases, the question is whether future administrations like say Obama's, will risk their political capital and integrity by remaining in the region for strategic and colonialistic purposes.

In the latest Vanity Fair, Robert Baer said that he believes that Iraq will eventually wind down with U.S. and British troops pulling out, and mercernaries filling the vacuum to pursue oil ventures. So maybe these bases will be used by armies of proxy.

Perhaps I'm confused. When you talk about the region, do you mean Iraq specifically, or do you mean the greater Middle East?

'Cause I'm here to tell you that our bases in Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar aren't contested and aren't going away anytime soon. Qatar built its base on spec, hoping to lure us there once it was finished. - we hardly foisted ourselves on the country.

I meant Iraq, but with all the other bases you mentioned, it seems like the U.S. military will seek to indefinitely assert its influence on the country.

I remember reading Noam Chomsky's thoughts on Iraq in 2004:

Here's a link to Chomsky's thoughts in February of this year.

The U.S. military will seek to assert its influence on the country for precisely as long as the U.S. government tells it to.

That is the suicide note of the highest ranking American soldier to die in Iraq. Texas Observer writer Robert Bryce filed FOIA lawsuits to obtain documents pertaining to Col. Westhusing's death, and has written a very sad and also telling piece about his life, his dealings with military contractors in Iraq, his experience working under Generals Fil and Petraeus, and his death at 44.

I was reading those .pdfs elsewhere, yt, and they're very disturbing. And it seems quite telling that the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq commited suicide.