Iraq Civil War = Exit Strategy???

[Kevsh]

I think it was Jon Steward (Daily Show) that first floated the idea, but ... if Iraq does descend into total anarchy (as opposed to 90% anarchy it's been in since Sadaam was booted), will the U.S. be forced to pull it's soldiers out?

Personally, I don't think so. George is intent on seeing it through until it's a nice and peaceful democracy. Of course, unless he lives to 164, he'll never see it.

But in total civil war, the body count will get a LOT higher than it is now, the pressure will increase to get the soldiers/targets out and if he caves in ...



Just food for thought.

[Persignup Dustin]

fuck it.

[jjjay]

divide and conquer?

[jade_dragon]

By total civil war what do you mean? I think Stewart and Colbert are using a play on words here to make a joke...... A civil war is determined by the origin of the fighting, it being started by people of the same nation against each other as opposed to foreign nations, it does not at all mean that other nations can not aid one side or another. The American Civil War was fought with aid from foreign countries, still a civil war.

Do you mean a larger scale war in general? People would say things like "we should have pulled them BEFORE it escallated to this point", on any level this or increased pressure from people here in the form of protests means what? Nothing at all. Bigger war means more people involved, more potential death, more reason to stay there to those in power (not talking about private agenda)

I do not see us pulling out of a war that is getting bigger, does not matter how many crying mothers show up on T.V.

[Juilan]

sadly, this occupation will go to 2008.

[Scootermuze]

I cannot believe that Bush actually thinks that Iraq is gonna get better and things will be lovely... Never gonna happen..

It isn't the U.S. and he needs to stop thinking that he can make it like this country...

[Kevsh]

Originally Posted by jade_dragon

By total civil war what do you mean?

I think the term "civil war" has been thrown around a lot in regards to what's brewing there now. Regardless of whether it technically is or not, things are going to hell in a handbasket real quick.

[sfera]

nuke it all who cares

[biftek]

it's just the veitnam war all over again

the iraq freedom fighters are using the words that bush himself said in the whole terrorist fight back speech " you are either with us or you one of them "

considering that america is meant to be super power , fighting against under armed and under trained "terrorists" you'd think they would have the country under control , but nope its not the case , they are dealing with an army of determined ppl , fighting against the invaders

[Helix]

I don't know how Bush can sleep at night.

[TheJimmy]

I'm curious as to how a potential injection of avian flu into the world mix will impact all this crap... just a thought

[jayeff]

Civil war in Iraq could not only provide an exit strategy, but viewed within the context of US foreign policy in the Middle East since the 1920's - the primary purpose of which has been to keep the region unstable - it would represent success for the whole operation there.

I have been arguing since before the invasion ever happened, that its sole purpose was to replace a stable regime with chaos. The sectarian divisions in Iraq made that outcome almost inevitable: 20% of the country is Kurd, 35% Sunni and 45% Shi'a. Although the Shia's are the largest single group, they are not a majority and they have no experience of power.

To believe the "democracy for Iraq" line which replaced the WMD scare tactics when they were discredited, required anyone with a knowledge of the history of the region to believe there had been a complete about face in US policy. There was no evidence of that, nor anything to suggest a motive for such a dramatic change.

And if somehow the unlikely were made to happen, the numbers dictate that democracy in Iraq would give the Shi'as the most influence, moving Iraq towards closer ties with Iran, the Shi'as spiritual home. Yet barely 20 years earlier (remember the Iran-Contra affair?), the US was busy fomenting the war between these two countries, supplying both sides with weapons, intelligence and advice. In any case, how likely is it that the US has the slightest intention of letting both the 2nd- and 3rd-largest oil reserves be controlled by anti-US regimes?

Simplistically the past 80 years have all been about oil. Unfortunately the policies we pursued to keep cheap oil flowing also encouraged Arab nationalism and religious fundamentalism: both with a distinct anti-US slant. Their rise meant that the Iran-Iraq war was the last time we were able to act covertly in the region to any significant effect, yet doing nothing to slow these trends down would surely mean that the unpopular regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be overthrown sooner rather than later. IMO the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was to buy some time for the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

There isn't much point in blaming any recent presidents for this mess, because by about 1970 we were pretty much out of choices. Earlier administrations could have followed a less hawkish policy and done more to wean us away from Arab oil. But because we wasted all those years, I suspect policy now is dictated more by last-ditch pragmatism than by any optimism for the long term.

[SilentKnight]

Not to worry...

Bush's cousins are currently forumulating an exit strategy as we speak.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by jayeff

Civil war in Iraq could not only provide an exit strategy, but viewed within the context of US foreign policy in the Middle East since the 1920's - the primary purpose of which has been to keep the region unstable - it would represent success for the whole operation there.

I have been arguing since before the invasion ever happened, that its sole purpose was to replace a stable regime with chaos. The sectarian divisions in Iraq made that outcome almost inevitable: 20% of the country is Kurd, 35% Sunni and 45% Shi'a. Although the Shia's are the largest single group, they are not a majority and they have no experience of power.

To believe the "democracy for Iraq" line which replaced the WMD scare tactics when they were discredited, required anyone with a knowledge of the history of the region to believe there had been a complete about face in US policy. There was no evidence of that, nor anything to suggest a motive for such a dramatic change.

And if somehow the unlikely were made to happen, the numbers dictate that democracy in Iraq would give the Shi'as the most influence, moving Iraq towards closer ties with Iran, the Shi'as spiritual home. Yet barely 20 years earlier (remember the Iran-Contra affair?), the US was busy fomenting the war between these two countries, supplying both sides with weapons, intelligence and advice. In any case, how likely is it that the US has the slightest intention of letting both the 2nd- and 3rd-largest oil reserves be controlled by anti-US regimes?

Simplistically the past 80 years have all been about oil. Unfortunately the policies we pursued to keep cheap oil flowing also encouraged Arab nationalism and religious fundamentalism: both with a distinct anti-US slant. Their rise meant that the Iran-Iraq war was the last time we were able to act covertly in the region to any significant effect, yet doing nothing to slow these trends down would surely mean that the unpopular regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be overthrown sooner rather than later. IMO the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was to buy some time for the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

There isn't much point in blaming any recent presidents for this mess, because by about 1970 we were pretty much out of choices. Earlier administrations could have followed a less hawkish policy and done more to wean us away from Arab oil. But because we wasted all those years, I suspect policy now is dictated more by last-ditch pragmatism than by any optimism for the long term.

Wow - this is very well written and very close to the truth.

The past eighty years have been about oil. It's surely the cause of Pearl Harbor, and the US offically entering WWII.

There is no such thing as an "exit strategy". It simple terms you don't really know what your gonna face until you get there. When Germany surrendered in WWII, how long did it take for the Marshall Plan (The rebuilding of Europe) to go into effect? WWII ended in 1945 in Europe, yet the Marshall Plan didn't see light until 1947. Seems to me there wasn't much of an exit strategy there either.

I surely don't see any pictures of starving children in Iraq, so it's all good.

I have mixed feelings about Iraq. On one hand, it seems like Bush Jr is trying to settle his father's debts. On another hand, Iraq is a hold over of the Kuwaiti war where Iraq needed to be spanked and ten years later they clearly haven't learned their lesson.

The current crap with Iran is also interesting. Fuck it already, let them have their nukes. I don't see how it changes anything. Think Iran can challenge Isreal with a nuclear bomb? The Russians had nukes for the past sixty years and didn't really seem to change much. Yeah, it put fear in the hearts of everyone both in the US and USSR, but at the end of the day neither side could launch because they know they would be destroyed. If a nuke goes off in Isreal, Iran will be destroyed in the following few hours. Iran having nukes isn't going to change the politcal landscape of the Middle East.

The Middle East is a crying shame. They have all of this oil and the wealth that goes with it, yet the bulk of their population lives in sub-standard conditions. Sixty years from now when the oil runs out no one will give a fuck about the Middle East. And then they'll really be fucked.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by biftek

it's just the veitnam war all over again

the iraq freedom fighters are using the words that bush himself said in the whole terrorist fight back speech " you are either with us or you one of them "

considering that america is meant to be super power , fighting against under armed and under trained "terrorists" you'd think they would have the country under control , but nope its not the case , they are dealing with an army of determined ppl , fighting against the invaders

Its not just a little retarded calling Iraq Vietnam.

[Kevsh]

All good points, but whatever anyone believes there's the undeniable fact that:

1) The U.S. had a war plan for invading Iraq.
(My .02: The U.S. is quite competent in such matters)

2) They, once again, did not have a "post-war" plan. It literally didn't and still doesn't exist.
(The analogy: It's like building a skyscraper without blue prints or a project plan - almost surely, it won't turn out as you had hoped)

The U.S. had lots of time to plan post-war Iraq as the war plan revisions led by Tommy Franks were in the works for over a year (i'm sorry, I don't have the exact timeline handy - feel free to correct me).

In the Bush admin's defence, a plan to stabilize and rebuild a country like Iraq is nearly impossible. While you have military experts in Franks and his men, who exactly to you call upon to create a post-war plan?

So ... Do you go in an invade without a sound strategy for post-war or not invade at all?

Hindsight says, clearly, there was no rush to get Sadaam out - he clearly was not an imminent threat, even according to the intel they had during the height of the WMD euphoria. Someone in power needed to completely impress upon Bush et al. the vital importance of a post-war plan.

Powell did, to a point ("you break it, you buy it"), but it clearly was only a single voice when Bush, Cheney and co. were urgent to go. ("Urgent to go" because they had already started building up forces in the Middle East, were pressing the UN and had vital intel from CIA ops that required they move quickly or not at all).

They decided to go instead of wait.

[nick1980]

More reading regarding the civil war in Iraq..

http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=3120