Comments on: What to do about Iraq

By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The Iraq war and me

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The Iraq war and me — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:37:32 +0000

[...] How do I think it should end? How should we fix this? I do not know and I am afraid I don’t see anyone today who does. I will still say — as I did in the Guardian’s Comment is Free some months ago and as the paper’s Mideast editor said more intelligently than I — that we on the left have a responsibility not to abandon the people of Iraq and to have a plan, not just for leaving but for finding some path to peace. That the White House is now apparently considering recruiting Syria, occupier of Lebanon, and Iran, who too recently was at war with Iraq, to get them out of the mess they made is either painfully ironic or just pathetic. But I won’t presume to understand the politics of the region sufficiently to prescribe a path myself. I just wish our leaders on any side would and could. [...]

By: D. Mathews

D. Mathews — Sat, 20 May 2006 15:58:48 +0000

Hmmm .... yeah; and just look what GWB ended up installing in Iraq. Ironic, isn't it?

By: Mork

Mork — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 05:51:54 +0000

Jeff - there’s no point having this discussion so long as you are unable to free yourself from the fundamental belief that while what we are doing now may not be working, there is, somewhere, a “solution” that will make everything alright. You can’t say that you are honestly open to suggestions unless you are also open to the conclusion that nothing we do will help the situation. Even if that is ultimately the wrong conclusion, there can be no confidence that it is not until you have rationally considered the possibility, which you are clearly unable to do.

There is also no point having this discussion so long as the current administation is in charge. They are simply not competent to design or administer any effective policy. The one guarantee we have is that whatever this administration does will be the wrong thing, executed badly.

That is why the only sensible course to advocate is immediate withdrawal.

By: jb

jb — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:00:53 +0000

In the process of being “responsible” we may have to re-visit the issue of selective service. The volunteer armed forces are stretched very thin and if we are going to go for the “long hard slog” maybe a few “responsible” citizens in this country should think about doing their fair share. And speaking of fair share, the fifteen year slog is going to cost something green as well. Are liberals willing to pony up the dough for this? We already know that conservatives will never raise a tax for this (mis) adventure, let alone for something like universal health care. The question of how long we will continue this is going to come down to this last issue…money. John and Jane Q are not going to fork it over for a bunch of Arabs. Does anyone here remember how the US responded to the Khmer Rouge when they entered Phnom Penh and ran that country into the dumper. Screwed it up royally then made a wide-eyed bugout…we did. Our CEO is already setting the stage for this by saying (yesterday) that the decision to withdraw from Iraq will not be made in his term. He is leaving that for the next president. I reckon the plan is to limp to 2009 and declare Mission Accomplished II. In any case, we Yanks have done this war on the comparitive cheap. If asked to really make a sacrifice the country will balk. In that case…may have to let Mother Nature take its course. Sorry Iraqis…don’t leave the light on.

By: Dr. Mathews

Dr. Mathews — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:40:07 +0000

Two very brief points: If anyone has the moral authority to point the way out of this debacle, I think it is the troops on the ground. Let’s listen to what they have to say.

Second point: As long as the United States feels it necessary to police the world or to unilaterally influence events to its favor in any of a number of sovereign nations, we are going to have problems like this. Hence the way forward is clear (at least to me).

By: Ruth

Ruth — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:19:18 +0000

JEff, your premise that ‘cutting and running now is simply irresponsible’ may be mischaracterisation. ‘Cutting and running’ being redefined as ‘allowing the citizens of Iraq to manage their own affairs’, which they are better able to do than us foreigners, might work better. Then if you review ‘irresponsible’ and find a better description might be ‘laissez faire’, we get to the solution that is all I can see as workable.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 04:25:53 +0000

Andrew,
I meant what I said in the first post: I’m asking more than answering. I’m not sure. I do believe that cutting and running now is simply irresponsible. So what is responsible? What’s possible?

By: Patricia

Patricia — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:58:32 +0000

Why are we judging the outcome of the war using the same overly optimistic time frame as Bush? Sure, Afghanistan was quick, but every other tyrant in the ME went to school on that one. Saddam simply ran away and opened up the field of battle to every political or religious gang in the region, ala Lebanon. We left Lebanon after we got bombed, but we have to stick this out until one country makes it to consensual governemnt, when Iraq’s own military and institutions are strong…maybe five years?

It seems we have now corrected our mistakes and are fighting correctly. The Golden Dome bombing was another futile incitement to civil war, which probably will not happen now that the populace knows these people are barbarians. They don’t want war any more than the Lebanese did; unfortunately, we left the Lebanese to it.

Read Ali’s take at http://afreeiraqi.blogspot.com/2006/02/civil-war-is-it-close-and-is-it-really.html

Oh, and Thomas, you forgot the Handshake of Death photo with Rumsfeld and Saddam in your list of sins.

By: Thomas Friedman

Thomas Friedman — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:33:16 +0000

>this is what we must be discussing now

Too bad you didn’t want a discussion *before* going to way.

Too bad you didn’t want a discussion when they faked a photo op of Saddams statue being taken down by Chalabi’s cohorts at that time you just wanted to gloat.

Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when Shrub said “Mission Accomplished” at that time you just wanted to flex you liberal warmongering muscles.

Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when Saddam was captured as if to think that would solve all the problems.

Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when the Abu Grahib pictures were released instead you wanted to excuse the sad and pathetic behavior as just something that goes on in a war.

Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when the fake constitution was passed thinking that would solve all the problems.

Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when the iraqi election was held. You instead chose to live in a fantasy world thinking the election would solve all the problems.

Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when we reached a 1000 soldiers being killed or when the 1500 mark was reached or when the 2000 mark was reached. You just chose to ignore those bodybags and instead chose to chastise the people demonstrating.

Now you want to have a discussion?

Go ****** yourself.

By: Andrew Tyndall

Andrew Tyndall — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:03:44 +0000

Jeff –

I may have mischaracterized your position.

I represented you as advocating the necessity of the US military remaining in Iraq in the event that a civil war breaks out…

…upon rereading your post I understand you as saying that the US military must remain in Iraq lest a civil war break out.

These are not contraditory positions. But they are not identical either.

So for the sake of argument, take Brian Whitaker’s Lebanon-style scenario: what would be the humanitarian and liberal course, in your view?

My apologies for the sloppiness, regards — Andrew

By: Andrew Tyndall

Andrew Tyndall — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:21:57 +0000

jeff –

Thanks for the compliment.

Listening to the President’s press conference this morning, it seems that his policy in the event of civil war — if one gets started, US troops leave — is the exact opposite of yours.

You demand that if a real civil war gets started, the only “humanitarian, that is liberal” response is to stay and fight. The President cites that as the only circumstance that would justify an early withdrawal. Until now, he has opposed such premature withdrawal under any circumstances until victory is achieved.

We always knew the President was no liberal (except in his Keynesian economic policies). By your lights this makes him no humanitarian either, I suppose.

All we need now is a civil war and George Bush and Rory O’Connor can be on the same page.

Hallelujah!

By: Clinton

Clinton — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:31:05 +0000

As to the conlict spreading beyond the borders of Iraq, has this not already happened considering that insurgents have come from all parts of the middle east to fight in Iraq? While beyond geographic borders the violence may only constitute a trickle, the war on terrorism ie the muslim brotherhood has begun; and borders dont apply to a nation’s greatest wartime asset (soldiers). And with the considerable dissent apparent amongst muslims, it seems that widespread sectarian violence is only a step away as the entire middle becomes increasingly unstable. Bush went in to create stability, the result has been escalating chaos. The solution then? A responsible solution doesnt exist as has been mentioned. Its time then to cut our losses, continue to coldly ingnore their losses and get back to seeking our national interests in more productive ways.

By: Rory O'Connor

Rory O'Connor — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:37:15 +0000

How’s this for being ‘future’ oriented? We can leave Iraq now — something I’ve advocated for three years already — at the present cost of ‘only’ 2300 American military personnel, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, and hundreds of billions of dollars, or we can leave in the future, hanging on to the skids as the last helicopter takes off from the Green Zone, with thousands more dead and billions more wasted.

That’s my pragmatic, future-oriented solution to the current impasse, pace Santayana…

By: RonP

RonP — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:06:30 +0000

Iraq forfeited its sovereignty approx 16 years ago when it attacked kuwait. unfortunately it was not dealt with at the time - had it been, we would be in a much better place. and the reason we stopped? - because of the UN. this will all fail because of the attitude (and this includes GWB) that we can only do one thing at a time. the US needs to be dealing harshly with Syria & Iran. unless we become tougher and more ruthless - this will all be for nought. there are white hats and black hats in this movie. we better all decide where we belong.

By: sbw

sbw — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:31:53 +0000

To find the solution to Iraq, ask yourself “When should a nation forfeit its sovereignty?”

Don’t see the connection? That’s because nobody who should have asked the question before the war in Iraq ever asked or answered — not at the United Nations, not at the Arab League, not in any bilateral discussions. Why not? It’s the elephant in the room.

Until you can justify basic society’s minimum requirements, you are not in a position to suggest a solution to Iraq, much less find the courage to demand it.