I've been thinking about this developing quagmire in Iraq. My first reaction is that we should just pull American forces out and leave them to their own devices. My rationale is that it is a fallacy to believe that we can "impose" democracy on another nation. That sort of nation-building has never worked in the modern era and I think it highly unlikely that it would work in Iraq today.
Given that, what is the point of staying in Iraq? If we cannot accomplish the goal of creating a stable democracy, is there any point in the further sacrifice of America's young men and women?
Iraq (Persia) has been the graveyard of countless invading armies throughout history--we have just seen the first signs of an awakening national conciousness (as opposed to the religious tribalism of recent years) in the news that Sunni and Shiia have been fighting US forces together! Think about that for a second. If that continues, this could presage an entire country united against the US presence.
Add to this that there is no "nice" way to fight an urban war--there will be a lot of collateral damage and casualties--and the US is in a no-win situation in staying.
The only possible rationale for staying to my mind is if one accepts the original premise that Iraq was somehow aligned with Al Qaeda. Of course, what was not true then could quite probably be true after the withdrawal. I fully expect to see a theocratic state come into being within months of a US pull-out. Probably very similiar in nature to Iran; providing a lot of young men for whatever jihad is most current.
I say pull out now rather than waste more American lives.
Posted by artandscience at April 9, 2004 11:34 PMWhile I want to agree on this point, I don't have any idea how we could solve this by withdrawel without damaging our credibility even further. If we walk out of there without a UN force to come in, we'll be blamed for all of the death and tragedy that fills that nation. If we walk out w/o support, Al-Qaeda will have a new home, one that's probably better than Afghanistan.
So now, we get to stick it out, and get blamed for all of the death and tragedy within the nation; but we may be able to bring it to an end.
May...
Posted by: michael at April 10, 2004 07:10 AM-Iraq (Persia) has been the graveyard of countless invading....
Persia is Iran dude
Posted by: andy at April 10, 2004 02:59 PMUh, wrong.
The Persian Empire spanned a huge area, encompassing all of modern Iraq and Iran. Persia had seven capitals, the main one of which was Babylon. Babylon (44 25E, 32 33N) is very near modern-day Baghdad.
Persia = Iran + Iraq
Posted by: stefan at April 10, 2004 05:36 PMIn fact, to supplement my little history lesson, check out this map of the Persian Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries:
http://www.stefanisaacs.com/movabletype/images/timurid.jpg
Posted by: stefan at April 10, 2004 06:00 PMInteresting how you're already talking about withdrawal, and how to get out without losing every ounce of credibility you have (as a nation). What's the point of staying in Iraq? Maybe to finish what was started. I mean the USA can't withdraw now. How can that be justified? "Jeez sorry for the mess, but at least Saddams not in power anymore". Comedians have done this to death but I can't shake the image of Bush Jnr saying "Don't worry Dad, I'll finish it".
How to get out of the problem? Use something called diplomacy. This isn't something achieved with Apache helicopters and tanks, or surrounding entire towns and warning people to get out or die. Bush has got you in a helluva position here. I'd like to see his administration use diplomacy just once. I remember his speech about wherever there were terrorists the US of A would hunt them down. I turned to my mate and said "Does that mean we'll see US Battleships in Dublin harbour and F-15's in the skies over County Antrim?"
It's all about winning hearts and minds now. But I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Posted by: Gary at April 12, 2004 04:55 AMBut your statement presumes that there was a valid reason to go into Iraq in the first place. If the initial reasons were wrong (the most important assumption being that we could "bring democracy to Iraq") then how do we justify staying there? Certainly we cannot "civilize" a semi-barbaric nation that is armed to the teeth. It saddens me to use the term "semi-barbaric" but does anyone doubt that the Sunnis, Shiia, and Kurds, left to their own devices, would promptly start to slaughter one another?
I would love to be proved wrong but the only way to test the hypothesis (and prove that they are not barbaric) is to withdraw. Damn the consequences to credibility. I'm more concerned about (1) lives of Americans and allies, and (2) the legitimacy of any actions we take in a nation where we are not wanted and actively resisted. That's imperialism at best, and tyranny at worst.
Look back at the 1920 revolt against British occupancy (as the Guardian recently pointed out). The entire nation (Shia, Sunni, and Kurd) united against the British and fought an insurrection that took three years and 2000+ British lives to put down. And they only succeded by using tactics that were forbidden under the rule of law and the rule of war (erasing entire villages).
There is little case for staying if one is not wanted and much reason for leaving. At least the rest of the Arab world won't feel that we are bent on imperial (oil) conquest. We have little or no response to that claim right now and every child or woman or innocent that is killed in this insurrection gives support to Bin Laden's and Al Qaeda's claims.
To damnation with credibility I say.
Posted by: stefan at April 12, 2004 10:55 AMOh I completely agree. Like I say the initial reasons for going in were probably oil and to "finish family business".
Problem is Bush decided to go in - and where he goes the nation must follow (god helps you all ;) ). So from a completely neutral point of view, if the US pulls out tomorrow then the US has zero credibility on the World stage for god knows how many years. That's back to an isolationist foreign policy.
I agree with your point about the Brits in the 20's. You'd think politicians would learn from history...but has Bush ever struck you as a scholar? ;)
Posted by: Gary at April 12, 2004 11:16 AMFortunately for us (the US), we can regain an immediate measure of credibility by impeaching^H^H^H^H^H replacing Bush. After all, its worked for other administrations.
Just have Kerry and Co. completely repudiate this foreign policy gaffe. That, and offer massive economic aid to Iraq post-haste (under UN auspices). Might not solve the credibility issue but it would go a long way towards it (and perhaps helping the more moderate Arab states not view America as totally evil).
It does bother me that the US is now seen (by most Britons) as the chief cause of instability in the world today (according to a recent poll in the UK).
Posted by: stefan at April 12, 2004 11:42 AM