Get The Troops Out Of Iraq, And Fast

The Nation: U.S. Presence In Iraq Only Begets Us More Enemies

(The Nation)  The Administration has pressured the Shiite government to increase the number of Sunnis — to the point that the U.S. Ambassador is viewed by many in the government as a Sunni stooge — only to watch as some of the Sunnis appointed resigned when their interests were ignored. It has tried fewer troops in Baghdad. It has tried more troops in Baghdad. It has even tried behind-the-scenes discussions with representatives from Iran and with Sunni insurgents. Yet despite these policy changes, Iraq has continued its downward spiral into chaos — into a horrifying humanitarian catastrophe.

The only clear accomplishment of the U.S. presence in Iraq has been to create more enemies. There is little American troops can do to stop the killing because they are mistrusted, if not hated, by nearly all sides. An overwhelming majority of Iraqis consider American troops a destabilizing force, even the enemy. In a September poll by the University of Maryland, 78 percent of Iraqis said that the U.S. military is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing"; 71 percent, including 74 percent of Shiites and 91 percent of Sunnis, want U.S. soldiers out within a year or less; and 61 percent of Iraqis favor attacks on American troops.

Given this hostile popular sentiment, how can these troops possibly stay? Sending in more troops, as some prominent members of Congress have proposed, to intervene against both the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite militias would only cause more U.S. and Iraqi casualties and create yet more hostility. Ending the occupation is the only sensible option.

Withdrawing American troops will not, of course, necessarily halt the chaos and civil war. In fact, we understand that they could get worse, no matter what the United States does. But we also believe the U.S. presence itself continues to inflame the situation. Ending the occupation would remove one of the causes of the violence, and it would allow the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own destiny and to hold their own leaders accountable. It would also resolve the American troops' untenable position, created by their political commanders in Washington, which has put soldiers in the middle of a civil war, without a clear military mission, despised by most of the Iraqi people, shot at by Sunni insurgents as well as Shiite militias.

The focus of American policy, therefore, must shift from trying to stabilize Iraq with a failed occupation to working with other countries to help Iraqis cope with the humanitarian crisis that U.S. policy created and to keep the civil war from spreading beyond Iraq. These goals can best be pursued through an international, U.N.-sanctioned humanitarian mission, perhaps a joint U.N. and Arab League initiative. Muslim countries like Indonesia have offered to provide more assistance, even troops, if the United States ends the occupation.

Only by removing American forces, and ending all claims to permanent bases, can the United States increase the possibility that other countries will assist Iraqis. The United States must help by providing money and logistical assistance, such as the sea- and air-lifting of supplies and refugees, and by signaling clearly through its deeds that the era of failed coercive us-versus-them diplomacy is over. In addition to supporting an international humanitarian effort, the United States should work with other U.N. Quartet members (the European Union, Russia and the United Nations) to organize a regional conference of neighboring states, including Syria and Iran, to obtain their cooperation in containing sectarian violence and resolving the ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon.

Nearly 3,000 American men and women have been killed in Iraq since the war began, and more than 20,000 have been wounded or maimed. We have spent $350 billion on the war and plan to spend more in the coming year. How many more American men and women must die, and how much more treasure must Americans offer up, before our leaders have the courage and common sense to admit that there is nothing we can now accomplish that would make right the catastrophe the Administration created with its unprovoked and unlawful invasion of Iraq? That is the question we demand an answer to, and we need to do so every day until the President sets a timeline for the withdrawal of American forces — or Congress does it for him.

[wny14127]

FeelFree1,
It was not my intent to blame the Iraqis for the civil war, just a statement that it will unfortunately happen when we leave. The religious conflict will continue.

To the Moderator- how many times are we to see the same post from 'bushrocks1'? No one else has posted the same comments throughout this discussion.

[swingalong]

It's crystal clear. As The Nation says, "there is nothing we can now accomplish that would make right the catastrophe the Administration created with its unprovoked and unlawful invasion of Iraq."

Let no one forget whose reckless actions caused this holocaust. George W. Bush should be held accountable for this, though he seems as happy as a lark; Bush is going around cracking happy jokes and merrily taking five-week vacations (in time of "war"). He shows absolutely no evidence that he cares in the slightest about the suffering of others -- but let no harm befall a stem cell! Any thought that he will ever listen to anyone or change in any way is just silly. He will remain the most incredibly destructive foul-up and wrecking ball American history has seen.

Nothing good can come from this mess, and nothing good will ever come from this ignorant, unprincipled, undisciplined and conscienceless goof-up.

[feelfree1]

bmsbms29,

Perhaps the Bush League can use elements of your comment as a defense at their war-crimes tribunals.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[bmsbms29]

It's true. Noone likes war, noone likes death but without war & death, the United States would not be a country. Had we not gone to Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power killing innocents & harboring terroists. Had we not gone to Iraq, we would probably be fighting terroists here in the U.S. There is not just division between the Iraq religious groups, there is also a lot of problems caused by terroists... The terroists want us to leave and I'm afraid they will try to take over or at least have a safe haven in Iraq to plan future attacks on the U.S. A lot of people seem to be against President Bush but years from now I believe he will be honored for trying to protect us AND not changing his beliefs just because ignorant people wanted him to. Too many people are more interested in the mighty dollar than they are morals AND I am very worried that so many liberals are now in control of the house & senate. May God forgive us!

[catt42701]

First: Publication of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations.
Second: See if Bush will at least pay some attention to them.
Third: Bush said we would leave when they wanted us to leave. Oviously the population wants us to leave.
Forth: Again back to food for oil.
Fifth: Assist with rebuilding the infrastructure on an international level, including other Middle Eastern countries.
Sixth: Can't think of one.

[feelfree1]

wny14127,

Re: "let the Iraqis kill each other in their civil war"

It is disappointing to see people try to blame the Iraqi people for the U.S. created catastrophe in Iraq. The huge U.S. debt to the people of Iraq has yet to be payed.

I enjoyed the remainder of your comment.

[wny14127]

Why is it when we question the idiocy that exists in DC regarding this war we are labeled as fools and traitors?
I am neither and I do support our troops, I do not support the war or its supposed objectives of democracy in Iraq.
The war was started on false pretenses by leaders who failed to plan and planned to fail. They refused to take advice or listen when opinions that ran counter to their own were offered.
All that we have accomplished is thousands of US troops dead, many wounded, billions spent in vain and we have increased hatred of us in the middle east.
It's time to call it quits, bring the heroes home and let the Iraqis kill each other in their civil war.
George, it's time to move on and thankfully it's time for you to go in 2008! Your contribution to history is one of bloodshed, lies and wasted effort.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[feelfree1]

jn122736,

Re: "To the credit of all those challenging dogsoul, there were no retaliatory sarcastic or angry remarks, (FeelFree1 as one good example)"

Thank you. That is a nice compliment.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[jn122736]

I generally choose to read an article based on the subject matter but I must say I often enjoy the readers comments and responses to others comments as much or more then the article itself.

I found %u201Cdogsoul%u2019s%u201D comments and responses a classic study in human reactions to rebuff. The first comments dogsoul made appeared to be civil and in earnest%u2026
Then upon being challenged point-by-point by other posters he became more and more frustrated and angry, using insults and name calling in his responses%u2026. There were several posters in disagreement with him, so for the most part, he simply lumped them into one category for the target of his anger and frustration, eventually falling back on an over worked and exhausted tactic, blame it all on Clinton.

To the credit of all those challenging dogsoul, there were no retaliatory sarcastic or angry remarks, (FeelFree1 as one good example), and believe me, that was one of their best weapons. Character will out%u2026

Another point.
To Para-phrase Another poster %u201Cthe attack dogs are gearing up to blame the democrats for the mess we are in%u201D . That has been the case for decades. This administration has brought the game to new heights by cutting taxes in time of war and running up the national debt by borrowing to cover their actions. Getting bogged down in Iraq and dumping the problem into the democrats laps so they can accuse them of%u2026CUT AND RUN%u2026&%u2026 TAX AND SPEND.

[ceekuei]

Using semantics, convening study groups, committees, talking heads on the media, spins and everything in between do not change one bit the reality of the situation in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was a fool's errand. The "war" is lost. It never had a chance to begin with, but Bush and the neocons were just too stupid or illusionary to think otherwise. It is over and done with! Thousands have died for a lost cause and those responsible for the massive failure must be held accountable. Like everything that comes out from Bush's mouth, "getting the job done" is a slogan not a strategy. It is an advertising shingle designed to influence the die-hard believers. It is time to seriously consider impeachment. The fervor and intensity the Republicans brought to bear in their attempts to impeach Bill Clinton for dropping his pants once to often should should be used to impeach Bush and company for bringing so much mayhem and grief. They deserve everything thrown at time and some.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[grumpas]

I see ressigmann has been listening to hate radio again! When will he ever learn???? It is doing untold damage to his abilities to reason like a normal human being! Without his daily dose of right wing propaganda he might actually learn to think for himself! Bush was told before he ever invaded what the end result would be...urban warfare amoung religious factions! But, he ignored all the warnings and went right ahead! Now the Democrat's are stuck cleaning up the mess Republican's made! Which is the usual case! Our troops are stuck in the middle of a civil war! I don't hear ressigmann coming up with any good idea's other than the same sorry one's Bush has touted for 3 years now! At what point are irresponsible people like ressignmann going to admit it's time to just get out???? Nothing more can be accomplished by staying! But I know we are all playing into al queada's hands! We are aiding the terrorist's! If you honestly believe that I feel the upmost pity for you! Because you are as big a fool as George W Bush is!!!!

[scouser345-2009]

Dogsoul - What's the deal, were you born with an extra chromosome or dropped on your head as a child. Do you honestly believe that Billyboy would have been stupid enough to invade Iraq and get us embroiled in quagmire/civil war. Even papamoron wasn't that stupid. Let's face it your hero completely F****d it up over there and now you need a scapegoat to vent on.

[doctor--o]

Our choice is:
1. stay and get a long drawn out blood-bath which yields a government basically hostile to the US.
2. leave now and get a less drawn out blood-bath that yields a government basically hostile to the US.

If you factor in all the costs of staying the decision is: leave soon. There is no reasonable scenario which yields a positive US outcome regardless of time.

The best we can get is something like Iran or else another Sadam Hussien. We aren%u2019t likely to get %u2018the best%u2019 result.

Don%u2019t think Afghanistan is going to end up any better. We%u2019re in the eye of that storm.

[goodsamarata]

I wonder how many "terrorists" were killed when the 5 car bombs went off in Sadr City a few weeks ago killing some 200 people?
Are the folks who are being kidnapped and torture with drills before being shot dead "terrorists" too?
Are the people doing the killing "terrorists" or is there a civil war going on?
To say that in this instance the people who are killing or being killed are "terrorists" is absolutely irrelevant. The reason being that there is a civil war going on with two ethnic groups going at each other.
This is not a question of terrorism since the vast majority of the killing is being done by the natives against other natives for internal political reasons, none of which is the result of any hatred towards the US or the Western world.
This is an internal matter and we have no business in it. Bush had the chance to do wonders with Iraq after defeating Saddam but he lost the entire country because of his ignorant ways.
He let the looting go on, Abu Ghraib happen, dismantle the entire Iraqi army just because they were Baath party members despite the fact that most party members were Shiites, let corruption run wild and it led the Shiites to believe they could control oil revenues without being accountable to the Sunnis.
People who are upset for those reasons are killing US soldiers but, like I said, the vast majority of the killings by far are done by Iraqis against Iraqis.
Bush blew it and there's nothing we can do now but leave.

[ressigmann]

It is funny that when the Democrats were campaining they were touting a new direction in Iraq, however, sadly they have no better ideas than screaming retreat and running as fast as their legs will carry them. Left out of the media is the Iraqi who made a statue to honor American fighting men. The terrorists have gained strength from the dissent of the liberals, and have even quoted them. Setting a timeline in Iraq will just tell the terrorists that if we can just make it to this date we win. So much for the liberals claiming that they weren't the cut and run party. By the way President Bush with an approval rating of 30% is still higher than the approval rating of Congress.

[mrthornman]

dogsoul:

Even many of the neocons that orginally supported Iraq are now publicly stating that we need to get out. Are they liberals?

Is that how you see the world? Anyone that does not agree with your point of view is a liberal? Bush only has about 30% approval at this point. So, that means that 70% of those polled are liberal?