Advice on ending the Iraq war

[Robert Harris]

Letter appearing in todaay's NY imes. Sound advice, I think.

[T] o the Editor:

I am a longtime admirer of Thomas L. Friedman. I disagree, however, with his advice to Senator John Kerry relative to our Army in Iraq, which is summarized in his final line: "We will not run" (column, Feb. 15).

This determination to stand and fight is tempting to political leaders. The trouble with this appeal is that brave young Americans do the bleeding and dying ? not the political leaders who committed them to a mistaken war. Terrorists are killing American soldiers in Iraq because our Army is in Iraq. I hope that President Bush, with the help of the United Nations, will find a way to return Iraq to the Iraqis and bring our Army home.

Paradoxically, on the same page as Mr. Friedman's column is a column by Maureen Dowd detailing how Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted criminal Iraqi exile, snowed the neoconservatives in the Bush administration into believing that the American Army could walk into Iraq unopposed and that he would be an ideal replacement for Saddam Hussein.

Replacing Saddam Hussein with Ahmad Chalabi would be comparable to replacing Jack the Ripper with Al Capone. Such a development is not worth risking the death of one additional American.

Thousands of young Americans bled and died in Vietnam to keep a series of political frauds in power in Saigon. Let's not go down that road again, claiming all the while, "We will not run." How about a compromise? Let's walk out of Iraq.

GEORGE MCGOVERN
Marco Island, Fla., Feb. 16, 2004

[Coot]

WTF is he doing in Florida? SHINY!! Would you mind seeing that this has been is escorted back to South Dakota where he can do the popsicle bop?

[ethics]

Is this the same acid tripping, communist that attempted to run for US Presidency?

He is actually urging America to abandon Iraq? It's signed "George McGovern, Marco Island, Fla." In case you're not familiar with Marco Island, check out its Web site (http://www.marco-island-florida.com/):
Marco Island is the largest of Florida's Ten Thousand Islands, located on the Gulf of Mexico in Southwest Florida. It has been described as Magical, Mystical and Alluring. The attraction is tropical sun-washed white beaches and a casual easy paced life style. Sunshine, frolicking dolphins, and all of the water and sun sports that go with the beaches are available for your pleasure.

Just the sort of place to incubate a progressive populist movement.

[Robert Harris]

Is this the same acid tripping, communist that attempted to run for US Presidency?


Surely you can do better than that sort of nonsense.

[Stiofán]

Like a bad case of hemorrhoids, this guy flares up in the presence of crap.

Getting ready for some Florida sun.

[Colin]

This determination to stand and fight is tempting to political leaders. The trouble with this appeal is that brave young Americans do the bleeding and dying ? not the political leaders who committed them to a mistaken war. Terrorists are killing American soldiers in Iraq because our Army is in Iraq. I hope that President Bush, with the help of the United Nations, will find a way to return Iraq to the Iraqis and bring our Army home.
Whether the war was mistaken or not the US is now directly responsible for the fate of Iraq. We invaded, we attacked, we are morally accountable. It is our duty to make the best effort possible to help the Iraqis find their way to a democratic and peaceful existence. This conclusion must be paid for, in part, with American blood. I regret that, John Kerry regrets that, and George Bush regrets that… but it is the reality of the world we live in today. Whether we run, walk, or sneak out of Iraq through the back door is meaningless as they all lead to the same ending: the betrayal of the Iraqi people and acquiescence to the forces of unscrupulous violence and religious hatred.

Friends, I urge you to seriously contemplate the thoughts expressed by this article and then come to your own conclusions. No one wants to see their countryman suffer and die (even for good causes), and we know all too well that so many “just causes” have been used throughout history to rationalize horrific and unneeded actions. But the present situation in Iraq is not the result of some phantom Gulf of Tonkin encounter. Rather, it is the response to pure, naked, and unvarnished aggression perpetrated by Al Qaeda (and its like minded comrades, as well as its strange bedfellows) on innocent human life. We can stand up to this on its own front door, or we can retreat back inside and wait for the damn to break and the flood to consume us. The choice is ours, the responsibility is ours.

[Advocat]

Nice piece, cfukai. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I have problems with the "our duty to make the best effort possible to help the Iraqis find their way to a democratic and peaceful existence" part. I can't help but think that we need to tack <b>that we approve of</b> onto your statement. After all, what's the sense in leaving if the democratically elected government just turns around and votes itself to an Islamic state, or has a government policy antagonistic to the US? Which makes me wonder just how soon the US/Coalition can get out.

As for reason for attacking Iraq, well, that's been done to death, but had nothing to do with al Qaeda. The only thing Saddam was going to attack the world with was his inflated ego. :nut:

[ShinyTop]

But the present situation in Iraq is not the result of some phantom Gulf of Tonkin encounter.

I do not want Iraq abandoned except to their own devices. I do, however extremely object to the above quote. There is very little difference between the phantom Gulf of Tonkin encounter and the phantom WMD's.

[xwhirledx]

Great post, cfukai! :thumbsup:

The situation in Iraq is very different than the situation in Vietnam. In Vietnam, the problem also lay in the fact that top commanders were not getting the truth about what was happening in the war. I've heard stories that soldiers who were killed in "friendly fire" in Iraq would be reported as killed during a mission because no one wanted to seem like they screwed up. I mean that was when the whole "open the war to the media" came up. There was a lot of lying and deceit in Vietnam.

I think we should never have gone into war in Iraq so soon after invading Afghanistan. And I am of the opinion that the war would have been better if there were more global involvement. I think Bush made a mistake in that aspect. But now that we are there, now that Saddam has been captured and his government torn down, I don't think we can leave until order has been established. We cannot leave the Iraqis with such shoddy living conditions. They need trained police, trained forces. We and/or allied troops need to be there until all the tribal warlords are dispelled, otherwise some nut-job could start another civil war and enforce some type of violent, militaristic and dictatorship rule.

I think the U.S. has learned some things from the Persian Gulf war of 1991.

[xwhirledx]

There is very little difference between the phantom Gulf of Tonkin encounter and the phantom WMD's.
Good point, Shiny!!

[Stiofán]

There is very little difference between the phantom Gulf of Tonkin encounter and the phantom WMD's.
You're right, except that the risk of a North Vietnamese gun boat being sold to terrorists and being used in the middle of America and the risk of Iraqi WMD being sold to terrorists and being used in the middle of America is a little different. Remember, after 9/11 everything changed. We're no longer going to risk WMD being used here.

[ShinyTop]

Pssst, there were no WMD's in the hands of the Iraqi's at the start of the war and for several years before.

[Stiofán]

The French said they were.

(And John Kerry, and Bill Clinton, and Kofi Annan and Schroeder and Blair and Putin and the CIA - hell, even Kay's report says Saddam though he had them...)

[ditch]

While I agree with the morals of the stance you are taking cfukai as far as "now we are there, to leave before thihgs have settled would be wrong", but I cannot imagine that any time will be a good time to leave. To have held democratic elections, created a strong police force and built schools and hospitals.....and have the country in what could be called a stable condition, will not happen anytime soon. Years perhaps. Are you prepared for that length of stay? Because thats what you'll be looking at IMO.
The patient is still in a serious condition and will need full time care for the forseeable future. Once you leave, forget stable govt and a peacefuil populace.

[cdw]

I'm so tired of all this. I really am. By the way, it's not just US soldiers that are dying. It's not just about Iraq, it never ever was. How foolish to think we should "just leave". What exactly do you think that would accomplish and what would happen when we do? Forget it, don't answer...I might have to respond. :)

[Sierra Mike]

Like a bad case of hemorrhoids, this guy flares up in the presence of crap.

Getting ready for some Florida sun.
Jesus Steve, was the self-portait really necessary??

SM

[Sierra Mike]

The bottom line: We're there, so we have to stay. I do not see nor do I sense any telegraphed intent from my pals still in the service that there is any intention on cutting and running.

And, by the by, we've taken over an entire COUNTRY. And our losses have been statistically light. Almost, if I were a cold, calculating beltway politico, insignificant.

I've been where a lot of those boys are standing now, and even more of them are seeing parts of Iraq I never saw. We hear only tiny, little bits about the good things that are coming out of that zone, because the eternal emphasis is on the bad things that happen. Remember, a week before Kandahar fell, the Taliban had us outgunned and outmaneuvered...right?

It's gonna be a long, filthy, sweaty slog. It's not going to be fun, ever. But the job will get done...if it's in the will of the Iraqi people to seize the reins of their own fate, then things will come out much better than they began. I hardly think anyone will kiss America's ass for it, which is fine and well. That's never been the goal. But of course, a successful Iraqi intervention will rankle more than a few. You'll see less smiling, beaming faces in the international community, that's for sure. Kim Jong-Il will certainly find less to laugh at while watching his Donald Duck videos with a 12-year-old girl bouncing on his lap.

I'm looking for a mission complete. WMDs and the like are beside the point now. It's pretty clear that if they were there, they aren't going to be found anytime soon, and the spinmeisters are spinning things to the best of their ability. But no matter which side of the spectrum you're on, cutting and running right now is about as smart as a one-armed man deciding to juggle running chainsaws. We're there. We have a mission.

There's really nothing else to be said.

SM

[Neo]

We don’t owe Iraq anything. Iraq through its leader, Saddam Hussein put Iraq in the position it is in today. The only thing we owe Iraq are those things we choose to owe them. Any obligations we have are self-imposed. So far we have been more generous than any other country or Super Power in the history of the world would have been in the same situation. Both in how we waged war and how we have occupied afterward! Heck, in the past 60 years the best way to improve your country in the long run has been to lose a war with the United States.

We don’t owe Iraq democracy. We at this point owe them the right to choose how they want to govern themselves, be it democracy, communism, dictatorship, or the Ayatollah type of government.

What do you think EXACTLY would happen to Iraq if we chose to withdraw in the next six months? Be specific!

Who do you think the insurgents are attacking both directly and indirectly anyway? What exactly do you think the insurgents will do when we leave? Why do you think they are attacking us? Who do you think are backing them? How do you think the other Arab and Islamic countries or more accurately their governments feel about a very strong U.S. military presence in their backyard?

Just my two-cents worth.

[Sierra Mike]

I think it would collapse into another theocracy, courtesy of Iran. I also think the various populations would segregate the country. But that's entirely secondary...another theocracy is a genuine no-no.

Half the Arab countries in the area are more than happy Saddam is gone. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the most petrified; the former because it will find itself sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan, and the latter because it will likely foment true change there.

No, we don't owe them democracy, but without us, they'll never have the chance to find it on their own. And if it's one gift we can give, let's hand that one over. But ultimately, they will have to decide their own fate.

And if that fate is theocracy, then we will return. But not as liberators.

SM

[Colin]

I do not want Iraq abandoned except to their own devices. I do, however extremely object to the above quote. There is very little difference between the phantom Gulf of Tonkin encounter and the phantom WMD's.
I did not make a WMD argument... I placed Iraq on the battlefield of the war on terrorism.

[Colin]

Nice piece, cfukai. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I have problems with the "our duty to make the best effort possible to help the Iraqis find their way to a democratic and peaceful existence" part. I can't help but think that we need to tack <b>that we approve of</b> onto your statement. After all, what's the sense in leaving if the democratically elected government just turns around and votes itself to an Islamic state, or has a government policy antagonistic to the US? Which makes me wonder just how soon the US/Coalition can get out.
Thank you. I agree that we do have the obligation to avoid creating an Iraqi society that appears democratic and secular during work hours but behind the curtains is an unjust theocracy. In that sense I agree with the tacking on of "we approve of". Keeping that in mind, I do not believe that we have the right to place general pre-conditions of convenience or comfort on our actions in Iraq that relate to our obligations there. Doing the right thing often means suffering, and suffering greatly. We are clearly suffering but I hope we as a nation can stand together to overcome this and complete a deed that we know to be just and right.



As for reason for attacking Iraq, well, that's been done to death, but had nothing to do with al Qaeda. The only thing Saddam was going to attack the world with was his inflated ego.
I don't want steer this thread too off topic, but... I do not believe Saddam was an Islamic fundamentalist. The Baath party in Iraq was a secular/Nationalist/Socialist party, and the likelihood of him ever directly confronting America again was slim to nill. I was very worried that he would tacitly support Al Qaeda by either...

A.) Providing refuge for them to plot against the West because he and the Islamic fascists share a common enemy: the US (the strange bedfellows argument).

or

B.) The power and influence of Al Qaeda's ideology would continue to grow and Saddam's dictatorial influence (built largely on local tribal kinsmanship) would wane opening up the opportunity for Al Qaeda to take over Iraq and setup camp.

[Coot]

I did not make a WMD argument... I placed Iraq on the battlefield of the war on terrorism.
A straw man sir, at best. This is what you said:

But the present situation in Iraq is not the result of some phantom Gulf of Tonkin encounter. Rather, it is the response to pure, naked, and unvarnished aggression perpetrated by Al Qaeda (and its like minded comrades, as well as its strange bedfellows) on innocent human life.
The case the president made for taking the country to war was WMD's, and not Al Qaeda operating in Iraq. Most of us believed before the war that there was a good chance of Al Qaeda being up to its eyeballs in Iraq, but there was nothing more than anecdotal inferences. No, this war was not about a war on terrorism, it was for a lot of other reasons...the war on terrorism was simply serendipitous to this end.

I am particularly angry because I based my support for this war on this president's word that wmd's existed. There's nothing I hate worse than being played for a chump by buying into someone else's word...a suggestion of honor that had not much to back it up. I would have backed this action based on a lot of reasons, but to bring the one lowest common denominator reason that turns out to be false is repugnant.

[Colin]

A straw man sir, at best. .
Wait a minute... why are you ascribing the President's arguments for mine?? I did not say I believe the war was justified because of what GW Bush said. I presented my arugments based on what I thought the future potential for Al Qaeda infiltration into Iraq was. I am not saying you have to agree with that, but I do think trying to connect that to George Bush's WMD argument is a reeeeaaach.

[Coot]

Wait a minute... why are you ascribing the President's arguments for mine?? I did not say I believe the war was justified because of what GW Bush said. I presented my arugments based on what I thought the future potential for Al Qaeda infiltration into Iraq was. I am not saying you have to agree with that, but I do think trying to connect that to George Bush's WMD argument is a reeeeaaach.
But the present situation in Iraq is not the result of some phantom Gulf of Tonkin encounter. Rather, it is the response to pure, naked, and unvarnished aggression perpetrated by Al Qaeda...
I thought those were your words...I must have been mistaken.

[Colin]

I thought those were your words...I must have been mistaken.
Hmmm, maybe we were talking about two different things. This statment I made:


But the present situation in Iraq is not the result of some phantom Gulf of Tonkin encounter. Rather, it is the response to pure, naked, and unvarnished aggression perpetrated by Al Qaeda...

was meant to speak to how serious I take the current war in Iraq. The Vietnam war was escalated (not neccessarily started) with what we now know to be a dubious and trumped up "engagement" in the Gulf of Tonkin. Contrast that with the present Iraq war and my feelings about why it needed to be fought (Al Qaeda, etc.). I can see now why you made the WMD statements (i.e., Tonkin was trumped as was WMD), but WMD wasn't part of my argument.

I guess some wires just got a little tangled up there.

[ShinyTop]

I did not make a WMD argument... I placed Iraq on the battlefield of the war on terrorism.


Correct, you ignored it. You also said there was no comparison between Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq and I felt you were wrong and pointed it out.

[Neo]

There is very little difference between the phantom Gulf of Tonkin encounter and the phantom WMD's. Or for that matter, the phantom lie. :cool:

It is all a matter of perspective and opinion.

[Colin]

You also said there was no comparison between Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq and I felt you were wrong and pointed it out.
I never said there was NO comparison between the "Gulf of Tonkin" and the reason for the current Iraqi war. My use of that analogy was to point out the difference between a petty reason for escalating a war (Tonkin) and a significant reason for starting one (curbing the growth of Islamic fascism - the primary reason for fighting Iraq, I feel).

I am well aware that a major part of Bush's argument was WMD and there is great disagreement and controversy in regards to that. I won't go further on this because that is another thread and a horse that has probably been beaten to death. My post had two major points:

1.) We (the US) have a moral obligation to stay in Iraq.
2.) Our entry into Iraq was justified (again, I felt) for the reason of halting the spread of Islamic fascism.

I am not trying to imply, or "ignore" that mirrors to those points do not exist.