I heard some commentaries over the weekend that even some hard core defenders of the war are now starting to think that the best way to get out of Iraq is just to leave. Forget about building democracy since they may never be ready for it anyway, and the longer we stay in Iraq the worst things get for everyone but mostly us. Let’s assume for a moment that we forget about all the reasons why we went to Iraq and now concentrate on gettig the job done. How do we get out of there and who is the better person to get us out - Kerry or Bush? I say this because so many persons seem to think that if Kerry gets elected we’re going to run with our tail between our legs when in fact just plain leaving might be the best exit strategy. I don’t particularly think the Bush administration has a clear objective or exit strategy.
it’s an amazingly hard thing to do, which makes me incredibly glad i’m not bush. i don’t really know - i can’t see any good way to escape the mess. i tend to lean towards kerry handling it better - but maybe bush does have a genius plan in the back, hidden from us all? it is a big gamble to switch leaders right in the middle of it - although, if the stated june 30 date to hand over authority does indeed work out, maybe it wont be in the middle of things.
if bush manages to get us out and leave democracy in iraq, i will think very, very highly of him. but i don’t think he will. i think kerry will try to take us out asap, but i don’t think he’ll sacrifice iraq to do so. or, at least, i hope not.
so to reiterate, i have no idea. it’s hard.
good ideas?
darrell
tritnow,
Its convenient to think we have never been here before. We were in Germany for a number of years after World War II. 7 or 8 if my memory serves me correctly. And we were in Japan for even longer after the World War II. I think it was 11 or 13 years. The presence grew smaller and smaller as time went on. Why does everyone think this is going to be different in Iraq? It will be necessary if we are going to ensure that this experiment in democracy will work.
If we are going to cut and run, then all the lives lost really will be in vain.
I don’t particularly think the American public can comprehend any project that takes longer than a two hour reality program on TV.
The coalition just destroyed the political system and structure of an entire country. There is now a political power vacuum that has been created. Just leaving, cutting and running, will only permit the biggest bully remaining to rise to power and impose himself upon the people of Iraq, just as Saddam did.
If, we are going to give Iraq back to the people of Iraq, then we have to be willing to help ensure that the bullies cannot rise to power and destroy democracy in its infancy before it has a chance to become established.
If you can remember your American history, you will recall that it took a number of years after 1776 and the Declaration of Independence to create our own democracy.
It is truly appalling to discover that the majority of Americans are either too ignorant to know their own history or too stupid to have learned it while in school.
We all should be truly ashamed of this reality.
What is your excuse?
Ben, first of all, Germany and Japan surrendered and there weren’t insurgents fighting against us after we became an occupying force. This is not the case in Iraq. Second, it took a combination of unique circumstances and many dozens/hundreds of years and many changes to the Bill of Rights to bring our democracy to where it is today. How long were you thinking we should be in Iraq. Besides was bringing democracy to them our stated objective because I remember some other message. I was also sort of under the impression from the administration that this was going be a slam dunk. Maybe it was another BS story from them and that’s my excuse. But putting all these issues aside what is our exit strategy from that hole anyway?
Germany and Japan were largely homogeneous populations. Iraq is composed of 3 differing groups that I don’t see getting along for any length of time. The Kurds want to be independent. The Sunnis were kicked off the top of the heap and have the most to lose. And the Shiites who think since they are the majority that they will make up the rules and will be the sister country of Iran, the country that really harbors terrorists.
I’m glad Saddam is out, but I just don’t see how the region can remain one country and a democracy as we know it. How is the money oil going to be divided? If the majority rules then the Shiites will hoard most of the oil money and will most likely cutoff the Sunnis. I don’t see the Kurds accepting the rule of law of the Shiites. And I don’t see the Shiites accepting anything less than full control.
I haven’t heard a single peep about how these problems will be resolved.
kerry could “handle” it better, in my opinion, mostly because he isn’t as invested in iraq to begin with as bush. in other words, voting in the senate aside, he didn’t make the decision to go to war, didn’t establish any goals for the invasion(although i am not sure that bush did either), etc. thus, i think he has more options in terms of exit strategies. for bush, i think it would be very damaging politically for him to cut and run. he is pretty much stuck with establishing a viable gov’t. and because he burned some bridges with other countries, it has to be pretty much a unilateral affair. so again, i think kerry would have more options in dealing with the situation and from that perspective could handle it better.
Hey Wants2rideFast,
nicely written!
I’m not saying that the people that hang around on this board are the average peole. I mean how many people ride bikes in the age of the car? How do you think the average American would respond to the following question. Of course it’s multiple choice since that is what everybody is used to over here.
Ok, here it goes…What should we do with the situation in Iraq?
a) nobody forced us to go over there. we went so we have to stay until the problem is solved. We stand by our word!
b) get the hell out of there!
c) C is always the answer
d) what, there is not an over the counter pill for that problem??
Ben, first of all, Germany and Japan surrendered and there weren’t insurgents fighting against us after we became an occupying force.
Yes there were. Unfortunately I am not that familiar with the Japan situation, but there was serious resistence to the US troops in Germany after 1945 (Europa by Max von Trier is a fairly chilling movie about the topic). The difference is maybe that they had less support, and at least less “silent support”, and most Germans could still remember what democracy was and how to go about supporting and achieving it.
Whatever happens in Iraq is a moot point. As soon as our troops leave, the Kurds (who are largely independent anyway) will probably try and form their own country – much to the chagrin of the Turks and US, no doubt. The shiites in the south will fall under the control (whether directly or indirectly) of Iran, who they share more of a common belief system with. As for the Sunni triangle, it will probably end up under the control of a much-weakened Baath party. God, I hope I’m wrong, but none of these groups are crazy about each other, and they’re only in the same country anyway because of some British imperial map-drawing from the 1920’s.
As for Bush vs. Kerry, I think Bush has effectively ruined our relationships with several key allies vis-a-vis Iraq. I think Kerry could get more international support for whatever it is he wants to do, and that could be a huge factor in getting out. For example, France has a long history of involvement in Iraq (some good, some bad). Excluding them from the process does not help matters.
In my opinion, which really means nothing to anyone but me, Bush was such a cowboy going into Iraq and not getting the UNs blessing or help (add France, Germany, and Russia to that group) that no other country will help Bush. If (I SAID IF!!!) Kerry gets in I think other countrys and maybe the UN will assist the US in the Iraq area. Or maybe I am full of $h!t.
gerard,
My compliments to you and your knowledge of history! Perhaps this is confirmation of my contention that most Americans know very little about history, unless they saw it on the History Channel. I mean, you are a Canadian. A compliment to your education and not intended to be derogatory towards Canadians.
Keep building great bikes! Thanks!
Peter826,
You are absolutely correct. Bush did screw up our relationships with several “key” allies vis-a-vis Iraq.
When the coalition started the invasion of Iraq, that really screwed up the oil for food program and all the kick backs and “royalties” these “allies” and the UN were skimming off the top. Kind of ruined everyone else’s sweet deals. No wonder they are mad at the coalition. They had every right to economically rape the Iraqi people just as Saddam was doing. We shouldn’t forget this!
“not getting the UNs blessing or help (add France, Germany, and Russia to that group)”
How do you convince these countries that are getting billions a year in kickbacks from the “oil for food” program (quotes are intentional) to attack the country that is giving them the money? The UN is just a bunch of posturing blowhards that really don’t accomplish much in the aspect of world security and human rights. One just has to look at Africa to see that the UN really doesn’t do much unless it is in their best interests.
In my opinion, which really means nothing to anyone but me, Bush was such a cowboy going into Iraq and not getting the UNs blessing or help (add France, Germany, and Russia to that group) that no other country will help Bush. If (I SAID IF!!!) Kerry gets in I think other countrys and maybe the UN will assist the US in the Iraq area. Or maybe I am full of $h!t.
elund,
Does this mean you were in on the conference call with Kerry when the “representatives” of other governments (who must remain unnamed) indicated they desired for Kerry to win the Presidential election over Bush?
Just how much ass kissing do you think Kerry will have to do to win the approval of all these “allies” who turned their backs on us when it came time to put up or shut up?
Do you think Kerry will nominate any of these “allies” to be members of his cabinet so we won’t make any “mistakes” as Bush did by not permitting foreign governments to decide how we should defend our nation?
After Kerry meets with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, do you think he will be able to appease them to the point of guaranteeing our safety from future attacks as long as he is President (in power)?
Good point about the study of history and political science. Anyone who conducts even a cursory study of Muslim, Arab, and the other myriad ethnic, religious and cultural entities in the middle east will understand the complexity involved in translating “democracy” to that part of the world. Although the previous regime was decidedly NOT religious based. . .the current front-runners defining the new government are of Islamic background. In Islamic controlled countries you cannot separate religion and government in the same fashion as this country prides itself in doing. Islam does not fully embrace the same democratic ideals that we do. Right there exists an inherent conflict in “creating” democracy in that region of the world.
I am reminded of the statement of one of my college professors in opening remarks of a course on Vietnam. . .after the first day’s one hour overview lecture he stated that we now knew more about the country of Vietnam than the folks who made the decision to go into that country knew when they chose to involve the U.S. in that conflict.
"Do you think Kerry will nominate any of these “allies” to be members of his cabinet so we won’t make any “mistakes” as Bush did by not permitting foreign governments to decide how we should defend our nation? "
Defend our nation from what?
We are:
-
still in Germany and Japan almost sixty years after World War II ended,
-
still on the border between North and South Korea more than fifty years after that war ended, and
-
still in the former Yugoslavia more than five years after that war ended.
The world is a better place because of these three things.
We have two choices in Iraq: stay until the job is finished or surrender to the barbarians that sawed Nick Berg’s head off.
I agree we have to stay.
Thanks, but probably not warranted. I am Dutch so with the Netherlands having been occupied by Germany for five years it’s logical I know more about WWII than about the Civil War. I presume it is the opposite in the US. And you know, even though it is “just the history channel”, if we could just get people to watch that we would be much better off.
It’s good to see we can converse in peace, even with a US invasion looming over our Dutch heads (A bill was passed to free US citizens indicted by the International Court of Justice by all means possible, and with the Court being in the Hague, that could be interesting). I am in the Netherlands right now and I just read an article about what were to happen if one of the bad apples from Abu Graib were captured and sent here, what the US would do, and what NATO would do. An attack against a Nato member is an attack against all, so the Netherlands would call upon Nato if attacked. Nato’s first allegiance is probably to the US, but the secretary-general is Dutch, so you can see how this is an interesting if inconsequential debate.
I agree, given a scenario in which Bush and Kerry both had the exact same exit strategy, our allies and the rest of the world would support and believe Kerry because Bush has lost all credibility. I mean, he can’t communicate clearly if we’re in Iraq to find WMD, to liberate them from Saddam, to bring democracy, to ensure the free flow of oil, etc. GWB has changed his story so many times that no Arab would even believe it if WMD were found - they’d think they were planted. Everyone has moved on from these reasons and are now trying to understand what we’re still doing there. If democracy is now the objective flavor of the week then because let’s face it - there is no way that Iraq will become a democratic nation. Ever.