<p>Just want to throw this question out there and see what the rank and file, NOT OUR LEADERS, think. Can we do without them as an ally? Can we do without them as an oil producer? If worse came to worse and we elect a new leader who wants us out can we live with the consequences? and what would be the consequences for US?</p>
<p>Okay, so we went in because of the illusive ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ Or, we went in to spread democracy and eliminate a cruel dictator who had the potential to cause us, or the pres. or his father, great harm .Or some may think we went in to establish an ally in the oil producing region or we went in to establish a foothold with their new leaders.</p>
<p>So if we leave sometime, throw in the towel, what would be THE consequences for us ( or the world )and WOULD IT MATTER for us?</p>
<p>Just wondering what people think concerning this question. Thank you.</p>
<p>The importance of Iraq is dependent on the general climate in the rest of the middle east. I’d say it’s pretty much up in the air, at the moment.
Will we have any friends in the middle east when all this is played out? We don’t know yet.</p>
<p>We will pull out of Iraq, as we did from Vietnam, with nothing whatsoever to show for it but a bombed out country and thousands of dead people. This little adventure in nation building was a major failure, only Bush is too stupid or stubborn to admit it. However, everyone knows, and we will leave Iraq eventually; it’s just a matter of when. </p>
<p>The long term consequences? I think the US has managed to destabilize the whole region, and Israel just jumped in the act to help. It was dangerous enough with the jihadists before, but our intervention has only multipled their resolve ten fold.</p>
<p>I’m older, pretty conservative in many ways…liberal in others (and liberal isn’t a dirty word), and pragmatic. I’m patriotic, have worked in the defense industy, and have tremendous respect for those who serve. However, going into Iraq was IMHO the biggest blunder this country could have made. That defining action was the surest way to guarantee an increasing flow of recruits into anti-American groups for years to come. I’m not sure I can see how we can set an example for the rest of the world (if that’s what we intend to do) by engaging in the same violent behaviors. Goodness and leadership IMHO are absolute standards…nothing justifies violating them.</p>
<p>If we stay, we’ll be considered occupiers/bullies; if we leave, we’ll be known as a country that abandons the weak. We must be quick to reason, slow to act. Sadly now, our country seems to follow the slogan: Fire, Ready, Aim.</p>
<p>Honestly, I thought that it was a dumb move three and a half years ago when we went to Iraq, and I still think it was a dumb move today. We went in looking for weapons of mass destruction (which were never found) and created a new unstable climate instead of just getting rid of the old one. We also invaded the country WITHOUT the blessings of much of the world, and we probably created much tension with other foreign leaders due to this. </p>
<p>However, I don’t think we should leave now. I’d like to see us leave, but we shouldn’t. If we do, we’ll leave a country in its turmoil, which we ourselves created. We need to take responsibility for our actions. We invaded Iraq. We now need to make sure the country is stable before we leave.</p>
<p>What evidence makes you think that this is in U.S. control (even if we wanted it to be)? Or is it just wish fulfillment? Is the situation in Iraq better today than it was 8 months ago when Murtha said we should leave, or several months after the Iraqi leadership asked the U.S. to set a timetable for departure?</p>
<p>You’re right. It really isn’t in our control anymore. We will be influenced by other problems and countries as to what our future actions will be concerning Iraq. However, I do have a feeling that our government will still have a huge say in what happens.</p>
<p>As long as a war machine is up and running, and people are swayed by fear, there is less emphasis on domestic problems. This is true in many countries, from Iran to the US.</p>
<p>Can we get out of Iraq? We can. But it will ALWAYS be worse than how it was before we got there.<br>
The problem with trying to spread our ideologies in the Middle East is a lack of tolerance and education. Why is it that the Western world (not just the US) is more peaceful and succesful? It’s because we are educated, tolerant, cherish the human being, and are open to ideas that differ than our own. You won’t find this in the Middle East.<br>
If we were to leave Iraq (at anytime, now or later), you will find that democracy won’t last. It would take radical reforms of mass proportions to even begin to think that the Middle East could sustain democracy. The moment an outside, superior force leaves the region, everthing falls apart.<br>
It’s no longer a war of Suddam loyalists v. the US. It’s a war of radical militants led by a campaing based on hate, religion, and lack of judgement.<br>
If we leave Iraq, oil production halts. As it is now, we can barely protect our soldiers let alone the oil pipelines. The first thing militants would do is try and seize control of the dominant cash inflow. Our country is STILL not ready to even start reducing oil dependancy. Add a drastic halt (anyone remember Katrina)?
If we leave Iraq, Israel is on their own. Like I said before, democracy will not last if left to fend for itself. Warlords (or Imams or clerics, w/e you prefer) wil try and seize control of the country. With no more US troops there to take out their anger on, Israel is the next target. Though many view this state as zionist (not even sure that’s even an adjective) and a mistake from the part, I disagree. Argue all you want, Jews inhabited the land 2000 years ago, they have a right at it now. As it stands, they tend to be the only peaceful country there besides Jordan, Saudi, and Egypt (ignore the fact that SURROUNDING states are attacking them, not vice versa).
And probably worst of all, if we leave Iraq we open the door to more homeland attacks. I will go on record and claim that I was not for the war when it started; I still am not. But if there is one shred of goodness coming from this horrible conflict it’s that every terrorist is concentrated in the Middle East, on their own turf. We are safe for now (somewhat, the idea that the gov. wants to spy on me isn’t rollin’ too well).
Possible solutions: in all honesty I don’t have one, which I should have before posting. I don’t know enough about Vietnam to draw any similarties. What I do know is this: this conflict folded out to be like a children’s mistake (that cost over 2000 lives). We did something wrong and now we pay for it and learn from it. We are going to be there a LONG time, and imo, the only possible way to turn this thing back around is with a lot more money going into winning the peopel (education and the likes), and dropping our pride and sitting down with these people and bargaining. Yes, it’s a long shot.</p>
<p>“The first thing militants would do is try and seize control of the dominant cash inflow.”</p>
<p>They already have - one third of it, under the existing government, which is party to the seizure. </p>
<p>“Why is it that the Western world (not just the US) is more peaceful and succesful? It’s because we are educated, tolerant, cherish the human being, and are open to ideas that differ than our own. You won’t find this in the Middle East.”</p>
<p>You are obviously very young. I remember a time in the Middle East when the people - not the government, but the people - Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, Pakistan - Muslim all - were pro-American. There were picture of John Kennedy hung in living rooms. Above all, there was hope.</p>
<p>And then something went very wrong. In U.S. foreign policy, and in the policies of the client states. Had it not, radical fundamentalist Islam would never have gained a toehold. </p>
<p>Perhaps a better title to this forum might be "Can we get by WITH Iraq?</p>
<p>Western democracy never had a prayer in the middle east. I honestly don’t know what the neocons were smoking when they cooked up the PNAC plan, with their ideology of controlling the entire region.</p>
<p>I think western democracy had very much more than a prayer through much of the Middle East - 40 years ago, before the U.S. blew it virtually everywhere. </p>
<p>I would note that the largest (by population) democracy in the world, and the one with the largest divisions in its body politic (and maybe the largest number of viable political parties) is India. And I would note that of all the large countries in the Middle East and south Asia, it remained the most isolated from, and least aligned with, the United States.</p>
<p>No, no, no. Even though Cheney and all the senators and congressmen who voted with them felt the American people weren’t mature enough to handle the truth, our military invaded Iraq as a response to 9/11. Iraq is our hyper-aggressive military strategy to take the fight to the (unreasonable) enemies’ backyard, frustrate them and engage them militarily in order to expend their resources and keep them out of our backyard-- with minimum damage to US interests, global markets and western human capital.</p>
<p>I agree with mini when he says the enemy turned unapproachable and unreasonable as a result of naive US policy, but I have to say, as a military strategy post 9/11, Iraq is successful. The enemy is completely engaged and frustrated, financially and otherwise; an unwilling partner in the destruction of a patch of their most sacred ground, Babylon. </p>
<p>So no, we cannot live without the Iraq war until the US military enacts another strategy to accomplish the same goals. Had the enemy had the same interest in Afghanistan, we would not have moved on to Iraq, by the way. </p>
<p>Oil is a short term cash cow. Oil nations such as the UAE are already planning for the demise of oil as our primary fuel. I believe we will see the advent of bio fuel in the next ten years. The moment for innovation has arrived.</p>
<p>I agree that democracy might have been possible, before Western adventures in imperialism. However, the middle eastern cultures are,a nd always have been, driven by tribalism, which most scholars believe is incompatible with democracy anyway.</p>
<p>It is not a democracy and an open society where a man can talk about politics without anyone threatening him. Democracy is when a woman can talk about her lover without being killed.</p>