<p>Democrat sponsored bills to end the war were again defeated this morning. I guess the Republicans truly believe that Americans support an open ended occupation of Iraq. I wonder if they are right about that. Time will tell I guess.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/21/iraq.senate/[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/21/iraq.senate/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ask each of the Democratic candidates about whether, if elected, they plan to dismantle the permanent U.S. military bases being built to the east of Baghdad near the Iranian border, and, if so, how quickly?</p>
<p>The silence is deafening.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what gets me. I’m all for the war and I understand there are those who are not, but when people try to make this out to be a repub/dem thing it’s crazy. If you think hilary or any major dem candidates are going to do anything different you are very, very wrong…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would like to think that you are right, but the history of Vietnam would say otherwise. Once the pandering to the anti-peacekeeping crowd reaches a crescendo, it is hard for the Dems to pull back. If this occurs, the results will likely be similar. The question will be will the carnage be in the hundreds of thousands or the millions. Certainly the long term strategic impact on the US will likely be worse than it was in Vietnam.</p>
<p>No the real question is - do we pull out now and save the lives of thousands of American soldiers and allow the inevitable bloodbath to occur. Or do we sacrifice them and pull out in a few years and allow the inevitable blood bath to happen? We pulled the stopper out of the genie bottle the only way to put it back in is to allow the centuries of hate to run their course. A shame that Dubya didn’t understand a little of the history of the region before he went oil hunting!</p>
<p>“…allow the centuries of hate to run their course.”</p>
<p>At what cost to the region, the US and the rest of the world?</p>
<p>“Certainly the long term strategic impact on the US will likely be worse than it was in Vietnam.”</p>
<p>The vacuum that was left in the region by our Vietnam withdrawal didn’t do much for the people of Cambodia either. The Pol Pot regime killed in excess of 1 million people for such horrendous crimes as wearing glasses and other signs of being educated.</p>
<p>I think it is a big mistake to assume that the “carnage” in Iraq will be worse after we pull out. That is a possibility. However, Iraq has already been consumed by a full-scale civil war for several years now. The carnage has already been astronomical. The ethnic cleansing appears to be nearly complete, certainly in Baghdad. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, Iraqis will continue killing each other until they are exhausted from killing each other and decide that more can be achieved by no longer killing each other. That process has little or nothing to do with the United States, except that we perhaps exert some influence over whether the proscribed amount of killing takes place quickly or over a longer period of time.</p>
<p>Another way of looking at Iraq is that our continued occupation is simply enabling the Iraqis to avoid dealing with the political issues they face – in whatever way the Iraqi people have to ultimately deal with those political issues. IMO, any Westerner who claims to have a crystal ball with definitive answers about how the Iraqi people will deal with their political issues is a fool.</p>
<p>I have reached the point where I frankly don’t care what the Iraqis do. I think we have a humanitarian obligation to provide refugee relief. But, beyond that – and given our inability to impact Iraqi politics – I think we should stop investing US dollars and lives in a situation that is beyond our ability to comprehend, let alone solve. All we are doing right now is arming the Sunnis so they have a better shot of beating back the Shi’a majority in a political battle for Iraq. It’s a fool’s errand for the US to be trying to “pick winners” in Iraq.</p>
<p>Time to declare “Mission Accomplished” and bring our troops home to a hero’s welcome.</p>
<p>Which is why we shouldn’t have gone in there in the first place. Unfortunately it is to late to stop what we all know is going to happen. Just how many Americans are you prepared to lose in the vain hope that they will all get together and start singing Kumbuya!</p>
<p>“(A)ny Westerner who claims to have a crystal ball with definitive answers about how the Iraqi people will deal with their political issues is a fool.”</p>
<p>BINGO!</p>
<p>We have never been particulary successful at figuring out what our European allies (?) will do, let alone the power structure(s) in Iraq.</p>
<p>BTW, the latest news from Iraq is that the growing cholera outbreak has now reached Baghdad. The US military has been stopping all chlorine shipments from Syria and Jordan, which has caused the water treatment system to break down. The resulting lack of sanitary drinking water which began north of Baghdad is now spreading south into the city. </p>
<p>I’m sure that the administration salesman, General Petraeus, meant to include public health information in his report to Congress. He probably just forgot…just like he forgot to mention that the British have now been pushed out of Basra and are holed up on bases watching three Shia factions battle amongst themselves for political control.</p>
<p>Time will tell if this fool is right or not, I just hope we don’t run out of flags to drape on coffins in the meantime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, we (or should I say, the administration in power at the time), along with the PRC supported the Khmer Rhouge and it was the Communist Vietnamese who defeated the Pol Pot regime (and installed a Cambodian govt. friendly to Vietnam).</p>
<p>Once again, the brilliance in foreign policy thinking by our leaders.</p>
<p>Sorry, but I don’t think that is correct.</p>
<p>The U.S. backed the government of General Lon Nol after the overthrow of Sihanouk. The Khmer Rouge, aided by Sihanouk and the North Vietnamese, who did not want a pro-U.S. Cambodian government, battled Lon Nol’s government for control of Cambodia, eventually taking control.</p>
<p>“The vacuum that was left in the region by our Vietnam withdrawal didn’t do much for the people of Cambodia either. The Pol Pot regime killed in excess of 1 million people for such horrendous crimes as wearing glasses and other signs of being educated.”</p>
<p>Yup. Thank heavens for the Vietnamese who stepped in and overthrew Pol Pot (no thanks to the United States.)</p>
<p>“The US military has been stopping all chlorine shipments from Syria and Jordan, which has caused the water treatment system to break down.”</p>
<p>Yup. That’s because, as I reported (with information received from the head of the Middle East Children’s Alliance), the medical equipment, supplies, and water purification equipment is being hijacked by our new allies (the Sunni Sheiks) and sold to the highest bidder, in their so-called fight against Al-Qaeda (who the U.S. is also arming through Saudi Arabia). </p>
<p>The U.S. won’t leave at least until Petraeus finishes overseeing the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad.</p>
<p>“The Pol Pot regime killed in excess of 1 million people”</p>
<p>Amazing isn’t it? About the same number as Bill Clinton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ding! ding! ding! ID gets the spin of the day award. </p>
<p>The result of the Brits pulling back (voluntarily, not pushed) to bases is a foretaste of what will happen in the rest of Iraq if the Dem plan is implemented. So, we have the opportunity to evaluate both strategies (surge and anti-surge) simultaneously with the surge resulting in less violence and the anti-surge resulting in more violence. I wish Petreaus had mentioned it - it certainly would have bolstered his position.</p>
<p>ID, you really should go to work for the Clinton camp, you are a natural at the spin machine.</p>
<p>Haha…if you actually think a Dem president will pull all troops out of Iraq in 9 months you are nuts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry - but it is correct.</p>
<p>First off, it was the US bombing campaign in Cambodia that spurred many Cambodians to join the Khmer Rouge, which until then, had little support.</p>
<p>Second, the US indirectly backed the Khmer Rouge by backing the coalition of the 3 insurgent groups which were fighting the Vietnamese forces which had invaded Cambodia in 1979 (in this case, it was a proxy war where the PRC and the US supported the coalition which fought against the Soviet-backed Vietnamese). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970749-1,00.html[/url]”>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970749-1,00.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, the Brits didnt exactly leave voluntarily.</p>
<p>While the Brits were in Basra, they increasingly came under attack and the people were subjugated to the harsh religious dictates supported by the various militias (even when the Brits were in Basra, it was too dangerous for Western journalists to venture anywhere w/o heavily armed-escort). If you didnt notice, the Maliki govt. is a coalition of 3 militia-backed groups (well, it was until Sadr supposedly withdrew his support).</p>
<p>The success of the surge is pretty much limited to the Sunni triangle since Al Qaeda in Iraq overstepped their bounds (w/ the indiscriminate killings of Sunnis who didnt fall into footstep and the imposition of harsh wahhabi code of conduct).</p>
<p>Frankly, most Sunnis just got tired of the foreign extremists and when the US no longer insisted that national Iraqi (Shia-dominated) army and police take control of the Sunni areas (and instead, local Sunni militias could become the police/security forces) they, for the most part, stopped attacking our boys (the Sunnis much rather kill Iranians, Shia Iraqis, than US soldiers anyway).</p>
<p>If we had continued to insist that the national govt. and army and police take control of the Sunni areas the Sunnis would still be attacking us en masse.</p>
<p>So now, we are arming BOTH the Sunnis and the Shias.</p>
<p>The sad note is that the US Ambassador to Iraq has stated that one hope for the US is for Iran to overplay its hand (much like Al Qaeda in Iraq had done) annoy the heck out of the Shia Iraqis and make them realize that they are Arabs and not Persians.</p>
<p>FF, are you sure that ID doesn’t currently work for the Clinton campaign?</p>
<p>Actually, fundingfather, southern Iraq provides a glimpse of what will happen everywhere in Iraq when the US pulls out…unless, of course, we follow the Republican strategy of occupying Iraq in perpetuity.</p>
<p>To be honest, it is not clear the level of violence in the south. The US and western media has no transparency in that area of Iraq. The reports of violence that do filter out are mostly reports of provinical governors being assassinated, much like the reports of Sunni sheiks being assassinated in Anbar provinces where the US military has things “under control”.</p>
<p>Or we could ask the Bush Administration and their chief spinmeister Petraeus. He would probably say that the assassinations in the south are positive signs of “political reconciliation”.</p>