<p><a href=“http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051228/NEWS/51228003[/url]”>http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051228/NEWS/51228003</a></p>
<p>We have to stay so we can train up the Iraqi military to deal with the country’s security needs. Yeah, right. (After they are “trained”, they take their guns with 'em.)</p>
<p>Exactly. Two words: South America.</p>
<p>The US supported the fragmentation of the Soviet Union and can probably find some advantages in a breakup of Iraq. Iraq has always been an artificial construct so maybe it’s time to allow the natural forces to have their way.</p>
<p>Much as Vietnam, Korea, etc. were/are artificially created nation states created by the US/England/USSR after WWII, Iraq falls into that group and it was only through a dictator like Hussein (who was originally backed by our gov’t) that it held together, such that once our presence is ended, the country will most likely continue on with civil war/unrest/chaos and a “natural selection” process among the various competing/warring factions. </p>
<p>As such and w/o the need for much further consideration, it is certainly time for the “natural forces” to have their way and that we get our troops out of Iraq. Whether we leave today, next week or after thousands more have died, once we are gone, the natural process will then run its course unimpeded by the artifical state that was in place and presently continues by way of our occupation.</p>
<p>Ah, but what we are doing now is much more than that. We are training Sunni soldiers far out of proportion to the sway they would have in the new “quasi-Iraq” under Ayatollah Sistani. Rather than safeguarding them (by negotiating with Sistani and working to move him a little bit further out from under Iran’s shadow), we are arming them and training them for the civil war to come.</p>
<p>We would be much better off if we left today, or next week, than 12-18 months from now. As to whether the Iraqis would be better off, the question reallly is “which ones” and “when”?</p>
<p>I agree with mini’s sentiments.</p>
<p>If we leave now and Iraq breaks out in a Civil War, won’t the world blame the US (as usual)? Why don’t we (along with the new Iraqi government) go on and do something about it now before it gets out of hand.</p>
<p>When I read your title “training 'em for Civil War”, I wondered what college you were planning on sending your kids to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We don’t appear to be able to “do” much of anything in Iraq. </p>
<p>To curtail the inevitable civil war in Iraq would require a military presence many times the size of our current force levels.</p>
<p>“To curtail the inevitable civil war in Iraq would require a military presence many times the size of our current force levels.”</p>
<p>I doubt even that. Americans always think the results of what happens abroad has mostly to do with what “we” do - and we are usually wrong. In Vietnam, we killed 3.5 million, well over half of them civilians. Could have killed double that number, and in the long run it wouldn’t have mattered. In Iran, an unarmed populace overthrew the fifth largest military power in the history of the world, backed by the largest military power in the history of the world, without firing a shot. In Afghanistan, with $80 billion spent, and all of our so-called “intelligence”, we can’t find a one-eyed mullah, or a 6’5" mullah with failing kidneys. </p>
<p>I do imagine we could curtail the “inevitable civil war” by killing the children, as Clinton tried to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. That is a rather remarkable failing, especially considering that we have offered a $25 million bounty.</p>
<p>Maybe we should replace the CIA with a Madison Avenue ad firm to tout the life of luxury a potential winner in the $25 million sweepstakes could enjoy.</p>
<p>Or just let the Mob handle it.</p>