Pullout from Iraq. I changed my mind, have you? (w/poll)

Okay, I'm convinced.

I'm not sure when exactly it happened, but I think it's important to try to articulate why.  I've protested the Iraqi Offensive since before it began, I've (like a good Kossack should) been following the news rabidly, taking in each new horror, and doing my best to not be crippled by the grief of it all.  I've felt powerless, and I've hated (yes, seethingly hated) the criminals who brought the world this illegal, immoral fiasco of a war.  But up until now, I've been waffling on what I think the best course of action is to get out of it.  Sure, I listened to the arguments for immediate pullout, but it just seemed too horrible that we could contemplate bringing one of the oldest, greatest civilizations on the planet so much death and dishonor, and just walk away without trying to fix what we broke.  Well, like I said, I don't know when I changed my mind, but it is now abundantly clear to me that the consequences will be much worse if we don't.

The rant hits fulll stride after the flip.  And ends with a poll.

 The main argument against immediate pullout - and one I halfheartedly subscribed to was the we can't cut-and-run thing.  I'm trying to explain why I'm now sure that we will do way more damage by staying (no matter how good our intentions) than by leaving.

The more I read and the more I see, it becomes abundantly clear that the major reason for the insurgency is that we are an OCCUPYING WESTERN POWER. (Now might be a good time to point students of history towards the British involvement in Iraq once upon a time, or the Western involvement in the whole region to figure out why our actions are so truly offensive.)  And there ain't no way to fix that without leaving.  In theory, I guess we could blunt the effect of our occupation, maybe long enough to do some good over there, if we would take the following steps:

1. conduct ourselves with humility in the face of a proud, soverign people.
   
2. give up on our selfish, vulgar hope of permanent military bases in Iraq (which some -Larry Diamond, also, a person from the Office of Special Plans that posted at the IVAW site- say is the reason we went there in the first place)
   
3. present a timeline (flexible, but real) for our less-than-immediate withdrawal

Are you FUCKING kidding me???  (And to think I thought I'd make it through without cursing.)  Raise your hand if you have one iota of hope that any of those three things are going to happen in the next 3 years.  Anyone with their hand in the air?  If so, you should be ashamed to call yourself a member of the reality-based community.

And guess what, folks?  3 years is pretty much all the steam we've got left.  Forget getting sensible govt in 2008 and holding out until then to fix Iraq.  Even putting aside all the needless deaths that are sure to happen between now and then, carrying out Rumsfeld's insane vision for a decade-or-more long occupation will break our budget and break our military.  We don't have the resources.  We either fix this under Bush, or it doesn't get fixed....

Let's see, since the beginnig (and I'm sure I'm leaving stuff out so feel free to comment), we've had the stunning "success" of:

• more than 2,000 dead Americans
  
• many tens of thousands of dead Iraqi, most civilians, many children...
  
• untold hundreds of PEOPLE imprisoned secretly and tortured without being even charged with a crime
  
• our absolute refusal to indicate that we ever intend to leave
  
• hundreds of TONS of explosives going missing
  
• the complete levelling of Iraqi cities
  
• still no water or power to much of the country (link is from May but based on the buzz in reconstructionville, it hasn't changed much)
  
• gavanizing radical Islamic sociopaths the world over
  
• NO IDEA WHAT OUR END GOALS ARE --- how can you stay a course you can't even see
  
• weakened our defenses at home
  
• made Iraq a veritiable font of terrorist energy (where there once was none)
  
• created unbelievable ill-will towards our country
  
• created the next three generations of terrorists (As I once told a winger friend, the way to stop terrorism is not by shooting children in the streets where terrorists are trying to recruit)
  
• completely and totally forgotten about catching bin Laden, and tying up our military to where that long overdue headline is not even a reasonable priority.

Yeah.  Way to go us.

 Mission Accomplished. (I can say that, because the mission was never defined, so really it can be whateeeeeeeeeeeeeever we say.)

It is time to come home.  Let the wounds we've inflicted heal without rubbing more salt (and poison) in them.  Don't get confused - just becauese we SHOULD fix this mess, doesn't mean we CAN, not with our current "leadership" and resources.  And our bungling around, doing our pitiful best, is only making it worse, much worse.

Congressional Dems - where are you???  If it's as I suspect, your constituents are getting restless.  This war makes no sense.  Never had, and, I am forced to conclude, never will.  Anybody besides Feingold got the sense to say it out loud?

I like to finish what I start as much as the next person.  In fact, probably more.  But think for a minute about what exactly we started.

This is a poll that I haven't seen done in a little while and I suspect the numbers may have changed.

•  Your poll lacks the choice....

  ...many of us would like to make:
  Why the fuck are we in Iraq anyway?

  My second choice is: withdrawal immediately after Saddam was captured.

  My third choice would be: withdraw now.

  by jack rance on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:12:19 AM PDT

  •  I guess I could've had a choice for

    "Withdraw after Iraq has power and schools and water and no terrorist attacks" too, but I think that's probably included the fantasyland of staying the course. :-)

    by demandcaring on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:17:13 AM PDT

    •  And unicorns!

      We'll stay until the unicorns come back to Iraq.  You're either with us, or you're against the unicorns.

      by Webster on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:22:18 AM PDT

•  I can barely bring myself to comment...

  ... in these diaries anymore.

  It's just too fucking sad.  And maddening.

  I'm glad you've finally seen the light.

  That's all I have to say.

  by Bob Johnson on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:16:08 AM PDT

  •  I quote you often Bob

    When my friends talk about preventing a civil war - I say "the result will be the same if we pull out in ten minutes, ten days, ten months or ten years."

    Peace

    by aimeeinkc on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:18:01 AM PDT

    •  That is a much better frame

      than the one that's tenuously keeping the sheeple behind Bush on this one - the finish-what-you-start, don't-cut-and-run, stay-the course one.  Guilt and fear.

      But this comment says the truth of it all.

      by demandcaring on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:28:33 AM PDT

    •  The result may be the same, but the events

      leading up to it could be quite different.  The chances of an all-out civil war with mass slaughter could be a result of our troops leaving (since they now provide a buffer and a diversion).  There also quite likely could be a power vacuum that would lead to a situation a la Iran circa 1978.  Will the situation be different in five years? I have no idea.  Do we have a moral obligation to Iraq? Yeah.  Is staying partially fulfilling that moral obligation? I'm not sure.  

      Look, I totally opposed the war, primarily because it was totally fucking obvious that it would result in the current situation.  But I don't know if a rapid draw down of troops is going to benefit either the Iraqis or us. It would be nice to have leadership with a clue.  

      by msanthrope on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:38:23 AM PDT

      •  Do the Iraqis get a say

        An overwhelming, near consensus, majority of them (82%) want us out.  How can we claim to be acting in their interests while refusing to allow them to make their own choices about the best course of action?

        I would submit that Iraqis know a whole hell of a lot more about how to fix the mess we created than the fools who engineered and are administering this occupation.  Who's judgment is superior?

        by GN1927 on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:42:21 AM PDT

        •  What if their say is entering into a massive

          civil war that would end up in massive bloodshed?  An Iraqi is not really an Iraqi - they are a Sunni, Shiite, or Kurd who wants power and resources for their ethnic group.  

          by msanthrope on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:59:01 AM PDT

          •  They want us out, period, end of story

            They are on the ground, living their hell every day. Don't you think they are more aware of the possibilities, good and bad, than you and I are?

            Yet, they still overwhelmingly want us gone.

            So what the fuck are we still doing there?

            by bewert on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:01:30 AM PDT

            •  Precisely

              It's a bad idea to substitute the judgment of Iraqis with the judgment of the demonstrable fools running this war.  To say otherwise is to elevate the opinions of politicians and pundits who have, nearly across the board, been wrong time and time again above the much more informed opinions of Iraqis.

              Who has more credibility with respect to salvaging Iraq?  Iraqis themselves or David Brooks and Tweety?  No-brainer.

              by GN1927 on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:08:43 AM PDT

•  Pull out NOW !

  Our presence in Iraq is causing the death of so many innocent civilians.

  Pull out now.

  by Maine Atticus on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:18:44 AM PDT

•  I think this diary says the horrible thing

  that no one on Capitol Hill wants to say:  We can't win with Bush in charge and we can't stay until he's gone.  It's that simple.  
  The Armed Forces are breaking down, our own economy is is getting hurt, our soldiers and Iraqi civilians are getting killed daily and we still don't have a plan.  We need to set a timetable to get out and then start withdrawing today.
  My only other hope is that we turn the war over to the UN and send them our money and troops and let them set a plan and an agenda.  But the chances of that happening seem smaller than the chances of Bush calling for Rove's public execution.

  by Webster on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:20:37 AM PDT

  •  UN Peacekeepers are in no way

    equipped to handle a debacle as big as Iraq.  NATO or a coalition (especially made up of Middle East nations) are closer to what is needed, but I can't see any of our allies rushing to that option.

    by msanthrope on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:25:47 AM PDT

  •  i said this in response to kerry's

    plan last year too: the calvary ain't comin'. no one is gonna take iraq off our hands. no one.

    "after the Rapture, we get all their shit"

    It's time: the albany project.

    by lipris on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:28:40 AM PDT

    •  I think that had Kerry won

      we might have gotten international support.  But we would have had to establish a timeline and set some goals there besides finding more ways to give taxpayer money to Halliburton.

      by Webster on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:35:03 AM PDT

  •  There is no such thing as victory

    in Iraq. It doesn't matter who is in charge. Whether its Bush, or Kerry, or McCain or anyone else. No one can win. Three years I've been screaming it to anyone that would listen. Muslim fundamentalists don't hate us because of our freedoms. They hate us because we're there. Now its not only the fundamentalists, its the fiercely independent Iraqis who wanted Saddam out too. As grateful as they may be for his removal, they don't want us there. They want to decide their own future, without our intervention. It was predictable. It was the only predictable outcome. It remains the only predictable outcome.

    by Kane in CA on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:32:12 AM PDT

    •  I don't think it was the only predictable outcome

      But we made bad decision after bad decision.  Had our choices not been choices but the only available options, this is the only possible outcome.  I agree that this outcome was predictable, though, but only because I believed from the start that our leadership was incompetant and corrupt.

      by Webster on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:40:23 AM PDT

      •  If we provided immeadiate security after

        the government fell, it may have been different.  The administration's incompetance was obvious before the war and is part of the predictability (I thought "welcomed with candy and roses" was disinformation, I'm not so sure anymore).  

        by msanthrope on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:46:28 AM PDT

        •  It seemed from where I was

          that we had a window of about 3 months to really start rebuilding and get Iraq on the right track.  I think we had popular support at home and abroad and though I knew we'd lied our way in and didn't support going to Iraq, during those first few months, I really thought we might do it.

          I guess I had faith that somewhere in the the government, the smart, good folks would be allowed to do good work.

          by Webster on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:57:18 AM PDT

          •  There's a huge difference

            between rebuilding Iraq and shaping their new government. Even if there had been WMD and even if there had been direct links between the former Iraqi government and 9/11, Iraqis would not have been content, almost 3 years later, to allow the US to both militarily occupy and design their new government. Thats the part that was unquestionably predictable. Our responsibility to lend financial support to rebuild Iraq is a given, without regards to whether the invasion was justified.

            The 3 month window you refer to (which I believe may have even been longer than that) would only have been meaningful if our short term goal was to turn the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis, and our long term goal was to help physically rebuild the country. I don't think there ever was a window where the Iraqis could have been convinced (militarily or by other means) that our continued influence and control over their body politic, over an extended period of time was acceptable.  

            by Kane in CA on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:41:46 AM PDT

            •  I agree with you on all of this.

              The window was the window to do this right, which to my mind would have been the exact course of action you've outlined.

              by Webster on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 12:44:39 PM PDT

    •  Can't agree with your thought on the

      Islamic fundies.  We weren't there before the first WTC bombing, Embassy Bombings, Kobahr Towers, or the USS Cole (let alone 9/11).
      Unless you count our support of Isreal as being there, I can't see the logic.
      

      by jarhead on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 12:58:12 PM PDT

      •  Israel was a tiny piece of the puzzle

        There were our bases in Kuwait.

        Our bases and other influence in Saudi.

        Israel is a convenient scapegoat, but prior to Oslo agreements, widespread Muslim support for the Palestinians was minute. Their plight is (or at least was) of little importance to the rest of the Arab world. The other Arab countries didn't give a shit about the Palestinians.

        OBL and his followers hate the fact that we have ANY presence in the middle east.

        by Kane in CA on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 01:11:33 PM PDT

•  there simply are no good options

  left on the table and this has been the case for quite sometime. it's a shit sandwich for everyone but the iranians no matter what we do. that being the case, i say get the fuck out now. will things get worse in the short term? most likely. but, at least we don't have to be in the middle of it anymore.

  write the iraqis a big, fat check, send them some flowers and chocolates, apologize profusely and get the hell out.

  "after the Rapture, we get all their shit"

  It's time: the albany project.

  by lipris on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:23:10 AM PDT

•  To paraphrase George Carlin.

  "Pull OUT?!! Doesn't sound Manly to me Bill.  I say leave it in there, let's get the job done!  When you're fucking people, you gotta fuck them good, fuck them all the way, fuck em to DEATH!!!!  There's still a few women and children alive in Iraq, and we won't feel good about ourselves until they're ALL DEAD!!!"

  I vote, Why the fuck are we over there anyway?

  by detroitmechworks on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:23:13 AM PDT

•  Better late than never

  but i cubmit you're late.  Yes, we should not have inv aded, it's gotten worse, and all the other choices are bad.  Leaving now is as good as it will get.

  Nicely put above about "...can't wait until Bush is gone".

  by tom 47 on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:30:52 AM PDT

•  pulling out of Iraq

  I was completely against the war before it happened.  The reasons were wrong, and if getting SH out was considered so important then we should have built an international coalition to deal with it, not have gone into it almost alone.  

  At this point, we should put together a coalition to help us pull out.  We cannot unilaterally pull out.  We need to acknowledge that we need international support.  (Though a staunch Democrat I am also a serious critic of the UN based on my work evaluating and studying their activities over the past few years. They are staffed by elites from developing countries who disempower poor people in their countries.  The staff could not care two hoots about helping the poor or fighting underddevelopment.  They seem to be dominated by corrupt, disingenuous staffers.  But more on this another time.)  

  Once we have a coalition in place we can take steps to pull out. Yes, out presence there is doing more harm than good.  But our sudden absence will only mean that we will have to fight wars in the future in the region with Syria or Iran or whosoever because they have filled the vacuum our withdrawal would create.  So a sudden pullout will only postpone military engagement in the region.  Since I cannot see the Bush regime doing any serious multilateral engagement, such a plan will have to wait for a Democratic Prez.  

  by V in Vermont on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:35:29 AM PDT

  •  two points.

    no one is going to come help us in iraq. capische? nobody. there will be no coalition. period.

    wait for a democratic pres? we don't have that long. we don't even have half that long. anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

    "after the Rapture, we get all their shit"

    It's time: the albany project.

    by lipris on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:46:50 AM PDT

  •  A coalition?!

    Why would the rest of the world step into an obvious quagmire? Why would a coalition be more effective than what's there now? It would still be an occupying force, just a different one.

    The US had to bully and threaten to put together the coalition of the so-called willing back when this whole thing started - I can't imagine anyone wanting to step in now. There is very, very deep resentment of the US all over the world. The government of any democratic country would be committing political suicide to go into Iraq now.

    Sorry folks, you're stuck with this one - you can't just say - OK, we're going home now, you take over.
    

    by fern on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:53:29 AM PDT

•  The most persuasive

  reason for us to pull out, to me, is the fact that 82% of Iraqis want us to get out.  To not do so is to continue to deny Iraqis the right of self-determination and ability to make their own choices about the best means of fixing the mess we've created.  The fact that Iraqis want us out, in my opinion, eviscerates any arguments to the contrary.

  by GN1927 on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:36:42 AM PDT

•  We should look into a 3 state solution.

  Has anyone thought that maybe the post-colonial British map that made Iraq in 1932 was used to divide and conquer the people and maybe the best way to move forward is the 'Yugoslavian Solution' and giving everyone their traditional homelands back with their former soveriegn borders?

  We can either bring this up now, or watch them have  a civil war within the next 5 years. It's really up to y'all.

  by pinche tejano on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 10:54:23 AM PDT

  •  That's probably the best solution.

    The only problem is that the Sunnis, who had the most power, would be left with few natural resource inside their ethnic boundaries.  But that is probably the least serious probablem of all the problems that are facing Iraq today.  Also, if our current administration had any part in of brokering the solution, we would probably be sunk.

    by msanthrope on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:07:48 AM PDT

  •  It's not a bad idea

    but there are two problems that I can think of, the first being that the southern and northern portions of Iraq hold most of the oil, which leaves the Sunnis without any oil, and makes for angry Sunnis.  The other problem is that it would probably create huge unrest among the Turkish Kurds who are sitting on most of Turkey's oil.

    So I guess that's really only one problem, with two manifestations, but you get the point.

    by Webster on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:13:36 AM PDT

    •  True, problems.

      1. Turkey gets no love from me until they apologize to Armenia. And since they are doing anything possible to get into the EU, I don't see a Kurd crackdown in the Lake Tal area anytime soon. Remember tho, the real nut of this problem is the traditional Kurdistan Iran is sitting on. God damn English never could draw a decent map. Just ask Pakistan and India.

      2. The Sunnis, well, the Iraq Sunnis have made their bed. They are quickly running out of friends, and remember the Sunni Baaths in Syria are not allies at all, contrary to what ever the talking heads on tv say. They were given the chance to run the country, and look what they did with its resources. The kharma wheel turns slowly, but it does turn. And other stans have the Kurd's back, who actually have always held their own against the federal power in Baghdad. The Shias on the south get a lot of love from Iran and even the Saudis. If the Sunnis did try to invade the oil fields 1) I have no idea where they would get the hardware 2) the war chest money 3) would the stray on the camels back for these guys, because Muslim on Muslim killing is becoming very unfashionable in the region. I know you will site suicide bombers, but the civilians lost in that are considered reasonable as long as the great Satan crusaders take a hit too.

      Set up three states, get the UN involved to secure to the borders, and quitely withdrawal from the region and lick our wounds like any other foolish Western civilization that dared to attack Babylon.

      by pinche tejano on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:29:20 AM PDT

      •  Well argued

        Here's a 4 and my respect.

        by Webster on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 12:41:05 PM PDT

•  Sunnis would fight this tooth and nail

  The oil is in the Kurds are of the north and the Shia area to the south. The Sunni's have held power over both for a long time and don't like giving it up. I watched Salam Pax in his video Baghdad Blogger, and over and over again people stated, "Look, we are Iraqi before we are Shia or Sunni. We just want our country back. To many people have been killed by the Americans'."

  That's right, by us. We don't hear about it over here, but our Rules of Engagement are so loose that our soldiers basically kill anyone they even perceive as being a threat. See my post on this earlier. This is the biggest reason we lost Iraqi support so quickly: we were killing them wholesale. Even our allies were getting pissed off at this.

  But you didn't hear about this in our media.

  by bewert on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:14:26 AM PDT

  •  Your linked post

    is incredible.  I advise others to go read it and get a better idea of just why the occupation is so odious to Iraqis.  

    I think what is happening is that our airwaves are flooded with the opinions of "experts" who are telling (or only know) half the story and are advancing all sorts of moral arguments in support of a continued occupation.  We need to back off of the idea that these experts are better positioned to opine about the Iraqi reconstruction than the Iraqis themselves are.

    by GN1927 on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:36:32 AM PDT

    •  It's pissed me off many times

      I almost got in an argument with a nice Mormon kid in Salt Lake over his defending his buddies wasting any car that came too close to their roadblocks. Didn't matter who they were. Mo kid says "They can't take any chances." I'm like what the fuck-we are killing families. They don't know English, can't read the signs or understand what are soldiers are screaming at them and so we just kill them!  WTF?!?

      Getting worked up up as bit just thinking about it :)

      Anyway, the more we can get this side of the story out the more the truth will come out.

      Thanks for your kind comment.

      by bewert on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:45:00 AM PDT

•  We'll be leaving

  When Sistani says, "Get the fuck out!" And it won't be pretty either. Chosen Resevoir anybody?

  by jakethomson on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:20:42 AM PDT