Out of Iraq: Where's the policy analysis?

I'm a liberal democrat, opposed to this war from the very beginning.  But I don't support pulling our troops out of Iraq, yet, perhaps not a popular position on this website.  I'm disgusted at the political football that withdrawal has become.

The left and the right argue back and forth with the president: "bring home the troops", "get the job done", "set timetables for withdrawal", etc., but where is the analysis of the actual consequences of any of these actions?   Where are the panels of experts discussing how this decision will affect Iraq, the Middle East, the long-term security of the US?

More below the fold.

What happens if we pull out of the country now, or in six months, or in a year?    Will the insurgency tear the country apart, turning it into bloody civil war hellhole and dooming the US to a century of terrorist retribution?  Or will it evaporate for lack of an enemy, leaving a stable, diverse democracy behind?  Or would the result be somewhere in between?

Does it matter how long we wait?  Sunni leaders are now issuing edicts that their followers participate in the political process.   That's a good sign, does it mean things will be more stable if we wait for the next elections?   Or does every minute we stay fuel the insurgency and create so many terrorists that no political change is worth our continued presence?

What will be the attitude across the Middle East if we remove our presence?   Relief that white crusading boots aren't trampling the soil anymore?   Anger that we invaded but left before we even had the power back on and the schools rebuilt?

There must be experts who understand the cultural landscape of Iraq and the mindset of the insurgency (at least better than I do) who can make educated guesses about these questions.  Where are they?  Why aren't we deferring to their wisdom - or at least consulting them - in our shrill calls for pulling out?

What about the moral issues?  Is it immoral to invade but not rebuild?  Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of tha war.   If we pull out, will we be culpable for an unchecked insurgency killing half a million?  Or is it immoral to stick around when we aren't wanted?  Is the ethical question even strong enough to trump the loss of our own troops' lives?

Most of all ... in the shrill debate over the war, why do I feel like few people on either side actually care about these questions?

•  Wars of Aggression are wrong

  and starting one is no basis for continuing one.

  The Iraqis will doubtless make their own internal arrangements, as people do all around the world.  After all, they have been governing themselves, on and off, for more than five thousand years.

  by phillies on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:23:39 AM PDT

  •  aoeu

    What if leaving did let Iraq slide into civil war, and the resulting inflammation of the middle east increased terrorist attacks on the U.S. tenfold for the next half-century?   And suppose it were possible to prevent that by staying for another four years?   Wouldn't that be sufficient reason to stay?

    I'm not saying that I know this to be the case - I certainly don't.   I'm frustrated that nobody seems to be making the attempt to find out.

    by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:42:51 AM PDT

    •  This is something that is impossible to predict.

      What we do know is that our continued presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency & helping these terrorist organizations to recruit.  (I believe a recent CIA report made these findings.)

      by GTPinNJ on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:44:41 AM PDT

    •  double standard, what's the case for staying?

      What if staying produces even worse results?

      You are not approaching the question with an open mind.

      You keep demanding levels of argumentation and proof from one side and assuming the pro-occupation side's talking points are valid.

      Sun-tzu says long wars are losing wars.

      The insurgents always beat the occupiers.

      This is pretty specific stuff. What have you got to say in favor of continuing the occuption?

      by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:54:34 AM PDT

    •  And how is that different?

      We are killing Iraqi civilian at the rate of about 50,000/year. To pretend we are doing good and everything is table.

      ten years and half million people later,

      CAN YOU GUARANTEE that our effort there will result in stable government? From the last two year, all BUsh bullshit has resulted in 2 unstable government and ever increasing bloodsheed.

           WAKE UP TO REALITY.

      We have NO IDEA what we are doing there. We are just shooting bullets and pushing people around thinking THAT will result in peacefull and stable Iraq.

      by fugue on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:58:34 AM PDT

•  Good Luck

  You're absolutely right-- but good luck trying to get your point across here and now.  I can understand the emotion that says "bring 'em home now!", but I have yet to see any logical analysis that supports it.  

  by WAmod on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:26:10 AM PDT

  •  double standard

    And the logical analysis for staying has been presented?

    by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:28:08 AM PDT

    •  aoeu

      And the logical analysis for staying has been presented?

      If staying does less harm to the Iraqis and/or leaves us safer in the long term, then we should stay.  Period.

      What I'm frustrated about is that there seems to be zero effort to determine whether or not that's the case.  

      by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:39:45 AM PDT

      •  what level of proof do you want?

        It's not a mathematical problem. It can't be proved like a physics experiment.

        I can quote you plenty of Sun-tzu that would seem to indicate we're hosed in Iraq.

        Make a list of foreign powers tangling with insurgencies since WWII. How many times do the occupiers win?

        by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:46:52 AM PDT

        •  aoeu

          It's not a mathematical problem. It can't be proved like a physics experiment.

          Indeed.  Does this mean we shouldn't even study the problem?

          by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:02:20 AM PDT

          •  What's to study?

            Sure, let's study how we got into this mess.

            What are all the reasons Bush wanted to invade?

            by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:04:30 AM PDT

            •  aoeu

              What are all the reasons Bush wanted to invade?

              That's a straw man argument.   Bush's reasons were bullshit and are still unknown, I suspect you and I agree on them, and I opposed entry into the war regardless.  I am asking a different question.

              The question of how best to get out, and when, and what are the consequences of different strategies, is and should be based on the situation on the ground today.

              I agree that we must get out of Iraq.   I do not know how and when to do it best so as to achieve the best results.  I am astonished that nobody else cares to find out.

              by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:14:38 AM PDT

              •  U.S. mea culpa

                The way out is connected to the way in.

                Not to be cryptic, but if the United States wants to salvage some goodwill--essential for de-escalating the violence in Iraq--the U.S. gov't has to do the mea culpa thing.

                It's disconnected from reality to think that there's some solution that involves moving troops like chess pieces. There is no future that exists independent of the past.

                by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:20:59 AM PDT

                •  aoeu

                  I agree that a mea culpa is needed.

                  I disagree with the implication that future military decisions will have zero effect.  

                  by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 02:20:34 PM PDT

    •  I think Juan Cole did a fairly good job

      of explaining why we cannot leave a power vacuum in Iraq right now.  It's not a concrete deductive argument, but it seems like a very plausible inductive one.  And I haven't seen any convincing opposing argument for why Iraq would be OK without us or even why we shouldn't care if it falls apart.  

      I'm all for replacing our troops with those of the UN or better yet Iraqi troops-- but it's not clear that either of those are viable options right now.

      by WAmod on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:41:08 AM PDT

      •  I like Juan Cole too

        Funny you should quote Juan Cole since he quoted me.

        The bad consequences Cole feared are still possible if the U.S. military continues to occupy Iraq.

        by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:43:56 AM PDT

        •  Sure they are

          but I think it's pretty clear that they're much more likely if we leave.

          Like it or not, Iraq will not be able to succeed as a stable democracy without our aid.  Even with our aid, there's still a chance they won't make it.  But I think the consequences of failure are dire enough that we should not give up prematurely.

          This is the mess that Bush has gotten us into, and the fact that we would be stuck there indefinetly was one of my biggest reasons for opposing the war.  Colin Powell was right-- we've broken it, and now we've got to buy it (or at least put it back together before we leave).  I really believe running away hurts us and Iraq right now, and as open as I am to ending this war I haven't seen any convincing logical arguments that claim otherwise.

          by WAmod on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:59:38 AM PDT

          •  does Israel need for us to stay?

            If an independent Iraq struck a more belligerant policy toward Israel how big a problem is this?

            by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:07:28 AM PDT

            •  asdf

              I'm not sure how Israel is relevant here, but if we left tomorrow I would be amazed were there an actual government in place to take a hardline stance against Israel.  I think it's much more likely we'd see a post-Soviet (pre-Taliban) Afghanistan-- chaos, crime, terrorism, anarchy, drug trade.

              I think any independent democratic Arab state will have a strained relationship with Israel, and I doubt a future Iraq will be any different.  But I think Israel has little to fear now from state aggression-- the US would not allow it.  They have much more to fear from terrorism, which will flourish from the chaotic and violent shell of Iraq if we pull out now.

              by WAmod on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 12:25:25 PM PDT

        •  By the way

          I think your linked analysis is well reasoned, even if I disagree with your solutions.

          by WAmod on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:02:40 AM PDT

          •  What do you favor?

            ?

            by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:05:35 AM PDT

            •  my .02

              Instead of real measurable goals for withdrawal, I think we need real measurable goals for stabilizing the country-- and specifically a shift in focus from oil infrastructure to more domestic infrastructure.  (Region x needs to have an operational electric grid/sewage/water treatment by time y, etc.) Setting real and specific goals will let us measure progress, keep some sort of accountablity on groups like Halliburton, and should go along way towards winning hearts and minds.  And sabotaging an oil pipeline makes you a hero in many Iraqi communities right now-- I'm not sure how popular continued destruction of people's electricity would be.

              I think the bribes you suggested would be effective, but I also think carrots alone will not suffice.  Especially if the insurgency is watching us dismantle the stick before their eyes.  We need to maintain a strong military presence in Iraq, not only for offensive measures against non-complying insurgent groups, but also to provide adequate security for the upscaled construction efforts.  We might need to increase the number of troops in order to do this, and I'm not entirely sure where they would come from.  Increased enlistment incentives, combined with a sharing of oil contracts to real allies who assist the rebuilding effort would probably be a good start.

              Caveat:  I'm no expert, just an amateur foreign policy nerd-- and alot of these ideas have been assimilated from various analyses I've read over the past few months.

              by WAmod on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:45:20 AM PDT

  •  Prove it

    It's very easy really. Brings evidence to back up these:

    1. during the past 2 years ground situation in Iraq is more stable.

    2. we have sucessfully implement stable Iraq goverment after 2 cycle of government body.

    3. Prove we are effective int he past two years creating peace and stable government, or instead we are increasing bloodsheed and instablity. (ie. we ARE the cause of instability in that place)

    4. Proof that Bush adminsitration is competent and will not create long term instability in the entire region by continuing presense in Iraq. (eg. Syria/Iran/Jordan/Lebanon)

    by fugue on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:02:50 AM PDT

•  public discourse dumbed down

  I wrote my recommendation, but you make it sound like the GOP is looking for a good faith discussion of policy options.

  Did you see Bush's Ft. Bragg speech? Was there any substance to respond to?

  It seems a tad clueless to berate the Bush critics over not being serious, when the Bush team, with the cooperation of the media, is reducing everything to Bush=good, terrorists=bad.

  by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:27:36 AM PDT

  •  aoeu

    No, you misunderstand me.   I don't expect any substance or analysis from the GOP: I've long since given up on them caring about results OR about ethics.

    But I have higher standards for liberals: we should care about policy, and about doing the right thing.   And in many policy issues, I see that we do.
    

    by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:37:59 AM PDT

    •  damned if you do, damned if you don't

      Guess what?

      It's a lose-lose situation.

      Getting out quickly has bad consequences.
      Staying until we're weery has similar bad consequences.

      What's the point of saying this?

      BTW, were you opposed to invading from the beginning?

      by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:41:31 AM PDT

      •  aoeu

        Getting out quickly has bad consequences.

        How do you know?

        Staying until we're weery has similar bad consequences..

        How do you know?

        And which one is worse?

        You seem to assume I'm arguing for staying.  While my gut is saying that for the moment, I'm not married to that position.

        What I want to know is why nobody seems to be interested in answering the questions before making a decision.   Why are we, as a country, so dedicated to making uninformed decisions?

        by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:01:42 AM PDT

        •  did you notice the argument I've made already?

          1. Sun-tzu--there's a reason we still read a Chinese text that's over a thousand years old--says we've lost b/c we didn't win quickly. There are subpoints about how we fucked up, but the essential fact is that we did fuck up.
             
          2. The insurgents always win. The closest thing for victory for an occupier against indigenous insurgents was the British Army fighting Malay Communists. The Communists didn't win, but Britain granted Malaysia independence. Every other time the insurgents won outright.

          So, have you got anything of substance to back-up the case for staying?

          by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:13:49 AM PDT

          •  aoeu

            1.  I agree that we've fucked up.  Have I said otherwise?

            2.  The insurgents always win.   I do not doubt do they do.

            So is it better to pull out completely immediately, or is it possible manage the problem until the consequences for Iraq will be less?   If so, how long will that take?

            Note that I am not arguing for the latter position.  I am asking why we do not, as a culture, seem to care enough to research to find out whether or not it is possible.

             So, have you got anything of substance to back-up the case for staying?

            Did you even read my original diary?  I am not arguing for staying.  I am sure as hell not arguing for staying in perpetuity, because my gut feeling is that's about the worst thing we could do.

            I am asking why the consequences of one strategy vs. another are not considered or analyzed.   Has there been any rational discussion as to the difference in consequences between pulling out today, or six months from now, or a year from now?

            You haven't even clearly articulated which position it is that you favor.  I'm guessing immediate and complete withdrawal, but again that's a guess.

            Economic textbooks argue that sometimes it makes more sense to run a business that is losing money for a while, if closing it before the lease is up loses you more money.   Is it possible that there can be a similar situation WRT to the Iraq insurgency and the long-term consequences for both countries?  I am not saying that it is: I do not consider myself expert enough to know.  I am asking why you don't care to investigate the question.    Maybe you do and you have, but you haven't shared your analysis with us.  
            

            by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:28:26 AM PDT

            •  it depends

              If Bush is willing to admit mistakes and take responsbility there is hope for a soft-landing from a slower withdrawal.

              Absent the U.S. gov't being willing to admit mistakes, we don't have much flexibility to alter the current trajectory.

              by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:33:43 AM PDT

              •  aoeu

                Suppose democrats did the leg work - with real research and real experts - and came out with a real unified plan along the lines of "If we did X and spent Y money on Z, we could begin to pull out troops while reducing the risk of a civil war in Iraq.".  Then used that well-researched and clearly articulated policy to beat Bush over the head.  The result might be good in both the political and policy senses.

                If we just shrill for withdrawal, without offering any more analysis or plan than Bush has, then if it does descend into civil war, Bush's entire political response will be "See?!" and we will be fucked, plus half a million Iraqis will be dead.  Even though he's the one that got us into it, the electorate will blame us.

                When the GOP has bad policy ... good policy is also good politics for the left.

                by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:54:18 AM PDT

                •  specific plan

                  How do you think Rove will respond to a detailed Dem plan?

                  He'll find every fault and possibility for things to go wrong.

                  And then he'll hold it up against the Bush plan claiming Iraq will become Sweden if we stay the course.

                  by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 12:00:43 PM PDT

  •  Damn

    When you put it that way (your recommendation from the link), it shows how truly fucked we really are over there.  And if that's the best we can hope for, we're screwed because our leaders will never go for it.

    As to the dumbing of public discourse, I agree that Bush offers no substance.  Obviously, it's near impossible to disagree with that.  However, the response should not be to fight back with no substance.

    Bush avoids details and analysis since they will almost assuredly disagree with his ideology.  So if the opposition fights back with rhetoric and empty demands, then Bush has won.  The two sides can be equated (nothing versus nothing), so the side that's in power will probably remain in power.

    The solution is to force substance to enter the debate.  As to how to do that, I'm still unsure.  The media is obviously unwilling to assist in that area.  The Democratic leadership is far too hesitant.  A couple Democratic Congressmen seem to be starting to light some small fires, but they need an immense amount of help to start making an impact.  Maybe if everyone keeps at it, the damn will break.

    Whether that works or not, I have to agree with IdahoEv, continuing down the path empty of research & analysis will do no good.

    by JoeOhioan on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:40:02 AM PDT

    •  wanna play 3-card monty?

      Look if the game is rigged, the Dems would be suckers to play.

      Until Bush tells the truth, we can't have much discourse about anythign. Why the hell are we in Iraq? Without answering this question it's hard to construct a strategy to achieve objectives.

      And if the media won't do even a minimal job of forcing the Bush administration to tell the truth there's not much point in trying to engage in a dialogue.

      So, the first order of business is to inflict pain on the media so they do their job.

      by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:51:01 AM PDT

  •  Policy Options

    While the GOP is not looking for a good faith discussion of policy options, the American people need have information that will give them a sense of the real options instead of the phony options.  And they need some more detailed view than the policy title "Stay the course", "Where's your exit strategy?", "Set a timetable", "Get out now".

    People need to recognize that authentically staying the course means a quick jump to 3 million troops on the ground (V-E Day ratio in Germany).  They need to know all of the pros and cons of a timetable.  They need to know the security and logistical issues in a quick withdrawal.

    And they need to know the risks in the region and the world of each option.  None are riskless.

    Most of all, they need to know what will be required of them, their children, and their grandchildren.  For all of the options.  Because all of them have costs, and we deceive ourselves if we think that immediate withdrawal has no costs.

    by TarheelDem on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:52:26 AM PDT

•  I don't see how

  our continued presence in Iraq is improving the situation.  A gradual withdrawal is likely to weaken the insurgency by denying it new recruits.  If we turn over reconstruction projects to Iraqi firms, we are more likely to see positive results there (& probably reduce the losses from corruption, although maybe not) while lessening the likelihood of insurgent attacks on those projects.

  by GTPinNJ on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:40:10 AM PDT

  •  aoeu

    If we turn over reconstruction projects to Iraqi firms,

    I agree: this is something that's been obvious to me from the first.  We should give at least half the contracts to Iraqi firms, and most of the rest to companies from other nations in the region, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan.   This will accomplish two things:

    1. Make it clear we're not trying to pad our own pockets and dominate the country.  Give the terrorists fewer things to point to as the "evils of America".

    2. Give the Iraqis and the entire region an investment in making the place stable.    If Saudi firms are making megabucks in Iraq, I have to think that S.A. will put some effort into preventing their people from fueling the insurgency.

    I can dream.
    

    by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:56:42 AM PDT

•  My Humble Attempt to Raise the Issues

  I wrote a diary trying to identify the details that are involved in the options.

  Why Democrats Must Lead on Iraq

  I am not satisfied with it on rereading, but it does  try to get beyond the 40,000 foot view--stay the course, set a timetable, get out now.

  by TarheelDem on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:41:42 AM PDT

•  Delayed invitability

  ~~ What happens if we pull out of the country now, or in six months, or in a year?    Will the insurgency tear the country apart, turning it into bloody civil war hellhole and dooming the US to a century of terrorist retribution?  Or will it evaporate for lack of an enemy, leaving a stable, diverse democracy behind?  Or would the result be somewhere in between? ~~

  are you saying when we pull out 12 years from now, Iraq won't fall into chaos?

  1. There is no legitimacy in our occupation/invaions, hence all government we support there will collapse no matter what. Our policy there does NOT qoincide with what Iraqi people want.

  2. The longer we stay there, the more damage we create to social fabric, government institutions, etc. (eg. engineers, civilian government workers will get killed, skill degrade, facilities turn to disrepair)

  3. Are you going to pay with your children life and does your credit card limit goes to $80Billion dollar a year? if so, go ahead, be my guess.

  4. The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

  5.  good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. ~Albert Camus

  We are killing ever more Iraqi civilian while we are doing our 'little experiment' on 'trying to do good' and shove what we think Iraqi should have. We have no clue what we are doing there. We only pretend we know what we are doing there to cover whatever shred of delusion we have.

  by fugue on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:54:59 AM PDT

  •  aoeu

    are you saying when we pull out 12 years from now, Iraq won't fall into chaos?

    Not at all.  I'm saying it's weird that nobody even seems to care whether or not that's the case before making the decision.

    Did anyone actually read my article, or did they just see the second sentence that I'm not completely in favor of pulling out yet, and freak out?

    I'm not arguing for staying.  I'm arguing for doing the damned analysis to find out whether or not to stay, and for how long, so as to achieve the best results.   Why is that so controversial?
     

    by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:05:43 AM PDT

    •  All analysis

      All analysis has been made.

      Bush is incompetent and will makes thing worst the longer we stay there.

      hence

      GET OUT NOW.

      It's either. (we do our killing while experimenting in Iraq, then get out ten years later and leave Iraq to chaos)

      or get out now, and Iraq turns into chaos. (but at least we don't pretend doing good while killing Iraqis)

      All statistical data indicates we are making things worst not otherwise.

      by fugue on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:10:29 AM PDT

    •  define "analysis"

      When you ask for "analysis" what do you want to see?

      I'm getting the impression you want to see conclusions that make you feel comfortable, not "analyis".

      by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:16:13 AM PDT

      •  aoeu

        When you ask for "analysis" what do you want to see?

        Fair enough.   Answer this question:

        What happens in Iraq if we pull out now?

        Assume we pull every troop, simultaneously, one month from today.  

        1) What will be the result in Iraq?

        About half the rhetoric I've read in the last year assumes that Iraq would fall immediately into civil war, as the insurgency represents largely Sunni aggression towards a Shia/US alliance.   The other half of the rhetoric assumes that the insurgency wold evaporate because it is entirely inspired by the presence of US troops.

        Obviously, both of these statements cannot be completely accurate.   Which is it?  

        2)  How will Middle East attitudes toward the US be affected?  

        Will public opinion in the ME be less favorable towards the US because "we left Iraq war-torn", or more favorable because there aren't crusader boots on the holy soil?

        It seems possible to make rational arguments on both sides of either question, or for middle ground positions on both.  But, I am not an expert in Middle East culture and sociology, which is why I am asking that we consult people who are.

        You'll notice, if you read carefully, that these precise questions were in my original diary.   You've been making statements that make it clear you have some assumptions about the answers.  But you haven't actually clearly articulated those assumptions, or backed any of them up with research.

        by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:41:32 AM PDT

        •  Continuation.

          Assume your answer to question #1 in the last post was "Iraq falls into civil war", which is a popular answer.

          If that's the case, suppose we were to try instead to stay an extra year to train and bolster Iraq's on civil defense forces.  Would the result be:

          A) The extra year would result in sufficient increased growth of the insurgency as to make any attempted increase of Iraqi civil defense counterproductive.  Either because the insurgency itself grew too big, or

          B) During the extra year the insurgency was worn down enough and/or Iraqi civil defense was increased enough as to significantly reduce the possibility of an all-out civil war upon US troop pull-out.

          Again, I have no idea what the answer is, but if the answers are different they have real impacts on the lives of a great many people and should be taken into account when making a policy decision.

          We obviously cannot know perfectly, but it would behoove us to find out based on the best information we can get, be it a mix of sociology, ME cultural experts, intelligence, whatever.

          My astonishment is at how uninterested people are in even attempting to answer these questions before making a decision.  

          by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:48:51 AM PDT

        •  You're not playing in good faith

          These are scenarios, not a definition of analysis.

          IdahoEv, you're being an asshole with this line, But you haven't actually clearly articulated those assumptions, or backed any of them up with research.

          I referred to Sun-tzu and history of insurgencies since WWII.

          You're the one setting up strawman scenarios.

          BTW, what's your take on Israel/Palestine?

          by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:58:08 AM PDT

          •  aoeu

            I referred to Sun-tzu and history of insurgencies since WWII.

            By which you made the argument that we can't beat the insurgency, a statement with which I agree.  

            By asking you to articulate your assumptions, I mean, for example: do you believe that the Iraq will collapse into civil war if we leave, or do you believe that the insurgency will collapse for lack of an enemy if we leave?   About half of kossacks seem to believe one of those scenarios while half believe the other.  

            Examples of both can be found in the post WWII world, and namedropping Sun Tzu still doesn't tell me which of those scenarios you think is likely and why.   Yes, I agree we've lost the war, but that's the only point you've yet tried to make.

            I don't understand why discussion of that question - what will happen if/when we leave, and how the manner of our departure will affect the result - is so anathema to you or to other liberal activists.

            Call me names if you like, but the fact is you still haven't once described what you think will happen in the aftermath of our departure, or whether the timing and manner of our departure can affect the aftermath.  So I'll stand by my statement.

            BTW, what's your take on Israel/Palestine?

            It's a shitty situation that would require an entire other thread to even begin to approach.

            by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 02:36:20 PM PDT

          •  aoeu

            These are scenarios, not a definition of analysis.

            They are alternative scenarios and exploring which of them reflects reality is the analysis I am asking for.  

            by IdahoEv on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 02:37:55 PM PDT

•   Referendum

  Create a special referendum on the issue, present the country with 3-4 options all backed by policy and costs to the country etc.   Let the people pick.

  Am I crazy, yes this would never happen but it might just work.  Have Senate draft the options, military etc discuss the costs.  And then everyone has a chance to vote on it:)

  by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:09:23 AM PDT

•  Why no psy-ops?

  Why is a call for an early withdrawal any different from the psy-op games the military played at the beginning of the war to see what the insurgents would do or how they would react?  It worked then, why not now?

  With no identifiable enemy, and a general call to "stay the course" without any real plan or measurable goals set, it seems to me that Bushco has no intention of trying to win this war.

  by muttonchop75 on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:33:40 AM PDT

•  The moral question

  The moral question is how can we (Americans) decide for Iraqis what good for them.  What makes us think (Democrats and Rebublicans alike) that we are holding some higher ground or carrying some torch of freedom and democracy.  Arabs all over the world see throgh this hypocracy (although many American truely belive in such things) and it is the main barrier facing us in Iraq.

  by mdco on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 11:58:06 AM PDT