Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (26557)	8/27/2003 3:38:05 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Editorial: Iraq: Get out now? Or get in deeper? _________________________ Neither course is desirable, but doing nothing is unacceptable. By The Des Moines Register Editorial Board 08/24/2003 desmoinesregister.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's gut-check time for the United States in Iraq. Should we bring the troops home now before the loss of life and of treasure gets any worse? Or should we send reinforcements? Neither course is desirable, yet the status quo is unacceptable. The continued killing of American troops, the sabotage, the escalating bombings, the heightening tension between American soldiers and Iraqi people cannot be allowed to continue. President Bush insists no additional troops are needed, implying that things will quiet down with just a little more time. The president's bravado has every indication of an administration in denial about the gravity of the predicament in Iraq. But, then, this administration has been wrong at almost every turn about Iraq. There is no reason to believe it is right about this. The president was wrong about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States. He was wrong to assert there was some sort of link between Iraq and the attack of 9/11. He was wrong to think that deposing Saddam Hussein in Iraq would somehow lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Virtually every fear shrugged off before the invasion has come to pass. It was feared that an American occupation of Iraq, rather than helping eliminate terrorism, would actually inspire more. That appears to be happening with the recent sabotage and bombings and the reports that zealots from throughout the Middle East are converging on Iraq to wage holy war against Americans. It was feared that our troops would be viewed as a foreign occupying army, not as liberators, and that turned out to be true for at least some Iraqis who ambush our troops and assassinate their fellow Iraqis for collaborating with Americans. It was feared that establishing a democracy in Iraq would be far more difficult than the Bush administration made it out to be. It was stunningly naive to believe that a democracy would spring up in a country with deep animosities among its ethnic groups, none of which has any understanding or history of democracy. One miscalculation after another led to the predicament in Iraq, but there is no going back. The question is where to go from here. Do we get out of Iraq or get in deeper? A case can be made for simply getting out. The primary objective of the war was to eliminate any Iraqi threat to American security. That objective has been realized. Iraq is no threat to anyone. The secondary objective of building democracy in Iraq and creating an island of stability in the Middle East could be jettisoned - judged beyond our capabilities and not worth the American lives it is costing. But if U.S. and British troops pull out without leaving a functioning Iraqi government in place, the deposed Baath Party - with or without Saddam at its head - could re-emerge to impose a new dictatorship. Everything would be back to square one. Another possibility is that the country could literally disintegrate, becoming a perpetual source of turmoil. As an occupying power, the United States has an obligation to bring order to Iraq. It doesn't appear that can be done without more troops. Still, there must be qualms about deeper involvement in Iraq. The situation has eerie similarities to the early years in Vietnam, where it was thought each escalation would be enough to turn the tide - but the tide never turned. No one knows how many more troops would be needed before security can be established, but it is almost certainly more than the 140,000 troops there now. Ideally, reinforcements would come from other countries, but they may be reluctant to send many more troops, especially after the bombing of United Nations headquarters in Baghdad last week showed that not even U.N. humanitarian workers are immune from attack. There are no good options. The least bad option is to send as many troops as necessary to quell the insurrection and get some kind of Iraqi government functioning as quickly as possible. Then bring the troops home. Even before that happens, the experience will have taught a powerful lesson. The invasion put into action a neoconservative theory about establishing an American empire and routinely dispatching troops to topple any government we don't like. That thinking has been shown to be bloody nonsense.