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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (228313)	4/23/2007 9:03:38 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Michael, Look again at what your writing and think about the consequences: Controlled chaos exists now and americans are dying at an alarming and ever-increasing rate. Post we leave it is what it is. It IS what it is because the US has been seeking to act as an honest broker between the conflicting sides (as well as destroying any AQ elements) and achieve a government that can take over it's own defense. Our presence there, like it or not, HAS BEEN CONTROLLING the violence. What you "leave" is UNCONTROLLED violence if we get out before the objective is accomplished (some semblance government stability and ability to maintain internal order). Now.. you want to discuss polls so let's discuss them. Here's one from May, 2005 where 91% of the American public believed that the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur should be brought to justice. But the Zogby poll left it unasked as to whether military force should be used. But is it not GENOCIDE (mutual) for Shi'a to wantonly murder Sunnis, and for Sunnis to wantonly murder Shi'a? And here's a recent GLOBAL opinion poll where 74% of Americans believe the UN has an obligation to protect the people in Darfur. Also, 84% of Americans polled believe we should authorize the UN to use military force to prevent the genocide: worldpublicopinion.org So.. if we're to go by opinion polls, as soon as we leave Iraq, US forces will be deployed to Darfur, right? Americans obviously think that's the right thing to do because somehow the lives of innocent residents of Darfur are more important than the lives of innocent Iraqis. But more importantly, what's your plan for maintaining a "controlled chaos" if we leave? Take 150,000 US soldiers out of the equation, with their tails between their legs, and what influence will we have left? ZERO!! Since we cannot win but only referee a civil war now in progress, i think we need to take the offer of some in the current govt who want us to declare an exit date. Every "game" has to have a referee, even the "game" of war, or in the case of Iraq, the political "game" of brokering a mutually acceptable power-sharing agreement that all major sides can live with.. Or else all sides will break the "rules" and do whatever it takes to win, including deliberately killing innocent civilians in the process. It ain't pretty, and it ain't easy, but it will happen. And hopefully it will happen without a break-up of the country, but only "cantonization", with individual regions having high degrees of autonomy. And while it's not very glorious to have to play "police officer" in Iraq, the benefits that potentially can result are worth the cost. You talk about hundreds of lost American lives Michael, but if you rashly withdraw from Iraq, you could see something that makes Ruwanda look like a playground fracas. Every neighboring country to Iraq has an interest in becoming DIRECTLY involved in order to protect their interests. All of the governments in the region would want to deny Iraq's oil wealth to the opposing side. And the Turks? Well, just look at their Kurdish population and the decades long insurgency they have fought (rightly or wrongly) in preventing an independent Kurdistan being carved out of the SE portion of their country. For them to control the Kurds on their side of the border, they will have to control the Iraqi Kurds and I have little doubt they will invade Iraq to do so. And what about AQ forces within Iraq? We went to war with AQ over the 9/11 attack. Recent reports suggest they are plotting ANOTHER large attack on the west at this moment. So tell me Michael.. if we abandon Iraq, does that mean we've surrendered in our struggle against AQ? We can't withdraw and still fight their network in that country. Wars are fought based upon objectives, not timetables. We didn't engage in war with Imperial Japan, or Nazi Germany on a timetable (well.. if we're not winning by 1945, we'll withdraw), it was fought based upon bringing down the government of our antagonist and preventing them from ever attacking us again (while instituting much needed democratic reforms). Its just a matter of whether another three thousand indentured servants (GIs) on our side want to die or not. I dare you to call any military soldier who has served in Iraq an "indentured servant". Wear body armor, my friend.. wear body armor. And what are you going to tell those soldiers when we're required to mobilize to the level we had in 1991 (or even larger) to put out the regional firestorm that your withrawal suggestion is likely to create? It won't be thousands then.. it's likely to be TENS OF THOUSANDS if we're involved in a full-fledged war with Iran on one side, and the Sunnis on the other. But I'm not naive about what's going to be required. Our policies will have to adjust to the daily realities that exist. If democracy doesn't work, then we will have to nurture a military force that can act as a "benevolent dictatorship" that can create the social and political order necessary for an duly elected government to succeed. Bottom line.. Pulling up stakes is no plan, my friend. Continuing to work until we secure a credible and legitimate Iraqi government IS. That's the objective MANDATED under the UNSC resolutions. And that must be the result, no matter how long it takes. And until people like yourself can present a viable alternative, what else can we do? Hawk