Murtha and parliament

[Jonathan Randall]

From a purely selfish point of view, we've already won. There was never a need to bring democracy to Iraq, if what we wanted was to ensure they wouldn't be in a WMD arms race. A strategic victory would be a destablized Iraq without a strong central leader. We could have declared that a month after the invasion, and simply pulled out. An Iraq in the mode of sub-saharan africa is not a threat to it's neighbors, much less to us.

You're forgetting the lessons of Lebanon (1970's-1980's), The Sudan, and post-Soviet Afghanistan. All became breeding and training ground for the generation of terrorists we are now fighting. A destabilized Iraq, IMO, is worse for us than a stabilized Iraq under a despot who cherished self-preservation and power above all else. As for the people of Iraq, unfortunately time alone will tell. Will continued occupation and insurgency or full scale civil war cost more lives and misery there than leaving them alone would have? That's a question that cannot yet be answered. I pray that they end up better for it as a people, but if civil war breaks out, as seems more and more likely, I don't think they will be.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You're forgetting the lessons of Lebanon (1970's-1980's), The Sudan, and post-Soviet Afghanistan. All became breeding and training ground for the generation of terrorists we are now fighting.

I certainly haven't forgotten the lessons, you've merely learned the wrong ones. The reason Sudan, Afghanistan and Lebanon became breeding grounds, is that they were abandoned once (in the case of Afghanistan) the conflict was over, or (in the case of Lebanon) it became politically costly to remain. What's furthermore, it was nations like Iran, Syria and Iraq that supported the terrorists operating in these lawless regions. Hezbollah was placed in Lebanon for just that purpose. In fact, the lesson learned in Lebanon was that the US is a paper tiger, and if you can kill enough soldiers and marines, we'll run away with our tail tucked between our legs. It's that model the terrorists are still counting on.

So, yes, if we cut and run, we will be forgetting the lessons of Lebanon, Sudan and Afghanistan. That lesson is that ignoring the problem, won't make it go away. Direct and committed involvement now, is cheaper in the long run.

A destabilized Iraq, IMO, is worse for us than a stabilized Iraq under a despot who cherished self-preservation and power above all else. As for the people of Iraq, unfortunately time alone will tell. Will continued occupation and insurgency or full scale civil war cost more lives and misery there than leaving them alone would have? That's a question that cannot yet be answered. I pray that they end up better for it as a people, but if civil war breaks out, as seems more and more likely, I don't think they will be.

A destablized Iraq is far preferable to an Iraq freed from sanctions, with Saddam or his sons still in charge, with nuclear capability. That was the future of 2010-2020.

What's further, a civil war, as I pointed out already, won't allow those "terrorists" that you feel are being created, much time attacking us, as they will be busy killing each other off. That's why Africa doesn't produce large numbers of terrorists...they're too busy with that.

So, in short, best case scenario, strong democracy installed in Iraq. Worst case, civil war.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I certainly haven't forgotten the lessons, you've merely learned the wrong ones. The reason Sudan, Afghanistan and Lebanon became breeding grounds, is that they were abandoned once (in the case of Afghanistan) the conflict was over, or (in the case of Lebanon) it became politically costly to remain.

Iraq was stable and substantially disarmed at the time of our 2003 invasion. We CREATED the instability there. Also, a very likely eventual result of our invasion, IMO, will be a fundamentalist Shiite dominated Iraq allied with Iran. Given the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the greatest sponsor of anti-American terrorism in the Mideast for the past 25 years, this is bad news for us.

A destablized Iraq is far preferable to an Iraq freed from sanctions, with Saddam or his sons still in charge, with nuclear capability. That was the future of 2010-2020. .

Only if you believe the "aluminum tube" and "Niger document" folks who sold us a bill of goods. Iraq was the most closely examined nation in history.

What's further, a civil war, as I pointed out already, won't allow those "terrorists" that you feel are being created, much time attacking us, as they will be busy killing each other off. That's why Africa doesn't produce large numbers of terrorists...they're too busy with that.

So, in short, best case scenario, strong democracy installed in Iraq. Worst case, civil war.

Well, the best case is highly unlikely. The worse case would be our doing by removing a centralizing force and civil war would be between Sunni and Shiite. Given that Al Quaida is Sunni, a civil war would not be a case of them killing each other off, rather Sunnis around the world unifying to fight an American installed regime.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Iraq was stable and substantially disarmed at the time of our 2003 invasion. We CREATED the instability there. Also, a very likely eventual result of our invasion, IMO, will be a fundamentalist Shiite dominated Iraq allied with Iran. Given the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the greatest sponsor of anti-American terrorism in the Mideast for the past 25 years, this is bad news for us.

No, a nuclear armed Saddam is bad news. Of course, Iran is also bad news, and should be dealt with shortly.

Only if you believe the "aluminum tube" and "Niger document" folks who sold us a bill of goods. Iraq was the most closely examined nation in history.

No, actually, regardless of the "aluminum tube" story, even conservative estimates put Saddam within 5 to 10 years of being able to produce a nuclear device. Now, that might seem like an eternity in the "let someone else deal with it" mentality, but it's not real far. The fact that Bush had the political capital to deal with the problem at the time, I find, compelling. Had we waited, there's not telling who would be in charge when it came time to take care of the imminent problem.

Well, the best case is highly unlikely. The worse case would be our doing by removing a centralizing force and civil war would be between Sunni and Shiite. Given that Al Quaida is Sunni, a civil war would not be a case of them killing each other off, rather Sunnis around the world unifying to fight an American installed regime

And the worst case is far from the worst possible scenario involving Iraq for us. The worst case was to leave Saddam in power, and allow him to develop a nuclear weapon (either while he was under sanctions, or more likely, three years down the road when he bribed himself out of sanctions). Again, an Iraqi civil war isn't any real threat to us.

Your scenario is amusing, however. The idea that it's a bad thing for al-Qaida terrorists waisting men and resources fighting a US installed, Shiite regime, while Iran is sending their own terrorists to fight the Sunnis. "The only down side is...it's too bad they both can't lose."

In the mean time, if they're too busy killing each other, they won't have time to worry about us. We should then extricate ourselves from dependent on Arab oil and leave them to it. That's, of course, worse case. I still prefer to try and allow the building of a democratic iraq. But, if it's going to be Sunni extremist versus Shiite extremist civil war....So be it.