This cannot be “safely” presumed. I seriously doubt American forces are responsible for most of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have died in the war; mostly that has come at the hands of insurgents and al Qaeda and the militias and whatnot. However, it’s impossible to argue that the majority of deaths are “bad guys” when our forces are most certainly responsible for a incredible number of deaths in bombings, roadblock shootings, convoy shootings, raids into homes at night, ground operations such as that carried out in Fallujah, and so on. I don’t presume to know the numbers, but neither should you.

If we do bear some responsibility for creating this situation or allowing it to happen, would we not then bear an even greater responsibility to do our best to stop it, to remedy it?

Believe it or not, I argued that very thing until late last year. At the time, I believe it to be a reasonable argument; that we had not yet discharged our obligations to the Iraqi people for what we have done to their country. I won’t speak for bunkerbuster, but for myself and many other liberals, the problem is we believe that we are not capable of remedying the situation in Iraq, no matter how long we stay. This is what eventually persuaded me into thinking that withdrawal is our only recourse. I do believe things have improved locally in parts of Iraq, and especially Baghdad, but I continue to believe that our forces are only acting as a cap on the violence, and not an antidote to it. The lack of political progress only bolsters this belief on my part. I believe that in the end the Sunnis will do as they wish, as will the Shiites, and in the meantime they only use the presence of our forces to the extent that it is most convenient to them.

If this is true, then what argument can be made for staying? That by keeping our troops there in huge numbers, things will somehow, someday get better? That “strategy” is hardly sufficient reason to keep enduring casualties in Iraq.

Hahahahaha! ‘Cuz there aren’t ‘hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, for starters. You just made that bogus number up.

However, it’s impossible to argue that the majority of deaths are “bad guys” when our forces are most certainly responsible for a incredible number of deaths in bombings, roadblock shootings, convoy shootings, raids into homes at night, ground operations such as that carried out in Fallujah, and so on. I don’t presume to know the numbers, but neither should you.

Yeah, an incredible number of deaths of “bad guys”!

It is extraordinarily rare for us to kill innocents. The Rules of Engagement are designed to prevent this and troops simply do not fire at unconfirmed targets.

Are you accusing us of intentionally killing civilians?

You don’t understand anything about how our forces conduct kinetic and political operations over there.

Your comments slander the Soldiers and Marines who died rather than returning fire indiscriminantly at civilians.

You slander the military and your country.

And by withdrawing, therefore, we prevent….what? If US presence is all that’s keeping this supposed “violence,” then what is to be gained by leaving? Won’t this “civil war” continue? It boggles the mind that people like X continue to spout this tripe, that by invading, we “caused” the violence, by staying, we “perpetuate” it, and by leaving, we somehow will “solve” it, when in fact, just the opposite should be obvious to even the most obtuse individual.

But for people like X, it really isn’t about Iraqis at all, it’s about putting America in its place, about reinforcing the idea that we’re bad, we’re evil and imperialistic, and we should just stay home. The millions that were slaughtered after we left Vietnam mean nothing to leftists, as would the Iraqis killed in the supposedly inevitable violence that would follow an American withdrawal.

Never mind that things may be getting better; never mind that there is indeed reconciliation—however minute—taking place; none of this matters to people like X. It’s really all about him/her and how he/she feels about America.

Feh. A plague on “progressives.”

An example is the likely-soon-here-to-rage argument about number of Iraqi casualties inflicted by U.S. troops.

I took time to look at this about 5 or 6 months ago. Left and Dem politicians were bandying about a figure of 300,000 Iraqi civilian casualties at the hands of American/Coalition forces. This figure came from some international organization estimate - and was, to me, ridiculous, I know of the huge, own-life-threatening efforts American forces make to avoid civilian casualties. But, the figure was additionally ridiculous because 300,000 divided by 50 months of war = 6,000 civilian casualties per month. It would seem the only way for American forces to achieve such numbers would be via massive incidences of civilian casualties … yet: where were the mass graves filled with those civilian casualties? Nowhere, of course. The 300,000 estimate was ridiculous pap.

My preferred estimate comes from Iraq Body Count, an organization which IS NOT pro U.S. invasion, yet does seem credible to me. Iraq Body Count tracks all media reports of civilian casualties which are associated with military action. They make an effort to distinguish military actors from innocent civilians. 5 or 6 months ago, Iraq Body Count believed about 25,000 innocent civilians had perished since day one of the invasion in March of 2003.

neo’s post touches on the question of whether the U.S. invasion was/is moral action. Notwithstanding that many heads on the left will explode at the assertion the U.S. might ever to anything moral - especially anything military which is moral… neo’s post is an invitation to a gigantic comment section argument about the costs and benefits of OIF. It would be nice, if this argument breaks out, if all sides could generally agree on a number of collateral casualties which occurred. I believe that, last spring, that number was in the vicinity of 25,000. I generally trust that figure, due to what I perceive as Iraq Body Count’s diligent, ongoing, long-term well-documented efforts to track this data.

I distinctly remember reading a story on Michael Yon’s site about a taxi driver in Baghdad who was bemoaning the loss of revenue he had begun to suffer. He was in the practice of hanging out by the morgue, ferrying relatives of dead Iraqis back and forth from home to the morgue. He was decrying the lack of business after the surge—there were far fewer families showing up to identify dead loved ones; he was losing money.

I wrote the above post off the top of my head, then got scared and went to look at Iraq Body Count numbers - after the fact, instead of before the fact.

First, the Lancet study, which is frequently cited by the Left and Dems, alleged 600,000 civilian casualties - not 300,000 - which was the figure I used above.

Second, the current Iraq Body Count estimate of civilian casualties from all causes - both terrorist and Coalition: is from 77,545 to 84,473.

I had trouble discerning IBC’s assertion about how many of those casualties directly resulted from U.S. military action, and I don’t have time to search the site further to try and find this information. I did find, in 2005, IBC asserted 37% of all civilian casualties resulted from U.S. military action (most of those casualties were asserted to be from collateral damage from aerial bombings). 37% of 84, 473 = 30,255.

Third: Iraq Body Count’s methodology includes a survey of what they consider reputable media sources - both Arab and Western, as well as surveys of hospitals and morgues.

I apologize for my mistakes in the above post.

I suspect their definition of ‘civilian’–it’s a guerilla war ferchrissakes….

How could they know which civilians were shooting at us when they were killed?

No one really knows, but in a case-by-case basis, troops cannot and do not shoot, or direct fire on targets that are even suspected of being occupied by civilians.

It’s one of the reasons this war is so difficult and time consuming….

This is a nonsense statement. The rest of bunkerbusters statement is a moral equivalence arguement, long ago shredded and discredited.

Somehow Muslims apparently aren’t capable of free will or moral choice. If they pick up a gun or set a bomb, it’s not because they’re individuals with their own goals and motives. No, they’re just puppets. Automata. And thus bear no guilt for the deaths they cause.

Apparently only white Christians are “real people” to someone like Xanth, and thus only white Christians can be responsible for deaths of people in Iraq.

Why not just go ahead and join the Klan, Xanth? I’m sure Robert Byrd would write you a good recommendation.

Thus, the world trade centre is attack – in retaliation for Palestine!

Buses in London are blown up – in retaliation for Iraq and Afghanistan!

Riots occur after someone publishes some cartoons – it was the neo-cons (ie. `neo-conniving Jews’, American of course)!

Gray, please try to read more closely…or, at all. The ROE also make it perfectly legitimate to drop a bomb on a house full of people you think are insurgents, but might actually be insurgents, or where insurgents are hiding even if civilians might be in the building. So, even if you adhere to an ROE, you can kill civilians. Also, our troops deliberately dropped a bomb on the house Zarqawi was in, knowing that civilians were in that building and would be killed to. They thought the cost was worth it, and they’re probably right. Still, it wasn’t an accident. Look Gray, I know it’s difficult to keep up with these nuances, but please try. It really undermines your own argument to not even have your own basic facts straight, and honestly it wastes my time to have to educate you.

Um, the death of American soldiers Stumbley. Please try to think your response through completely before you type.

But for people like X, it really isn’t about Iraqis at all, it’s about putting America in its place, about reinforcing the idea that we’re bad, we’re evil and imperialistic, and we should just stay home.

I can play this game too. By desiring that we stay in Iraq, Stumbley wants as many American soldiers to die as possible, wants trillions more to be wasted on war, wants our national security to be irreparably undermined, and wishes terrorists who detest us and our allies to flourish in Pakistan. Stumbley, why don’t you just bust out your Iranian flag and fly it proudly? After all, I can read your mind and know your loyalties lie elsewhere, no matter what you say.

Feh, indeed.

Why not just go ahead and join the Klan, Xanth? I’m sure Robert Byrd would write you a good recommendation.

I was looking for a good chuckle today. Thanks Tri.

So stupied and racist comment.

If they pick up a gun or set a bomb, it’s not because they’re individuals with their own goals and motives. No, they’re just puppets. Automata. And thus bear no guilt for the deaths they cause.

Oh yah but what you think who tarined and the handelr behid OBL was he “white Christians are “real people” “?

Yes, you are completely correct. Clearly, it is my secret desire to blame terrorism on America that motivates my wish that we get out of Iraq and turn our guns on the terrorists presently camping out in western Pakistan.

You know, it is possible to have an adult conversation about the merits of staying in/leaving Iraq or intervening in Pakistan or anywhere else…but you have to leave your paranoid and two-dimensional world view behind to do it.

X and others think the bad guys in Iraq were helpless. Had no choice. Watch something on television, such as the all abughraiballthetime, andn decide, “that’s it. No work tomorrow. I’m going to blow up a nursery.”
Couldn’t help themselves.

This is the way the left look at the benighted brown people. Helpless and without self-will.

It is of course ok to have that “adult conversation” wrt to Iraq and Pakistan.

But is it wrong of me to sense that, at least some of those who are Iraqi war critics, are so gung-ho for invading Pakistan (hello Obama!) simply because its government is allied with the Bush government?

And, further, if the Bush gov decided tomorrow that it was going after the Musharrif regime, that these same critics would be screaming, “What?! Are you trying to start a nuclear war?!”

Anyway, the subject of neo-neo’s post was the blame attribute to the United States by the various critics of the war, in relation to the dispute number of civilian deaths in Iraq.

That is what I was addressing…

thanks
RH

You mean like the horrendous violence in Fallujah?

“Nobody was shot last night in Fallujah. No American has been shot anywhere in Fallujah since the 3rd Battalion 5th Marine Regiment rotated into the city two months ago. There have been no rocket or mortar attacks since the summer. Not a single of the 3/5 Marines has even been wounded.”
-Michael Totten, 11/27/07

“Please try to think your response through completely before you type.”

Oh, I do, X, I sure do.

The stain of that little bit of dark history makes the “moral” highground of “finally removing him” seem like a parody.

Like WE one day woke up and said, “those poor Iraqis” need our help. Where they hell were we when we were working back alley deals with the bastard himself? How might it have turned out had he given up the goods?

And, we didn’t go in to save the Iraqis remember? Wasn’t it about WMD?

Smells like hubris to me.

“And, we didn’t go in to save the Iraqis remember? Wasn’t it about WMD?”

Weeeelllll, no, actually (from the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq” in 2002):

“Whereas in December 1991 (you know, when Bubba was Prez), Congress expressed its sense that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688″;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) (you know, the one that Bubba signed) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

See, it’s those pesky facts that keep coming up and doing you folks in.

and another factbox on violence 11/25

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSANW52752420071125

oh so rosy huh? ps: do a google search to see that totten’s article was picked up by every fox around the country. guess that’s called a “top down” story.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

sounds like the “imminent threat” speech.

and who can forget this classic:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

And I’m not saying that there’s no violence in Iraq or that more American soldiers won’t be casualties, it’s just that in many regions of the country, violence is way down, and people like you just refuse to admit it.

Just because Michael Totten is picked up by Fox, that makes the news untrue? You’d rather get your stories from Jamil Hussein?

Say, how’s your “kid” doing, anyway?

Sorry. You are just wrong.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Pity you haven’t realized it.

Thanks for providing clarification of the oft misquoted “imminent threat” line. What President Bush said, per your link, was:

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”

It is clear that Bush was saying we could not wait UNTIL the threat was imminent.

We were more than happy to help Saddam kill his own people and the Iranians as long as he would cooperate with us and share his oil.
The stain of that little bit of dark history makes the “moral” highground of “finally removing him” seem like a parody.

Saddam assumed power officially in 1979, although he was the power behind the scenes for some time before that. From 1979-1990, US arms sales to Iraq represented 0.6% of Iraq’s arms purchases; the USSR 60.6%, China 14.8%, and France, 14.5%. That doesn’t sound as if we gave a lot of assistance to Saddam. It is an interesting coincidence that Russia and France, the first and third biggest sellers of arms to Saddam, were also the most opposed to our deposing Saddam, and that you appear to have been similarly opposed. Just wondering. From 1967 to 1984, the US didn’t even have diplomatic relations with Iraq.

Please get acquainted with the facts.

Our arms sales to Iraq - mostly helicopters- were related to the Iran-Iraq War, which was done for realpolitik’s sake. Recall the remark attributed to Henry Kissinger about the Iran-Iraq War: “I hope they both lose,” which is similar to what Truman said with regard to Hitler’s invading the USSR in 1941. Do you think that we also made a mistake in making anther pact with the devil, when we assisted Stalin in our common fight against Hitler? Do you believe that because we started diplomatic relations with Stalin in 1933, and also gave him substantial military assistance in WW2, that we share responsibility for the genocides of Communism?( see your remark about “we were more than happy to help Saddam kill his own people,” )

Like WE one day woke up and said, “those poor Iraqis” need our help. Where they hell were we when we were working back alley deals with the bastard himself? How might it have turned out had he given up the goods?

It is difficult to tell what time frame you are using. What about Gulf War I? Do you think we made a mistake in not going all the way to Baghdad back in 1991? What “back alley deals” were we working? And when? Just wondering. It was the French and Russians, with decades of economic and military ties with the Ba’athist Iraq, who wanted sanctions lifted, who were working those back alley deals. Do you recall the photo of Chirac and Saddam at the nuclear power plant, which shows the long-standing ties between France and Ba’athist Iraq?

And, we didn’t go in to save the Iraqis remember? Wasn’t it about WMD?

Again, it is difficult to tell what time frame you are using. Since you are talking about WMDs, I will make the assumption you are discussing the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was about a lot more than just WMDs. Have you ever read the Iraq War Resolution of October 2002? Among other things, it says:

“Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region….
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime..”

BTW, the Iraq Liberation Act was signed by President Clinton.Please get acquainted with the facts.

http://armstrade.sipri.org/arms_trade/values.php

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007748.php Saddam and Chirac at nuclear power station.

The hierarchy she sets out, however, is woefully incomplete.

The most glaring omission is that of police authority. The capstone of civilization is the recognition that the state alone has police authority, that is the right to undertake violence on behalf of the community. This is how and why we distinguish between terrorists and police, so we can’t leave it out of our moral hierarchy, as neoneo has.

The U.S. has no police agency in Iraq. Even the chauvanists have now at long last surrendered on the argument that it was necessary to invade to remove Saddam’s WMD. Even they have shifted to the rationale that the U.S. is acting on behalf of Iraq’s citizens, not America’s.

But the U.S. unilaterally rejected the only available processes for establishing police authority to act on behalf of Iraqis. The U.S. was never invited by any representative leadership in Iraq and the U.N. never condoned the U.S. invasion. Both of these methods of establishing police authority are incomplete and, even, flawed, but they are the available means for doing so. The U.S. chose to do neither.

Instead, the U.S. chose to act as a vigilante in Iraq. Again, this doesn’t make all their actions ipso facto immoral, but it does place them significantly lower in the moral hierarchy.

Neoneo draws the analogy between police killing murderers in a shootout and the the U.S. killing Saddam’s “henchmen” in Iraq. But the U.S. is acting as a foreign vigilante, not a police force. The henchmen, then, were lynched by foreigners in the scenario neoneo describes, not killed by police in a shootout. Moreover, the lynching took place in a circumstance in which the foreign lynchers were simultaneously engaging in massive destruction of infrastructure, killing innocent civilians, torture, collective punishment and aiding and abetting ethnic cleansing, whether accidental or otherwise.

Neoneo writes:
“Thus, the US is clearly responsible for directly and intentionally killing many people in Iraq. But who are these people? I think we can safely say the majority of them are what we might call the bad guys.”

If vigilantes shoot a guilty murderer, their act can be seen as moral, even if it is anti-social. But what if when shooting the guilty murderer, a stray bullet kills a child? That either reverses or severely diminishes the morality of their act. Now, what if killing that murderer entailed a running gun battle through the city that destroyed much of the city’s infrastructure and left dozens of bystanders dead and scores injured. I think we can safely say the vigilantes are, on balance, bad moral actors and the situation in Iraq is far more akin to the latter than the former.

Neoneo writes:
“The collateral damage we cause usually stems from our efforts to prevent even more terrorist incidences from occurring by killing the terrorists first.”

Saddam can and did make the same argument with equally preposterous justification: His government was under seige. Shiite and Kurd terrorists, along with Iran, threatened its survival. The attempt to destroy the terrorists left innocents dead.

Such an argument is ludicrous, of course, not because terrorists, assassins and spies weren’t otu to bring down his government, but because Saddam had so severely compromised his legitimacy as the ruler or Iraq, he lacked the level of police authority that alone can justify “collateral” damage.

The argument is equally ludicrous when used to justify U.S. killing of innocents by exactly the same standard: The U.S. has no legitimate claim to police authority in Iraq, and, in fact, hasn’t even sought one.

Let’s consider another analogy: a band of vigilantes comes into town searching for a murder suspect. During the search, they lock up your son in a prison where he is then tortured, humiliate your daughter and accidentally kill your uncle.

You then decide to become a vigilante yourself and proceed to kill the vigilantes.

Where do you rest on the moral heirarchy? Every Iraqi would have the right to be in that position, regardless of their ethnic, religious or political affiliation.

Which brings us to neoneo’s claim that:
“the killings bunkerbuster conveniently ignores, those occurring at the hands of Saddam when he was in power.”

As I have shown again above, I have not ignored those killings and neither are they inconvenient. Rather Saddam’s killings and his justifications for them and his moral agency, or lack thereof, are highly convenient to my arguments. I have referred to them repeatedly, so neoneo’s claim that I’ve ignored them is plainly false.

Neoneo writes:
“some diminished responsibility must be borne by other countries of the world who actively supported [Saddam] during the era of his worst excesses, which occurred in the late 80s during the war with Iran and also after the Gulf War failed to take him out.”

Part of bearing that responsibility is acknowledging that it diminshes or even eliminates any potential police authority the U.S. may seek to exercise in Iraq. The U.S. is a vigilante with bloody hands, and not just from the innocents accidentally killed, but with the blood of those deliberately killed by the tyrant himself.

After admitting that the U.S. shares responsibility for Saddam’s worst atrocities, neoneo claims:

“It’s impossible to say how many people might have been involved, but the number of innocent deaths prevented by his removal almost certainly exceeded the number of innocent deaths attributable to the direct action of the US in this war, including collateral damage.”

This makes no sense. Neoneo says it’s “impossible” to say, but then goes on to, well, say it.

So we have a vigilante who admits that it’s impossible to say whether their actions actually saved innocent life. But they then go on to assert that it MAY have.

Such highly speculative hypotheticals have no place in assessing moral hierarchies. As we noted, the very basis of civilization is the exclusivity of state violence. If vigilantes are free to kill on the basis of speculative hypotheticals that they themselves describe as “impossible” to gauge, all is lost.

An honest, reasonable argument. I disagree with it though.

“I continue to believe that our forces are only acting as a cap on the violence, and not an antidote to it. The lack of political progress only bolsters this belief on my part….by keeping our troops there in huge numbers, things will somehow, someday get better? That “strategy” is hardly sufficient reason to keep enduring casualties in Iraq.”

No, things “getting better” in Iraq is of strategic importance, not only to the United States, but to other western liberal democracies as well. The world needs a sane, stable government in the heart
of a region beset by brutal dictators and homicidal clerics. Islam needs to undergo the “Reformation” Christianity had went thru in the Middle Ages, not to mention the importance of denying Iran with the reward of a virtual puppet province they would end up with once they disposed of the democratically elected Iraqi political leadership. So yes, we have sufficient reason to stick it out. And since it appears you on the left do not have a greater moral argument for withdrawal, Im not certain why what motivates your position on the matter, isnt exactly what we’ve been saying it is.

Yeah, we did that to Germany and Japan as well. We’re just scoff-laws like that from time-to-time.

Not really…. It’s not really that simple. There is a ‘vetting’ process.

You really don’t know what you are talking about, but it is colored by your dislike of your country, your military and the Commander in Chief

So, even if you adhere to an ROE, you can kill civilians.

That is unfortunately, true. But unlike the atrocity-happy kilbots you suggest, killing civilians is avoided, planned against and never intentional.

Heck, we drop leaflets in advance so that civilians could be warned and get out of the area.

Also, our troops deliberately dropped a bomb on the house Zarqawi was in, knowing that civilians were in that building and would be killed to.

You don’t know that. You have no idea what happened….

Look Gray, I know it’s difficult to keep up with these nuances, but please try. It really undermines your own argument to not even have your own basic facts straight, and honestly it wastes my time to have to educate you.

“Nuances”…. Heh.

Ooooohhhh…. I’m getting schooled in ‘basic facts of legal land warfare’ and ‘Rules of Engagement’ by a military-hatin lefty with zero background or knowledge in these things….

How many years do you have in uniform, Xan? I’ve got 16 in an Army uniform, officer and enlisted. Guess you told me….

Wow, the dirty, dirty left does love a police state. No wonder they love a strongman like Saddam:

Police Authority has no “rights”. Only citizens have rights…..

One of those rights is to own guns as a balance police authority.

The operative word in all that being “incredible” — meaning “not believable”. That’s not important, though — as a good self-styled “liberal”, even bunker’s “tiny handful” of Iraqi deaths would be deemed “incredible” in the sense of “really big” by X. And, of course, as a good “liberal”, X would hardly be able to recognize the concept of “bad guy” anyway, except when applied to Bush, neocons, conservatives, or Americans generally.

A few simple points, notwithstanding all the phony or obtuse liberal handwringing :
The first is that, as in all wars, innocents do get killed, yes.
The second is that American troops generally do their best to keep such deaths to a minimum, while doing what they need to do to kill or defeat the real bad guys.
The third is that there are real bad guys (as opposed to non-”liberals”) in Iraq and elsewhere, whom it is extremely important to kill or otherwise neutralize, which is why our troops are there in the first place.

The last point, particularly, is what we need to keep in mind when we talk about current options. It’s not simply that withdrawal at this point would likely result in large numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq, as bad as that is. It’s that it would also, at this point, leave a power vacuum into which would flood islamist butchers once again, with every intention of setting up another state-supported, oil-funded terrorist hatching ground. Both prospects, of course, leave those poor, compassionate “liberals” doing nothing more than sighing, tilting their heads, and giving little “what-can-you-do?” shrugs. For the rest of us, however, both prospects should be cause for strengthened resolution.

The defendant must be released at once and given his old job back.

That’s your speculation. Withdrawal could also clear the way for secular Iraqi tribalists to defeat the fringe Al Qaeda elements empowered and enabled by the U.S. occupation.

Why are you assuming withdrawal equals a power vaccuum?

Isn’t it safer to assume that a withdrawal would be accompanied by a diplomatic arrangement that could include U.N. enforcement and/or regional military participation?

There are many options here and, while none of them, including continued occupation, are without risks and sacrifice, they remain options nonetheless.

To pretend that the only option to occupation is leaving willy nilly, leaving a “power vaccuum” and so on in Iraq just isn’t credible.

“To pretend that the only option to occupation is leaving willy nilly, leaving a “power vaccuum” and so on in Iraq just isn’t credible…Isn’t it safer to assume that a withdrawal would be accompanied by a diplomatic arrangement that could include U.N. enforcement and/or regional military participation?”

Safer for who? Safer for you? Absolutely. Why dont you just be honest and say you just dont give a rats ass? You couldnt be that out of touch with the real world to think the UN is going to come back into Iraq and cover our withdrawl. The lack of intellectual honesty, and out-right laziness on your part for suggesting this as an actual option leaves a rational person with no other conclusion about you that you really dont give a rats ass. Why do you fight this so? It clearly doesnt have a thing to do with you.

WAHAHAHAHA!

Or maybe it will end up an Islamic Paradise on Earth like Afghanistan.

Remember the big beef that we helped the Mujahideen defeat the Soviets and then we just left Afghanistan?

Remember the left charge that “we abandoned Afghanistan”?

No, of course you don’t, those things went down the Memory Hole of the Left.

So you want us to abandon Iraq like we abandoned Afghanistan and you think it will be just peachy….

How many pre-Islamic ruins and artifacts are there for the Taliban to destroy in Uruk, Sumer and all of Mesopotamia? A great many….

Hey, the Tigris ran blue with ink the first time the Muslimeen sacked Baghdad, why not again?

You’ve lost all credibility with this and it is clear that you see the United States as the focus of evil on the earth.

I guess the fact that I don’t hate my country makes me another ‘chauvInist. (It’s spelled with two i’s, how can he get that wrong every time?)

Ah, “speculation“. Hey, for all bunker knows, American withdrawal might pave the way for an international force of UN “peacekeepers” to be welcomed by all sides and usher in a new Age of Aquarius! Or: “Withdrawal could also clear the way for secular Iraqi tribalists to defeat the fringe Al Qaeda elements empowered and enabled by the U.S. occupation.” (Oh, so the surge is actually empowering Al Qaeda! I don’t think even the MSM has thought of that spin yet.) Or, you know, maybe aliens will come down and enforce peace in out time.

Say! Why don’t you all just gather together in a circle, and maybe hold hands, and you could hum along to Kumbaya for those who don’t know the words, and you could just hope and really, really believe that it will all turn out just fine. Now that’s a plan you liberals could really get behind!

In Darfur, raping children.

“The violence is down for a number of reasons, not just the impact of the surge, which is in Baghdad. But that’s like saying we’ve gone from the 8th circle of hell to the fifth. It’s still a very dangerous place. As far as the strategic goal of the surge, the political solution, there has not been any progress.

“People who talk constantly in terms of winning & losing fundamentally don’t get it–it’s so much more complicated. All signs are that we are in Iraq for a long time, it will be difficult.”
Tom Ricks, Wash Post

Difficult? Long-term? Yes. We’ve said as much. I dont see where either Tom Ricks or the dozens of US officers advocate withdrawal. You forgot to include that.

Bush & Cheney have no plans whatsoever to withdraw, and never did. The plan all along was to establish a powerful military presence in Iraq, before 9/11. Ricks (I was quoting him from a radio interview I heard yesterday) swaid that he’s heard about troop withdrawals for years, and it never happens. He’s not holding his breath that there will be one, in fact he thinks Bush will try to add more troops to lock the next President in to his existing policy.

Ricks reported some interesting factors about the drop in violence. He says the surge initiated the phenomena, but it would be delusional to say that US forces were largely responsible for this–once the surge took hold the Sunnis simply stood down on their attacks on Americans, turned on the scruffy al Qaeda among them, and either murdered them or turned them in. The Shia aren’t stupid, they saw the Sunnis deciding to sit the surge out & drew back, too–why fight the Americans all by themselves while the Sunnis sit? This gave the Shia death squads the chance to go after the foreign al Qaeda in Baghdad, and kill them off–the problem, according to the US Command, they killed hundreds of innocents, too. Ricks also pointed out that Baghdad’s neighborhoods have been completely walled off from each other, with numerous checkpoints–you would be a fool to think you can now just go anywhere. Also, many of the neighborhoods have been violently ethnically cleansed over the past 3 years resulting in thousands of deaths, most (sorry, neo, you’re way off here) of them civilians trying to get out of the way of the sectarian violence.

Ricks concluded by saying the next big test is the upcoming provincial elections, the first attempt to truly spread democratic govt. throughout the country. Many in the US command, according to Ricks, are bracing for what may be a new outbreak of Sunni-Shia violence w/ these elections, which has always been the biggest problem. “There is no sign of functioning democratic govt. and policing outside the green zone,” said Ricks. “It’s just not there yet.” The fear is that the intensity of the upcoming provincial elections could easily spark violence throughout the country, putting US forces up against it again. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.

Where do you get that from?

It’s true we couldn’t enforce the sanctions and No-Fly-Zones in perpetuity, but we already had ‘a powerful military presence in Kuwait and SA to enforce the No-Fly-Zones.

You made that up.

The conventional wisdom is that we, or our side, “won” the war in Afghanistan. But you are correct, Gray: the reality is more complicated and history shows that our actions in Afghanistan came back to haunt us, with a vengeance, on 9/11.

Without U.S. interference, there’s a very good chance the Soviets would have killed bin Laden and wiped out his forces. No 9/11.

This is not to suggest the U.S. is responsible for bin Laden’s actions, but to demonstrate that “winning” wars like the one in Afghanistan may actually harm national security.

Gray is also correct to point out the similarities between the Soviets war against jihadists in Afghanistan and ours against the amalgam of anti-occupation Iraqis. Even if we “win” the war there–presumably that means quelling the ongoing violence sufficiently to allow an orderly withdrawal–there remains a chance that the government of Iraq will continue to act against U.S. interests and, eventually, find itself as an enemy of the U.S.

For example, there was much rhetorical confusion in the medicre media when the Prime Minister of Iraq refused to toe the U.S. line on Israel. Apparently, the media consensus is that we have a right to expect the government of Iraq to back the U.S.’s unconditional support for Israel. That’s beyond naive.

People who argue the war in Iraq can be won in any meaningful sense of that word don’t seem to be aware that the Shiite militia and government death squads the U.S. is currently allied with aren’t likely to be pro-U.S. once America stops paying their bills and providing military cover for their ethnic cleansing and fiefdom building.

They, as Gray suggests, can be expected to behave much as the militias in Afghanistan did after the U.S. left. Once the U.S. stopped funneling money and weapons to them, they immediately turned on us and, eventually, hosted the forces of 9/11.

Regardless of whether the U.S. withdraws from Iraq before or after declaring victory (Mission Accomplished?), the Iraqi people are not likely to drop their objections to U.S. support for either Israel or the Saudi or Kuwaiti monarchies.

For all their talk about positive thinking, pro-war bloggers never actually take the step of imagining Iraq as a functioning democracy. Miracles do happen and should that particular one unfold, Iraq would immediately find itself in direct conflict with close long-standing allies Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Presumably, as a democracy, it would also have the superior moral standing would allow it–in the chauvanist view–to justify invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, on behalf of it’s peoples’ democratic aspirations of course.

At the very least, a democratic Iraq would be more, not less, in conflict with the Saudis, Kuwait, Jordan and Israel, America’s strongest and longest-lived allies in the region.

This can only be avoided by bringing in the participation of Iraq’s neighbors and one framework for such a solution is the U.N.–though by no means the only one.

The consequences of a U.S. “victory” in Iraq may well be unintended, but they needn’t be unprepared for.

Yes, and that vetting process results in bombs being dropped on houses of civilians. So please explain to me how your “vetting process” undermines my point.

You don’t know that. You have no idea what happened….

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/tracking-zarqawi. It helps to get your news from something besides Fox and TownHall.com.

How many years do you have in uniform, Xan? I’ve got 16 in an Army uniform, officer and enlisted. Guess you told me….

Well, none actually, which is why it surprises me that you have such difficulty understanding my basic points. I do appreciate your service to the country, but that hardly changes the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.