"war in Iraq can still be won" Yay! - wait a minute - can still be won?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Agathon
You were told that this would happen, that the WOMD stuff was lies and that Bush and co. didn't really know what they were doing. About time you started a "So the Liberals were right... we were duped... we were wrong... and we promise never to vote again" thread.

More likely is a big lurch further to the right ala Germany in the 1920's.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That's the absolute worst thing that could happen. The reason is that Iraq would then become a failed state like Afghanistan and it really would become a haven for international terrorism. It wasn't before but it will be unless we leave in the right way.

How then do you recommend we withdraw in the right way? Staying forever is not only expensive as all hell, but it seems to guarentee a permanent insurgency will persist in Iraq for as long as we remain.

[techumseh]

Shawn, I can accept for the sake of argument, all but the last paragraph. Let's assume for the moment that the US suddenly switches to benign policy in Iraq which puts the interests of the Iraqi people first, and ignores it's own interests. What would happen?

Option A, US stays to "help" stabilize the country:

1. The insurrection continues because the Iraqi people reject the right of the US to interfere in their country.

2. The US commits more troops to save the situation.

3. More bombings and other insurgent attacks.

4. US casualties mount until the American people force their government to pull out. Thousands more Iraqi's are killed.

5. Civil war, thousands more Iraqi's are killed.

6. Some sort of political settlement by the Iraqi people themselves. Rebuilding begins.

Option B, an immediate US withdrawal:

1. Civil war, thousands more Iraqi's are killed.

2. Some sort of political settlement by the Iraqi people themselves. Rebuilding begins.

Note the different casualty figures, but the same final result. The civil war is not inevitable, but I've included it because I think it's possible and because I want to err on the side of caution.

You are using the same reasoning that prolonged the Vietnam War, killing thousands more Americans and hundreds of thousands more Vietnamese, and which didn't affect the final outcome.

[Giancarlo]

Doesn't seem either option is very accurate of the actual situtation.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Geronimo
How then do you recommend we withdraw in the right way? Staying forever is not only expensive as all hell, but it seems to guarentee a permanent insurgency will persist in Iraq for as long as we remain.

We need to do what Bush and Rumsfield have so far been totally unwilling to do. We need to completely reconstruct the Iraqi National Army complete with heavy weapons. The 30,000-50,000 man army Rumsfield wants for Iraq is WAY to small and they're going to need upwards of 500,000 troops if we want the new government to be able to control the country. That army will need tanks, planes, artillery, and everything else which Rumsfield has prevented the ING and the new Iraqi Army from having.

[Ted Striker]

Oerdin

[Dinner]

In short the right way to leave is once a strong and stable government is in place. Unfortunately, since most of the sunnis will be boycotting the election the new government will have a question of creditability hanging over it and Bush/Rumsfield will not allow them to have more then a token army so I don't see how this can be achieved without a major change in policy. Firing Rumsfield would be a very good thing because then we might get someone in who will actually change policies to reflect reality instead of mindlessly repeating the same failed policies over and over.

[Giancarlo]

Didn't Rumsfeld want more? Get the Russians onto some arms contracts. We all know that the Iraqis are most familiar with their equipiment. I say 1,500 T-72s, 2,500 IFVs and APCs, and a lot of heavy artillery. But then again, it comes to the amount of debt Iraq has making it impossible to get this done.

[techumseh]

Reasoning worthy of William Westmoreland, gentlemen. Never make the same mistake 3 times, I say!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You are wrong. The UN charter says that any nation can act to defend itself & national interests but that force be a last resort.

I don't see how you can say that, when Annan and other UN officials have repeatedly said to the public that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.

[Dinner]

Those are personal opinions. The UN only declares an invasion legal or illegal by passing a Security Council resolution against it. That's not going to happen because two veto using members would oppose it thus the UN will not declare the invasion illegal.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Most government employees earn salary. I wish I worked by the hour.

I can only imagine what 6 moths of 24 hour days would yeild.

Ill health, exhaustion and nervous breakdown...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Those are personal opinions.

In public, representing the UN?

Originally posted by Oerdin
The UN only declares an invasion legal or illegal by passing a Security Council resolution against it. That's not going to happen because two veto using members would oppose it thus the UN will not declare the invasion illegal.

You got it backwards. An invasion is illegal unless the UNSC decides otherwise.

[Giancarlo]

The UN passed a resolution, 1441, making the war legal. But who gives the right for the UN to mandate international law anyways when they were deep in the pockets of Saddam?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Those are personal opinions. The UN only declares an invasion legal or illegal by passing a Security Council resolution against it. That's not going to happen because two veto using members would oppose it thus the UN will not declare the invasion illegal.

Which is a different question form whether it WAS legal or illegal- given that it was up to a full Security Council vote to decide what the "serious consequences" for Iraqi non-complience would be, that two members decided upon themselves to take action is illegal, as they did NOT have the authority to do so.

Its interesting to note what Bush's ultimatum to Saddam was- it was not "agree to all the demands of 1441 in 48 hours or we invade", It was "leave or we invade", meaning of course the obvious aim of the US and UK was regime change, which is something the UN security council could NEVER authorize, as it is not the international communities business to determine the leadership of any soverign member of the Union.

The UN may have blessed the occupation after the fact, but the invasion itself was illegal-since the US and UK did not have the authority to interpret the law themselves and act without direct approval.