The Ethics of Withdrawal

[Pekka]

I think the question rather is... what is the road of the least damage? This is a complex question that has a rather simple solution today.

The only way to do it properly is to raise troop level to about half million, sustain the situation, push the re-bulding phase into full effect and also the training of the local forces.

But since there is no will to commit to this, then the least damage done is by getting an exit plan and leaving it as it is.

Unfortunately this will result into more blood spilled, and we can't even say that since Saddam would have killed this and this many people, it was worth getting him out because less people were killed now. Because the end result will be MORE people killed and as an added bonus, destroyed infrastructure.

But this won't change unless there's a will to commit to the reality of the situation. This is also where you should start paying attention to what military experts say and label Rummie as one who gave an illusion of what is needed. There never really was a question about what the reality is when it comes to how much people is needed.

So you could stay there for another 10 years, get more own troops killed, or get out and let them sort it out themselves.

Since they are going to sort it out themselves anyway, it's just best to get out of the way and stop wasting resources there, and hopefully learning that the pipedream some politicians are trying to sell with 'new way of doign war' is finally put into the grave as complete crap, and acknowledging that military experts aren't called experts for nothing.

The military never performed under the level. It did exactly what it could in this situation. When they don't have the resources to do what is expected, it won't happen, even if some george clooney looking dude is telling you so.

So it really comes down to getting out and just hoping for the best, which will be a loss in the books, but that's the best that's available right now. So this should be admitted to prevent the wasting of more resources that can be put into other things. Because a loss is not the worst thing that can come out... the worst thing is a loss, that was denied, and therefore more decisions were made on 'not losing', that ended up losing even more. So it's still a good deal to get the loss and move on.

[chequita guevara]

We are the problem in Iraq. The sooner we leave, the sooner the problem is fixed.

[Pekka]

Right. Problem fixed, I have difficult time believing in that. There will be continuing civil war, except the intensity will prolly go up, and the most powerful will get the power, which will msot likely be the baddest guy in the block... and back to dictatorship or similar.

[chequita guevara]

It's going to happen anyway. Given that 60%+ of the Iraqi population think it's acceptable to attack Americans, I don't see how our presence in any way contributes to the stability of that country. And that number likely does not include the 20% of the population who are Kurds, so think probably close to 75% of the Iraq Arabs think it's okay to attack us.

[Pekka]

YEah it is going to happen anyway, that's why I said, the least way to damage is to exit as soon as possible at this moment.

I just didn't agree with the statement that problem will be fixed when Americans leave.

[Elok]

I don't know how much Americans can help, having never been on the ground there. If 60+% of Iraq really wanted to kill our troops, that's about fifteen million people (right?), and Kalashnikovs are slightly more common than water over there. In all likelihood, 60+% of Iraqis are just seriously pissed at America and are expressing it for the pollsters. If we had enough men to do something for real, attitudes might change. Our guys would probably be less trigger-happy if there were enough of them to actually provide meaningful security, for example. Right now they can only squat in "green zones" and hope nobody chucks a Soviet-surplus mortar over the wall. They're under continual strain and they're flipping out.

But going by what I've read, I can say that without us that fledgling government WILL collapse, and it's going to be damned ugly when that happens. We can't know if we still have a chance to salvage this, but after getting those people into this fustercluck I think we have an obligation to try, as opposed to cutting our losses and ducking out as the country reverts to the dark ages.

I also am aware that the chance of this administration doing anything right is vanishingly slim. For the next two years, assuming no impeachment/resignations/etc., I suspect it's going to be a long, daft slog or a sudden withdrawal. If it comes to that, there's no way the public would tolerate a draft, either. I'm just contemplating what is within our physical power, though we may lack the courage or competence to do it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Elok
I suspect it's going to be a long, daft slog or a sudden withdrawal.

So either the US just keeps grinding away in the hope of creating fresh new life in the belly of Iraq, or jerks out and spooges all over Iran?

[Bosh]

There are all kind of solution that could potentially work: diplomatic, military, political, what have you. They all have one central problem though: our President is a ****ing idiot and his administration is corrupt and incompetant. ALL potential solutions are killed by this one central problem.

I think that this analogy is apt:

Your buddy is playing 21 in a casino and keeps on losing and keeps on doubling down because he doesn't want to go home broke. He asks you to borrow some money and you know that in theory he has just a bit short of a 50% chance of winning, which doesn't sound to bad. Then you learn that he doesn't know basic addition/probability and keeps on asking the dealer to hit him when he's already in the high teens.

So no matter what you do with your idiot friend you're just gonig to be sending more good money after bad because he's a ****ing idiot. At that point its time to tell him to go home and not let him waste any more of your money/lives of Americans.

[quote]McCain supports more troops but not a draft.[/quote
Which is an idiotic pipe dream. With getting sent to Iraq looming over potential volunteers heads, we're having a hard time keeping the army manpower steady even while we're slashing the qualifications needed to join the army (39 year old recruits etc.) and various forms of back door draft. It would be impossible to sufficiently expand a volunteer army at the moment unless we completely scrapped all recruitment standard whatsoever, which would be a BAD thing.

So either the US just keeps grinding away in the hope of creating fresh new life in the belly of Iraq, or jerks out and spooges all over Iran?

Anyone else remember Laz's cheerleading for the Iraq War back in 2002/early 2003 because of how much it would benefit the Iraqi people and how "humanitarian" it would be?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Bosh
Anyone else remember Laz's cheerleading for the Iraq War back in 2002/early 2003 because of how much it would benefit the Iraqi people and how "humanitarian" it would be?

Yep. I do. It was a gamble, and it's debateable whether it's an improvement- but faced with dictatorships responsible for well over a million deaths I'd still suggest it as an idea with merit.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



Yep. I do. It was a gamble, and it's debateable whether it's an improvement- but faced with dictatorships responsible for well over a million deaths I'd still suggest it as an idea with merit.

Right in the abstract it isn't necessarily a bad idea (not something I'd ever support, but it does has things to recommend it) but we don't live in the abstract we live in reality. And part of that reality was Bush being President and it was naive to the extreme to believe that he wouldn't **** things up horrifically. And I don't think its debatable at all "whether it's an improvement"...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Bosh
Right in the abstract it isn't necessarily a bad idea (not something I'd ever support, but it does has things to recommend it) but we don't live in the abstract we live in reality. And part of that reality was Bush being President and it was naive to the extreme to believe that he wouldn't **** things up horrifically. And I don't think its debatable at all "whether it's an improvement"...

Well, in terms of raw bodycount and compared with the Ba'athist performance between 1980 and 1992 (when the no-fly zones were enforced), you'd be surprised.

It's a character thing. I can't sit back and watch that sort of thing from the sidelines. I'd like to see troops going into Congo and Darfur too. It might not work, but it's sure worth trying.

[Kuciwalker]

We had no-fly zones from 1980 to 1992?

/me suspects a typo

[Arrian]

No, he means 1992 is when the no-fly zones came into being.

1980-1992 = Baathists having a totally free hand.

-Arrian

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Got it in one.

Of course, the bodycount from the sanctions 1992-1998 were horrible too. The difference was that from 1980-1998 the deaths were taking place away from Baghdad where the media were stationed. That's why you get people adamant that the situation has become far worse since the invasion, when in fact that's a contentious point.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Elok
If 60+% of Iraq really wanted to kill our troops, that's about fifteen million people (right?), and Kalashnikovs are slightly more common than water over there.

There's a difference between saying that attacks are acceptable and wanting to do it yourself. So if they see an IED being planted, they aren't very likely to warn the American troops, even if they wouldn't participate in the attack itself. We've lost the people. So unless we are prepared to act the way we did in the Philippine "Insurrection," there is no solution that yeilds an American victory.

But going by what I've read, I can say that without us that fledgling government WILL collapse,

Good, it's an abortion that never should have lived.

I also am aware that the chance of this administration doing anything right is vanishingly slim.

This of course, assumes that stability is, in fact, the actual goal. It may be that what we planned was the complete destruction of the last secular state in the ME. With the ME a total basket case showing no signs of getting their **** together anytime soon, we have a bogeyman for generations to come. Something to rally our society against and demonstrate a need for continued trillions to the military industrial complex.