I'm starting to lean towards cut'n'run

[JHBowden]

The recent events conerning Falluja do not look auspicious. The occupational forces apparently are preparing to level the city in order to intimidate the rebellion elsewhere. Asking the residents of Falluja to disarm before attacking them isn't going to fool many people; it seems like one of those phony ultimatums Bush has used in the past.

While we all agree leveling Falluja is an evil, I'm not convinced this will lead to good consequences; infact, an iron fist will probably exacerbate matters. If our presence is going to cause more harm than good, I don't see the point of us being there.

I'm cognizant of the consequences of a limited withdrawl -- there is a risk Iraq may fall into civil war and fall under some sort of revolutionary dictatorship, fragment into several states, or become a haven for terrorists (like it isn't already). In addition, we lose the pressure we have on Syria and Iran by having our forces next door. However, a massive conflagration in the region isn't my idea of "stability."

I initially thought we should stay the course. Now, I'm starting to lean towards some sort of immediate withdrawal with some or all of our forces.

Is this a fair judgment, or have I overlooked something?

[phoebe]

1. we have pretty much boxed ourselves in

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. We aren't going to...

We aren't leaving no matter how bad it gets. Kerry will not pull out troops.

We are there for good with our bases and the military industrial complex is not going to let a president interferse with their profits.

Forget about it.

[JHBowden]

3. With Kerry, the possibility of leaving is open.

Kerry's policy is contingent upon whether he procures international help. Bush in contrast will be there for certain no matter what events transpire.

[central scrutinizer]

8. justice, honesty and respect

kick out the mercenaries, kick out the war profiteers, award the rebuilding contracts to Iraqis, dump that crook Chalabi, bring in the UN and especially Muslim peacekeeping forces. Apologize for the arrogance and hubris of the previous administration. Never use the word crusade. Just a few things like that might help.

[belle]

12. I'm sure Kerry would like to do these things, and he'll probably try, but

will they be enough at this point, is the question.

[kstewart33]

4. Someone told me

that we can cut and run now and save alot of American and Iraqi lives and suffer the consequences you've mentioned or we can cut and run a few years from now and suffer the same consequences plus the loss of thousands more people.

I'm still hanging in, but I've come to believe that UN participation will make little difference. The insurgents don't give a whit about the UN, and civil war will break out soon after June 30.

Our chances of any kind of success there are very slim, made so by many factors, including incompetent leadership from the Bushies.

I wonder: if these guys had planned the reconstruction, how many lives would have been saved? Too many.

[NNN0LHI]

5. We will be gone before the November election n/t

[kentuck]

6. Now who in the hell thinks this will make everybody grovel ......

and give up ? Who thinks this won't simply make things much worse - perhaps for generations?? Is this what our nation has become?

[OneBlueSky]

7. they're building the largest embassy in the world in Iraq . . .

big enough to house over 3,000 bureaucrats, support staff, and military personnel . . . we ain't goin' nowhere . . . not now, not ever . . . too much oil, and we need the foothold for our incursions into Syria, Iran and, ultimately, Saudi Arabia . . .

[bigtree]

9. Fair

The U.N. and NATO may not be able to cover for Bush's blundering, or want to. We are in a morass. I do think that another administration could persuade folks to take up the job there but I'm hard pressed to see how. Possibly, we can convince others to take up the task if we relinquish the resources, the puppet 'authority', and Bush's mandate to form the same kind of junta we deposed.

The random exercise of our military strength and destructive power will not serve as a deterrent to these rouge, radical terrorist organizations who claim no permanent base of operations. The wanton, collateral bombing and killing has undoubtedly alienated any fringe of moderates who might have joined in a unified effort of regime change which respects our own democratic values of justice and due process.

Our oppressive posture has pushed the citizens of these sovereign nations to a forced expression of their nationalism in defense of basic prerogatives of liberty and self-determination, which our false authority disregards as threats to our consolidation of power.

"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is 'bring them on'," Bush spoke to reporters in the White House Roosevelt Room in July.

Sadly, American soldiers serve as targets in Iraq, and their lives are no less important than ours here in the states. Inviting attacks on Americans overseas is an amazing retreat from the peaceful influence of a great nation of justice; humbled by bloody, devastating wars; and witnessed to the power of liberty, and to the freedom inherent in the constitution we wisely defend with our peaceful acts of mercy, charity, and tolerance.

"Peace," Herman Wouk wrote, "if it ever exists, will not be based on the fear of war, but on the love of peace. It will not be the abstaining from an act but the coming of a state of mind."

All else that we pursue should be a means to that peace; and a wholesale rejection of violent postures which just invite more violence.

Our aggression resigns the nation to a perpetual global threat against the United States and our interests. Diplomacy provides hope that the killing among all countries would end, by the force of our collective resolve; not at the point of a weapon.

I'm less sure as each day goes by that we will get to that diplomacy. All I see is needless aggression, senseless offensives, and prideful intransigence. And presidential cheerleading . . .

Me Book

[dudeness]

10. well written JH

however a couple of small points.

1. there is a train of thought that the recent cease fire in Falluja was brought about by the nervous response by allied partners (particulary the British) to the US tactics that caused enormous civilian casulaties.
2. yes..Iraq may fall into civil war and the ultimate victor ( most likely the shia) place the country under theocratic rule ala Iran..this is inevitable regardless of the time the occupation continues..
3. the "terrorists" (mainly Iraqi resistance groups)have a right to resist an illegal occupation. this a consequence of unlawful actions by the coalition..
4. under the pretext of "stability" the expansion of the empire into Iraq only ensures conflict in the region until US forces disengage and return home..
5. nobody I am aware of .. asked the US to be the worlds policeman..the arrogance of the Bush administration is a danger to the survival of mankind..

[Sterling]

11. Sooner or later we will have to anyway.

Then we look like a paper tiger. This was a lose lose situation from the start.

[Aidoneus]

14. Not exactly

"Cut and run" implies some choice in the action.. when it comes down to it, they'll be thrown out (likely with the leaders of the occupation and head collaborators hanged). Same effect really, different spin.

[NNN0LHI]

15. It will be called peace with honor. Old Vietnam saying n/t

[Aidoneus]

16. True, but that still implies voluntary withdrawal

I think the people behind this have too much invested in the occupation to have their hands anything but forced on the matter.

[cheezus]

13. either now or ten years from now

I don't think this is a winnable war.