Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

On Hillary's plan to keep some troops in Iraq...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
jackbourassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:21 PM
Original message
On Hillary's plan to keep some troops in Iraq...
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 04:25 PM by jackbourassa
Okay I had long suspected this and am actually relieved to hear Hillary Clinton being honest about her intentions in Iraq. But let me just say that I think this is the dumbest plan i've ever heard.

Does anyone really believe that the sectarian violence that currently envelops Iraq will cease once a Democrat is elected? Do you honestly believe that what drives this civil strife is the presence of US troops? No. We are only caught in the middle of this thing.

What drives the insurgency is simple. Shi'ites don't like Sunnis and Sunnis don't like Shi'ites.

Iraq is a relatively "new" country, in that it was only founded in the 1930s. Like many states in Africa and the middle east, its borders were arbitrarily carved out after World War I, not as a test in nation-building, but as a means of imperial consolidation (by Britain and France). Therefore, when the maps were changed after the collapse of the old Ottoman Empire, states like Iraq were created with a diversity of cultures and "nationalities" existing within them that had no link to, or even affection for, one another. Americans don't seem to understand this. The Bush Administration clearly doesn't understand this. Iraq was first ruled by Kings who were loyal to Britain. It was part of the whole PAX Britannia that held their Empire together. But after World War II, once the old British Empire began its steep decline, it could no longer offer its puppet King any protection. So it was toppled by the Baath Party. That party remained in power until we overthrew them in 2003.

The way Saddam held these diverse cultures together was by brute strength and tyranny. That was the reason why he used chemical weapons against "his people" as Bush use to like to say (not really his people, but the Shi'ites and the Kurds). He was maintaining control over his WHOLE country. Because otherwise, the whole thing would have fallen apart long ago. Now, just like Yugoslavia after the death of President Tito and the collapse of communism, the old factions within the state are beginning to ascend. Also like Yugoslavia, it's happening in a very violent way.

There are lessons for us in Yugoslavia, but we refuse to heed them. The disintegration and collapse of Iraq is inevitable now - just as it was for Yugoslavia after 1991. It became inevitable the moment we went in there and decided to mess with the status quo. The whole idea of building a Democracy and living happily ever after was always a pipe dream, and a stupid one at that. This is cold, hard political realism at work and it's telling us that this country will not live to see 2010. It won't because Shi'ites don't want to be governed by Sunnis and Sunnis don't want to be governed by Shi'ites. The moment we accept this as the fate of Iraq, will be the moment that we can begin to move on and assess the problem in a more reasonable way. The only thing preventing the inevitable from happening

Hillary's plan to keep troops in Iraq is just poor strategy, for two reasons. First, what makes her think that fewer troops can do what Bush's surge of 200,000 troops couldn't? Maintaining any presence in Iraq will only exasperate the problem, rather than fixing it. A smaller number of troops will only accomplish one of two things: it will signal that the US will no longer involve itself in intra-Iraqi politics (a right decision), but it will also make US soldiers sitting ducks for insurgents. This leads to the second reason why Hillary's plan is a bad one, because with fewer troops and a greater amount of civil violence, we will be in a weaker position to defend ourselves.

So in this way, Hillary's plan gives us the worst of both worlds. It doesn't end the war and it doesn't "win" it either. Politically she would be killed by both sides. Militarily it would be demoralizing. Strategically, it would be just as disasterous as Bush's current strategy.

The insurgency won't stop because Bush is leaving. It won't stop when we pull out major combat troops. It will probably get worse, because that will be when the thousand-year-old hatreds will finally come to the surface and the zero hour will come for Iraqi's to decide what their future will look like. Like all other things in Iraqi culture and society, it will probably require a lot of blood.

Hillary's plan assures that some of it will be American blood as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Agreed - I Like Obama's Plan Better
Obama, as I recall, would supply troops IF ASKED and IF THEY ARE NOT ATTACKED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hillary is planning on it to be largely American oil. She doesn't care about the blood.
But I don't think she would be able to do it, even if she were (unfortunately) the Dem candidate and managed to get elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jackbourassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. It would kill her politically I agree...
And if there's one thing certain about the Clinton's it is that their "principles" are irrevocably linked to the changing poll numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jackbourassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
4. I really hope that people come to realize this...
Instead of engaging in typical Washingtonian rhetoric about "left-wing" nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 20th 2017, 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC