ePluribus Media Community || citizen journalism, for the people, by the people

Ten Bad Reasons to Stay in Iraq ...

Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:34:19 PM EST

and 1 good one.

If you read the ePluribus Media opinion piece Top 10 Bad Reasons for Staying the Course...and 1 good one by writer Jeff Huber, tell us which one you like best.

In case you missed it, Huber debunks the reasons for staying in Iraq in a Letterman-like countdown. Here are 10, 9, 8 ....

10. Democracy takes time. America needed 13 years to write its Constitution.
The American Revolution analogy is ludicrous. Britain did not invade the American colonies in order to liberate us, and we did not ask them to stick around for more than a decade to help us form our government.
9. If we leave now, we'll embolden the terrorists.
They're not exactly shrinking violets now. The longer we've stayed, the bolder they've become.
8. Withdrawing will show lack of American resolve.
Getting in a bar fight over a girl shows resolve. Waking up in jail with your nose broken shows how stupid you are.

ePluribus Media editors and fact-checkers: JeninRI, DEFuning, Sue in KY

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

Ten Bad Reasons to Stay in Iraq ... | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)

#5 (5.00 / 2) (#1)

an excerpt: "Third -- and most importantly -- America does not exist for the purpose of supporting its military. Our military exists to support America. And if it's not defending us at home or achieving our national aims overseas, it's not supporting our country."

The above seems to get right to the core of the problem doesn't it. Power grabbing, grubbing, Washington administration thieves they are. And very few with direct military experience themselves.

by kfred on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 08:36:49 AM EST

We owe something to the Iraqi people. (5.00 / 2) (#2)

I would like to see more reflection on how we can pay our debt to the Iraqis for killing their innocents and helping to destroy their infrastructure with no or minimal military presence. Is that possible, or have we mucked things up so badly that we need troops around to protect contractors? Does the military presence compound the insurgency threat, or is there a legitimate need to keep so many ground forces in the country?

I think about how long it took Lebanon to come back to some degree of normalcy after American forces left the country in the 1980s. I'm not 100 percent up to snuff on the situation there today, but if I'm not mistaken, Syrians have a large stake in the country. I suppose that a troop pullout would create a similar void in Iraq, but I'm not quite sure who would step in to fill that void.

All I can see right now, though, is a gravy train for the Right Wing military-industrial complex.

Any thoughts?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 08:48:33 AM EST

Lebanon (5.00 / 1) (#3)

Off the top of my head, Lebanon was already pretty messed up when Reagan sent the Marines in. The Marines had no real mission other than to mill around and be targets. I wouldn't say our "withdrawal" from Lebanon had much to do with its ensuing woes.

Jeff

by Jeff Huber on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:51:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Would withdrawal from Iraq lead to chaos? (5.00 / 1) (#5)

I guess what I'm wondering is if we take the troops out, would the situation devolve to a situation similar to what happened to Lebanon, i.e., would the Iraqis sustain self-governance at this point, or would some other agent step in as the Syrians ended up doing in Lebanon?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:09:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Syrians... (5.00 / 1) (#8)

Well, this statement needs a fact check, but as I recall the Syrians went in at the UN's (and America's) invitation.

The tangled webs we've weaved.

by Jeff Huber on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: Syrians + Lebanon + U.S.: 1982 - 84 (5.00 / 1) (#9)

Good article on the history of the time @ Rand (many others, grabbed this one).

by rba on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:41:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
: one thing that might be less complicated (5.00 / 1) (#11)

in iraq is that there may be less of a proxy fight compared to lebanon.
in the civil war there, how many different factions were involved -- and shifting -- at any one time?! used to boggle my mind.
admittedly in iraq there's the obvious three-way among nationals plus the mujaheddin, and iran having a dominant interest and place along the fluid border.
ok, maybe i should retract my opening thought as i consider each of the neighbors with substantial kurdish populations...and other, more subtle intra- and international antagonisms of which i'm completely unaware.
time to go catch up with juan cole's writing on the subject!

by luaptifer on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 02:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Powerless? (5.00 / 1) (#7)

I agree we owe the Iraqi people, however our mandate ends on 31 Dec, and in truth they have had control (on paper) since the elections [See: UNSCR 1546 (.pdf)]. If the constitution passes, and if the elections are held on time, the newly constituted Iraq government may very well ask us to please leave - and take Halliburton with us. They have every right to abrogate and renegotiate every single contract signed under the "old regime".

How responsible are we for their deceptions and mistakes, and how much do we want to pay for them?

Henry Waxman's report Iraq On The Record catalogues the "misstatements" of the Bush administration in the run-up to the war. The Minority section of the GO committee also has a wealth of information on Iraq Reconstruction. The Custer Battles case is also worth watching.

In an era of teflon-coated politicians, it wouldn't hurt to find the money. Hits in the polls are taken in stride, hits on wallets are more effective. In the end the future of Iraq is up to the Iraqi people. The least we can do is get their money back.

by rba on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:00:10 PM EST

you have to remember.... (5.00 / 1) (#10)

9. If we leave now, we'll embolden the terrorists.
They're not exactly shrinking violets now. The longer we've stayed, the bolder they've become.

we can go back to repeating that most farcical lie "it's getting more violent cause they are desperate, it's a sign of our success!"

all out civil war and exodus from the rooftop will only signify that we won, again.

by luaptifer on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:33:07 PM EST

Excellent, Jeff (5.00 / 1) (#12)

Great stuff and well argued.

Well done, ePM.

by NYBri on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 07:36:48 PM EST

Iran (5.00 / 1) (#13)

Iran will fill the vacuum left by US departure. The best thing we can do for the Iraqis is leave completely; we have done nothing but destroy and our presence only give the insurgents a purpose. Will there be a civil war? Probably, but we are way past the point where the US can do anything that will help the situation.

My tin foil hat is suggesting that maybe, as someone stated above, chaos is the necon goal, but maybe it is not the ultimate goal, which is to bring in Iran in order to start the final showdown. I think the neocon are truely so divorced from reality however, that they are just improvising now and that their true motives and expectations were less about a free and democratic Iraq, and more about permanent bases and oil.

There is no redemption to be found for the United States in Iraq.

by stoy on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 09:41:39 PM EST

BTW, to Jeff Huber (5.00 / 2) (#14)

As a former member of the Naval Institute (the decal is still in the corner of the windshield of my car) and a reader of Proceedings, I am so happy that you are a regular columnist for ePM. The Left needs - the country needs - people who understand not only the military and its culture but conventional/ traditional foreign policy theory; people who can authoritatively put forth practical policy ideas that are an alternative to all of the failed theory and experiments that have resulted in so much suffering and waste in the past decades.

The United States needs an honest foreign policy (never mind domestic policy) that is truly an extension of our stated historic values rather than cynical policies based on greed that are sold with lip service to those values, dishonesty and secrecy and serve ultimately and only to undermine our national interest and moral standing.

Thank you!

by stoy on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:04:46 PM EST

: Hi, Stoy... (5.00 / 1) (#15)

Nice to see a fellow NI member around here. I haven't published anything in Proceedings since the Rumsfeld crowd more or less took over the military media.
I don't know that I'm smarter than the rest of the military/foreign policy yakkers, but I'm not one to stand by passively while they pass what I consider to be bunk off on the public.
Appreciate the nice words,
Jeff

by Jeff Huber on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feedback... (5.00 / 1) (#16)

Thanks again to everyone for the thoughtful replies. I look forward to next time.

Best,

Jeff

by Jeff Huber on Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 01:15:26 PM EST

#3 sums it up. (none / 0) (#4)

As Jeff says:

3. In times of crisis, we need to rally around the president and his policies.
America will not maintain or restore its power and prestige by behaving like a nation of lemmings. There is nothing noble, brave, or patriotic about following the leader over the cliff and into the sea.

Scarey stuff.

by Cho on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:52:09 AM EST

: wait,?! (5.00 / 1) (#6)

i thought blind faith was a virtue???!!!
i like WI's comments but it all seems to lead to one's choice of suicide: which'll hurt the least? some time ago i'd given up on the scenario Josh Marshall'd proffered, that chaos was not the nightmare of the neoCONs' objectives in Iraq, chaos WAS the objective to roll out that wonder of capitalism, creative destruction. ==> you've got to make ashes before a phoenix can arise right?
i think it ended up that their fantasy of a free-market, easy-democracy, save-israel, made to new market order plans have dissolved away to one non-figment, the oil-men will get their windfall and the defense industry their war for at least half of the new american century.

by luaptifer on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 11:09:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's Wrong With Cutting and Running? (none / 0) (#17)

Via David Corn, I just read this piece from August written by retired Gen. William E. Odom, who was head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration.

What's Wrong With Cutting and Running?
by William E. Odom
If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren't they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:

1) We would leave behind a civil war.
2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.
3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.
4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.
5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.
6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.
7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.
8) We haven't fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.
9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.
[snip]

Strikingly similar in its approach.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 06:27:19 AM EST

: Making things worse... (none / 0) (#18)

I'm glad to see a numer of people are saying the same kinds of things. I think the "real" plan is to get past the December elections and start to withdraw. Even the Pentagon types are starting to state publicly that our presence in Iraq is doing more harm than good.
And my guess is that those who say we simply can't sustain a large presence there for much longer are right.

by Jeff Huber on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 10:33:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]