NEWS: So Much For The ‘Iraqis Need Us There’ Bullshit

POLITICS: So Much For The ‘Iraqis Need Us There’ Bullshit

One of the big arguments for the pro-war crowd is that we just canÂ’t leave those Iraqis alone after invading and setting off a world of chaos. They believe that if we were to leave Iraq, the country would immediately fall apart and many people would be killed. They, of course, never address the fact that people in Iraq are dying all the time and our presence seems to be doing little to stop the violence and some have even argued that a US presence actually encourages violence because our favoritism creates more tension. I agree with the latter.

Now comes some interesting evidence that maybe the “lets keep the troop in Iraq forever” crowd is completely wrong. In September, British troops pulled out of Basra and moved to an airport near the city. Some may find the results surprising, I don’t because it makes complete sense.

Well, there you go. The British believed – and have been proven right – that having their troops patrolling only caused more violence because people were trying to kill them. They theorized that if you took out the guys everyone was trying to kill, then less people would try to attack. Pretty simple.

Iraqis now patrol the center of the city and the British rarely enter. The situation is much different in Baghdad because Basra is a Shiite city, while Baghdad is a mix of Sunni and Shiite, who have been fighting for centuries. Pulling troops out might not have the same effect as in Basra, although even the British have been surprised at the incredible drop in violence.

The British have been in talks with the most powerful Militia in Basra, the Sadr militia, in an attempt to lure them into being part of the political process. They hope, in the end, that the militia will support the Iraqi security forces.

In other parts of the country, the US has backed the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq over Sadr, even though Sadr has stronger support among the Shiite masses. The ISCI has been losing support due to its ties with the US government and Iran, as well as a reputation for being corrupt and employing death squads. Basically, the US backed the wrong horse and the British example is the way to go for peace. But it is not surprising because the ISCI represents upper class Shiites, while Sadr represents the lower class. We know who the US always chooses in that situation.

Unlike the British, we have selectively chosen the weakest and least popular of the two forces. In the end, it simply wonÂ’t work. The best solution would be to engage both Shiite groups, instead of picking a side. The worst solution is to back the group that does not have the support of the street and create even more resentment between the organizations. Right now the two forces have called a truce to fight the surge.

Of course, none of this takes into account the Sunnis, which the US has been arming to fight al Qaeda. That is also pissing off the Shiites. Each day our policies are creating more and more tension and anger and we are throwing extra weapons in as a bonus. Ugh. Acceptance and negotiation or willful ignorance with force? It sounds like we have taken a completely different approach than the British.

Yes, I was feeling strangely and maybe prematurely jolly when I heard the news upon waking up today.

Doesn't this fall under the category of further proof that the Bush regime wants Iraq stay unstable? I mean, they're doing a famously good job of it, it must be on purpose.

The bottom line is this... we are a foreign, occupying force and thus by definition, an incinderary presence.

No, that doesn't follow. It's the same fallacy behind religion ("If life sucks so much, there must be a reason!").

I have heard the argument advanced that the US is deliberately backing weaker political players in Iraq in order to even out the forces and thus encourage an equitable political settlement. The logic of that is possibly sound, actually, but it strikes me as too sophisticated for the bozos in this administration to have come up with.

I can't get why ANYONE is surprised that there is sectarian violence in Iraq. It has only been a united country for what, 100 year? Maybe 150? Before that, most of the country was cut along tribal lines, except for the major trading cities. It is sheer arrogance on the part of the US to think we can stop millenia of tribal violence because ole Bushy-Boy wants to play Wyatt Earp.

How terribly surprising. If people invaded my country I'd fight too.

Actually, for most of the last five thousand years, Iraq possessed one of the two most advanced civilizations on the planet. It's true it's slid downhill a lot since then, but to speak of "millennia" of tribal violence is inaccurate.

With that caveat, your statement isn't otherwise particularly problematic, though.

I for one support my country's policy, and I am CERTAIN that it was a measured, rational response to a variety of socio-political issues, and not a case of "fuck this, we're getting creamed, let's get the fuck out and leave them to it."

Honest.

its interesting how much the media likes to play up the violence in iraq. Im here. not going to say where, but im in iraq. The media tells you what they want you to hear. yes, there is violence in iraq. yes people are being killed. but its nowhere near as bad as its made out to be. its actually kind of interesting. yea, a lot of the people dont like us, but theyre getting tired of outside groups killing them while trying to kill us. Iraqis will just walk up and tell us where ieds are sometimes. just because a tactic works in one area, doesnt mean it will work in others. in Ramadi, the U.S. worked with tribal leaders and now, while they dont love us, they work with us in fighting al queda. I dont like this war. we shouldnt be here, but were here now. a massive pullout wont work everywhere. Dont listen to the generals. dont listen to the fucking media. listen to what the soldiers on the ground say. were here, doing this shit. everyone spins this fucking war to what they want to say. Truth is living here. not coming here for a few days, or maybe a week and then writing what your opinion on something you have not lived. you wanna tell me how bad this war is going, and you have not really lived it? talk to a soldier on the ground, we cant tell you a lot of what we do, but damnit, youll get more truth from us than a reporter.

Considering im currently in the military and everyone is intitled to their own opinion. The situation in Iraq has improved from what ive seen and what the people from the country have told me themselves. The conditions of the country have gotten better since the arrival of troops. Yes the down fall is people sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and so on get set to other country. You have to take the fact that they did decide to join the military. The thing that sucks the most due to the news is that they dont show what progress has been made in the country. News channels only show violence and what will get them ratings. null

I spent a year there and don't feel like we did any good.

I look forward to the war ending.

Isn't it about time we find something better to do with our time?

Dude, I am a vet, I am a contractor now, though not in Iraq. The statistics are there, they are fact: the murder rate in Iraq is higher, there are more deaths and more problems than there were before we "liberated" Iraq. Yes we do some good in some parts, yes we help some schools, and other nice things. but the bottom line is as long as the US has any presence in the middle east there is going to be violence against and around us.
The media is fucked. you have to be on the ground to know what it is like, I agree with that.
Seriously though, our arrogance has completely fucked up that place and our own country in the process. I mean, call me crazy but I think that the billions, possibly trillions of dollars spent in Iraq could have really done some good in the US. Just maybe.
If we wanted to do some good in Iraq we should have lifted sanctions against a guy we armed, supported and put in power so his people wouldn't starve.
And everyones experience there is different but we need to be gone from there. Sadly, we really fucked up by going in the first place.

Ahh. My mistake. I think I confused it with some of the Post-British Empire forced-together countries. I apologise.

You're not entirely wrong; Iraq became a country as a result of the post-WW1 sorting-out of the (dead) Ottoman Empire into countries, by (in large part) the British and French Empires. The US had a hand in it, IIRC, but it was not a large one.

I wouldn't say that the point of staying in Iraq is to keep it unstable. Plainly put we have a vested interest in Iraq. Or rather, the Bush Administration does. I don't doubt that if we pulled out tomorrow there might be a spike in violence but once they realized they had to fend for themselves they would grow up. Sure there would be a shit load of inequities, but I'm pretty confident that can't be achieved even with our continued pressence.

The Bush administration, and really the entire republican party, want to keep on good terms with Iraq so that, if they win the election next November, they can start moving ahead with Operation "Bomb, Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" as John McCain so elegantly belted out.

Now I'm all for having a diplomatic relationship with Iraq, we certainly need the street cred in the middle east, but is a military presence the answer? No, a military presence has the clear message that we are at war. Pulling our troops out of Iraq isn't throwing a baby out into the woods, it's letting the baby out into the yard to get some exercise and self reliance. The constant patrolling and probing have got to be tiresome on both sides.

The fucked up thing is that one of the many intentions of the War was to bring Saddam Hussein to justice but what that did was handed power to dozens of regional warlords and insurgents, so instead of having to deal with one guy killing people you'll dealing with a whole bunch, and whatever deal you make with Warlord A isn't necessarily cool with Insurgent B...especially with all this middle man crap.

Exactly. Iraq's history is long and complicated. It was the center of Sumerian and Babylonian civilization for about two-and-a-half thousand years, though, before being subsumed by the Persian Empire in various incarnations till the coming of Islam, when again it emerged as the center of the Sunni Caliphate for a few centuries before being turned into the chew-toy of the Mongols, and later on, the Turks. That marked its last decline into tribalism, after which it was, as SockPuppet observes and as you yourself assumed, squished together out of the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire.

Actually the British have been doing that for awhile now. Where everytime there is a bust up in a town there the british just go back to there camps and wait it out till everything is settled down then go back to doing their jobs. they figure it is best to let the Iraqis sought out the problems themselves rather going in with guns blazing.

I'm typing this from Iraq right now and yes I agree we don't need to be here, long ago that point was reached. We screwed up by not leaving and backing the wrong people at the wrong times. Now however things really seem to be calming down, say what you will but that's what it is. It would be logisticly impossible to just get up and leave at this point anyway with all the money being dumped into fixing this mess. And the British were in a region where it may not have been fuck'n peaches 'n' cream but altogether wasn't that bad. The sooner this is done the better, the Bush Administration has been a complete dissaster once again I agree, but what exactly was the point you were trying to make? England is different than the US, ok, and by different you must have meant smaller and less involved in the war.

Nope My point was that they make sensible decisions based on the actual facts, instead of basing decisions on what one hopes will happen.

Reaper, if you get your facts from ass-holes,well, your gonna' look like an asshole. Believe it or not, I'm only here for the Posts. I love ya', but you are such a leftist tool !I have many friends serving and the good they are doing never make it to the news papers. Instead of reading a news paper, next time sit next to a Marine Co. as I did tonight. He served 2 years and is ready to go back, because he believes in what he's doing. Can't prove it, but he says the children grab his leg for safety. Try to find that in your news papers.

Well, seriously, who gives a shit? Soldiers always want to go back.

Do you want to talk about why their suicide numbers are so incredibly high? Is that because things are so awesome?

Sounds good. See, I don't listen to a soldier on the ground, because, #1, if they don't believe in what they are doing good, they will go crazy or blow their brains out.

And second, the numbers don't bear out all of this rosy talk. Sorry. Electricity is scarce, the Shiite government employs death squards, on and on.

That kid who grabbed your friends leg could just as easily try to kill him in five years after a bomb kills his dad.

The only reason the killing is down now is because Ayatollah Sistani told everyone to knock it off and to focus on driving the US out. He is the man everyone listens to.

I take being a left wing tool over an ignorant right wing hick anyday.

No way FTR, trapper's singular experience completely trumps your objective statistics.

See, what you don't realize is: when a US soldier speaks, the words, as they leave his mouth, depart the realm of anecdotal observation and are magically transformed into pure, conclusive hard data. It's science!

WOW, you really need to grow up . They don't believe in what they are doing ?? Why do you say I'm a hick ? Oh I know- when against a wall- go for the kill. Again grow up ! But guess what, the kid that grabbed my friends leg didn't blow him up, he thanked God he was there.Twist it any way you want Ted Kennedy.

Do you know how many service men and woman died for your freedom ? I can't believe you would say such a thing.