I agree with you because violence responding to violence is currently running in a vicious circle in Iraq. Therefore I don't think foreign soldiers can establish peace in Iraq. Their job is war. Their job is to protect their own people, the citizens who pay them, from other nations' violence.
That said, I don't think it would be fair to abandon the Iraqis to their fate now that all their infrastructures and organizations have been destroyed.
I think that those responsible for deciding to destroy the country should pay and organize its reconstruction, with the help of the world.
I work in the construction business, so I deal with immigrants from ex USSR and from Muslim countries. A Kurd political refugee told me when the war started some years ago : of course I'm glad, I hate Saddam and it's our chance to build a free Kurdistan. But I'm not a dreamer. You Westerners go abroad in the name of protecting foreigners though trully it's always in your own interests. Whether economical or geopolitical. So as long as it's good for your economies, you help others. But as soon as you don't get anything out of it, you just leave.
So I answered : Oh, come on, we give a lot to poor nations, whether by educating or curing populations.
He laughed at me and wincked, answering : yeah, right, you bring your enlightened civilization all around the world ! Like how to treat family members, right ? You just get rid of old Mom and old Dad in a retirement house and nickname them the old hag and the butthole ! And you're going to take care of us when you don't even of your parents ?
I would hate him to be right, John.
The real truth about the war in Iraq is that it hasn't made us any safer at home and has only exacerbated the threat of terror attacks worldwide.
The continued presence of the U.S. military in Iraq is fanning the flames of global anti-Americanism while stretching our military to a breaking point. To change course for the better, we have to truly understand the enemy we face and make the needed adjustments to our military strategy.
The perpetrators of 9/11 died in the planes they hijacked while the masterminds, like Osama bin Laden, roam the mountains of Pakistan freely plotting more attacks on the United States. We've taken our eye off al Qaeda in Afghanistan and shifted the focus to an insurgency in Iraq that was a direct result of our invasion. It's only natural that people will rise up against a foreign military that is invading their land -- just as we would if it happened here.
The Bush administration and a bipartisan majority in Congress see the insurgency in Iraq as all al Qaeda. This argument inaccurately simplifies the many forms of Arab resistance to U.S. military presence in the Mideast for the average American.
In reality, the insurgency, for the most part, is composed of Iraqis who believe they're prisoners in their own country. If the Iraqi people truly wanted a foreign military to police their land, then there would never have been five years of resistance. This is the clear reality that's been disregarded as fiction by neocon intellectuals along with timid members of Congress (from both parties) who encourage a perpetual military occupation of Iraq with no regard for the consequences.
Our "surge" forces have been in Iraq for more than a year, and even after the drawdown, we'll have more boots on the ground than we did before the surge. So, as we approach the start of our sixth year in Iraq we are going straight back to square one.
Why is that? Is it sustainable?
Our troops have completed every mission given them. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam is dead, the Iraqis have had three democratic elections, a new Iraqi army and police force have been built and the surge has quelled violence to levels that should make it more than possible for the Iraqi government to function.
As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion, we should be looking for the way out, not reasons to stay. The troops have earned a right to come home and the Iraqis deserve the right to make their own decisions on their future, which I acknowledge is indeed uncertain.
If Iraq is ever to become a free and peaceful nation, it will be because that's what the Iraqis want -- not because of our continued presence. If Iraq should again become a dictatorship, it surely won't be because rogue terrorist thugs were able to conquer a nation of 25 million. That's just part of the spin that keeps the war going.
Next month, Congress will introduce legislation to provide President Bush with more than $100 billion in taxpayer dollars for military operations in Iraq. This may very well be the final check written by Congress for the Bush presidency to continue this war and occupation of choice.
For the sake of our country, our military and the world community, Congress must show that it has the guts to stand up to President Bush and force him to change course in Iraq before the existing damage becomes irreparable -- if it isn't already.
Although I'm totally opposed to staying the course, I understand the argument of those who advocate that. I know why they think we should stay -- but my question to them is "How and in what manner will we stay?"
And for those like me who argue strongly for a withdrawal of our troops and contractors from Iraq, my question is this: "Are we fully willing to accept what will happen in Iraq once we actually leave?" I am ready -- even though I acknowledge the very difficult dilemma on our hands.
Our presidential candidates and members of Congress need to keep in mind that they are up for re-election in November, not George W. Bush. I sincerely hope they'll be more candid regarding the situation in Iraq than they have been. Most important, it's imperative that they dedicate themselves to achieving the peaceful solution in Iraq that I believe is desired by all Americans, regardless of politics.
See column in the Philadelphia Daily News.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dear Mr. Bruhns,
It's been a while since I've dropped in on ya, just wanted to say thanks for all your efforts and eloquently expressed essays/posts. Agape.
Dap,
Thank you very much for the kind reply.
V/R
John
Iraqi's need our compassion as we leave, so that, even though we may have left the place in a mess, we send the message that we do actually care what happens to Iraq, while allowing them to evolve organically, and not by some sort of US enforced rehab based upon how we have done things. And in the end, hopefully the Iraqi's will do some things better than we have by learning from our mistakes. But more war will only lead to more war.
mbaty,
I agree, especially here: "But more war will only lead to more war."
V/R
John
Worried about the civil war exploding when we leave? Then why not take up Saudi Arabia up on their offer to supply a 150,000 man Muslim police force from non-neighboring countries? Iraq said "fine" but (guess who) Bush said No!
FullChat,
Of course Bush said no :-)
V/R
John
Al Sadr's army is enjoying R & R paid for by the generosity of Bush's surge! They have paid leave to visit with their families, rest up, retrain, re-arm and will be able to comeback stronger than ever!
Our troops are getting just the opposite! Yup, support the troop[s Bush style!
Bob Egan,
As always, you are right on point. Thank you.
V/R
John
john, morally, you are correct, I agree but....
you now that as long of america's economy is built on the free flow of oil, we will have an interest there.
when americans's realize that their safety, at this point, is directly related to their thirst for oil, and that their lifestyles will need to change to have any impact on this equation, then we may consider bringing the troups home.
anyone who believes that our mission there was just what was stated above, is fooling themselves.
911 was just the opportune moment provided by osama for the neocons to launch their scheme of world dominance.
sooner or later we would found ourselves embroiled in that area to secure the flow of oil
whimsicalpig,
I agree with you that this war is about oil. 9/11 has been used by the neocons for world dominance. You are right on. But as you said, morally, we shouldn't be killing and dying for it. Thank you for your insightful reply.
V/R
John
I am sorry to say that I see no evvidence of any a desire to share the responsibility or burden of this war.
I see obama maniacs sceramng about his change, but when you get down to talk to them, it's all about what they can get the government to do for them, not the other way around
I work at an army base where the troups are deployed, in and out, 15 months out 12 in and then out again. the only reason I know so much about the war is that I face these guys everyday and I see the pictues of the ones who didn't come back.
yet when I leave the base and travel a few miles to town, all that concern is not visible amongst the towns peolpe that don't have a direct contact wioth someone or something at the base.
that is just how oblivious we can make ourselves when we want to. Most towns people are upset when a brigade deploys simple because their families go back to their own home town and there is no one left to shop in their stores,
just imagine how "unaware middle america can make themselves if there is no military base down the orad,
What never gets stated, and what needs to be emphasized again and again, is that while the surge has reduced violence at the margins, the real reasons attacks on US forces have gone down is that Gen. Petraeus has successfully bribed some of the Sunni Sheiks and, for his own reasons, Muqtada al-Sadr has declared a temporary standdown of his Mahdi Army.
Stop the bribes, or whatever the Sunnis believe is their temporary advantage, and the Sunnis go on the warpath. When al-Sadr calculates renewed action is to his advantage, he'll pull the plug on his truce. Suddenly, we're back on page one.
The last point that's never discussed, and which is the real elephant in the room, is that by basing our freedom to act on the actions of the Nouri al-Maliki government, we've essentially placed him in charge of our foreign policy. He plays the tune and we do the dance. Anything wrong with this picture?
Sam Thorton,
No question we are bribing them, thanks for bringing it up, I have limited spaces for oped pages. But you are right, we prolonging the inevitable with the continuation of the surge, or any level of troop forces for that matter, Al-Maliki is a puppet and he is weak -- Bush will continue this charade until he leaves office so it blows up on someone else' watch. Good points !!!
V/R
John
John, is there on candidate left in this corporate love fest that has sworn to bring home all the troops by a certain time? If the answer is no, then we must acknowledge that this problem is Systemic. Every word you have written is true. And everyone, even those persecuting these wars, knows that. But, does it matter? Follow the money, as hopeless alludes. If you are simultaneously trying to squeeze the very last dollar from a crumbling economy and enforce a fascist style dictatorship that provides more bodies for the effort, then we need to take the next step, one that goes beyond simple politics, to expose and name the Corporations and their leaders who stand to make the most from this. Very dangerous territory. Not many bloggers on Huffpo with the stones for it.
Rule Of Law,
Yes, indeed, and as I stated, not only does President Bush own responsibility, but so does a bipartisan majority of Congress, along with their donors, you said the true words of wisdom -- follow the money, thank you my friend.
V/R
John
The fight won't be with insurgents, it will be with the companies that
have a stake in profit off of the Iraqi's. If it was to rebuild the infra-
structure and get schools and business going, the then USA could
be on the way out right now. We have to keep military there to protect
the "interests" of the US, as Bush has said. And build a $700 million
dollar embassy with a swimming pool. It's not like the money
couldn't be used to pay for veteran healthcare, healthcare in
general, and a lot of other issues here. Greed has become
America's religion.
deminmo,
More and more good points that readers are bringing into the discussion -- great to hear from you again. V/R John
Al Qaida wants us to stay in Iraq, which should completely answer the question of what our future course of action should be. Leave now!
Al Sadr wants us to leave Iraq, and will almost certainly start spilling American blood at some strategic point before November, guaranteeing a Democratic Whitehouse, and domestic conditions which will hatsen our leaving. Leave now!
Saudi Arabia/OPEC wants us to stay in Iraq, suffer whatever comes our way, and keep giving ammunition to oil traders who use "conditions in the Middle East" as an excuse to push oil prices higher. Leave now!
Bush loves everything about where he has brought this country, including the fact that he has the Democratic Congress scared shitless.
Which, in the final analysis, means we won't leave now?
oldpotsmuggler,
You are totally right, regarding this comment, and you beautifully stated it:
"Bush loves everything about where he has brought this country, including the fact that he has the Democratic Congress scared shitless."
I wish I would have thought of that.
V/R
John
Once we leave their may be some initial fight, but things will likely calm down faster by us leaving then by the heavy footprint of our military remaining there.
realpolitic,
I agree that the only way to find that out is if we do leave, something we have not tried yet. Thank you for reading and replying.
V/R
John
No can do, Pablo. Too much dinero to be made. As long as we have the idiots to send to die, the bucks keep rolling in. None of us will ever again see an Iraq free from U.S. military occupation. You see, here's how it works, the Boeings and KBRs give millions to get their candidates elected. Those candidates in turn, keep funding the war that makes the Corps billions. Rinse and repeat. As long as their is money to be made, the occupation of Iraq will continue. Like I said before, we won't see withdrawl in our lifetimes. Cheers!
hopeless277,
I really like hearing from you, but this comment "As long as we have the idiots to send to die" -- is way out of bounds. Sorry.
Great post, but when was this written - 2005? talk about old news, but I guess it bears repeting. I'm all for it, but my questions still are: what do you do about keeping the Sunni minority from being slaughtered? how do you stop the Shia from cutting off the Kurds from their share of oil revenue? how do we prevent ethnic cleansing of anyone not in the majority? how does the currently corrupt police force protect religous minorities? Who protects the new businesses currently run by folks from countries other than Iraq and the US? How do you keep the Saudis from acting to protect the Sunnis? How do you keep Iran from building alliance with the Shia majority? How to you stop the entire region from starting WWIII? Sorry, just some small piddily questions, but I guess it's not our problem. not.
LewisR,
Iraq and Iran are already in deals for oil and gas, as is China,
and Russia. If Iraqi's believe that they have a source of wealth,
and everyone stands to benefit, I doubt it will make any difference
if it's one of the countries mentioned, or the US. Bush has a lot
of control over the Iraqi government, and that is where the real
problem lies. Did the Iraqi people have a real election, or one
orchestrated by Bush?
Basra could have turned into a swamp of blood, and didn't. You can march out any parade of horribles you want, but at least be honest enough to admit that it is pure speculation.
(Oh, and one you can add in the future when you're doing this, how about Shia on Shia violence to see who gets to be top dog over the trillions of dollars of oil in Iraq?)
LewisR,
Thank you for the comment. My best answer right now off the top of my head is this, hence what I wrote:
"And for those like me who argue strongly for a withdrawal of our troops and contractors from Iraq, my question is this: "Are we fully willing to accept what will happen in Iraq once we actually leave?" I am ready -- even though I acknowledge the very difficult dilemma on our hands."
V/R
John
No, it's not our problem. Our intervention only holds open the wound; we need to get out and let the natural course of how these factions will play out. That's what it comes down to here: will we continue to take responsibility as though we're the imperial backing nation and this is all as it should be, or do we do as the Bristish did--what they learned over time that they had to do--pull out and leave the Iraqis to sort out Iraqi problems. We should provide assistance to whomever manages to form a cohesive government [as the one we propped up will surely fail], as we certainly owe them reparations. But beyond that, we are wasting time, money and lives, and are preventing the Iraqis from constructing their own government and future.
We may not like the outcome of that, but by any legal standards, we don't have the right to object or intervene.
I agree Jacob. Iraq is as fabricated a country as any of the others in that part of the world--Thank you Great Britain. Let them return to the Balkanized and tribal regions they once were, which might actually work to Our advantage, for once.
JacobSinger,
I agree with your analysis -- very much so.
V/R
John
Loading comments…
The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment...
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
When Katie Couric told Haaretz that "The glory days of TV news...
There is one more John McCain gaffe that...
As we have observed throughout the last several years,...
In a flagrant political act, the State Department has...
**UPDATE 7/25** ThinkProgress now reports that the bar...
** Update below: Nas delivers Fox petition to Stephen...
BARCELONA, Spain — Christian Bale swept into Barcelona on Wednesday night to attend a...
If you're wondering about the recent articles claiming that a study found...
HOUSTON — A "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico off...
WASHINGTON — Rescue legislation sailed through the House on Wednesday aimed at...
Posted March 6, 2008 | 03:15 PM (EST)