Voters unhappy with Bush; Congress

[yesman065]

Absolutely, but we should help them have the opportunity to do so if we can.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Well that's what is going on, but for how long should we wait for them to step up, especially in the political arena?

[yesman065]

I don't know - we have to equate the psyche of a nation that has been abused by decades of tyranny and a dictatorship in addition to the accepted ways of life in the mideast to make that determination. Is it comparable on a mass scale to an abused or battered woman or someone who was tortured? How long does it take to regain some type of rational thought - especially in the current setting? How long will it take for them to rid themselves of the shock, of the fear of death that has gripped them, many since birth - that they have been living with everyday for so very long? Personally, I have no idea, but I don't think we are that close yet. They are probably scared to death, and rightly so, that the next president is gonna leave them as soon as possible once s/he takes office.

[piercehawkeye45]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ef=mpstoryview

U.S. officials rethink hopes for Iraq democracy

* Story Highlights
* Some U.S. officials lose optimism for political system in Iraq
* Government that simply functions would satisfy many
* Iraq lacks sovereignty over its own troops, intelligence
* "Democratic institutions not necessarily the way ahead," general says

From Michael Ware and Thomas Evans
CNN

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.

Sadly, this is what may very well happen. Better than genocide and Somalia-like anarchy though.

[yesman065]

We, as a democracy, cannot force any type of Gov't on them or anyone else for that matter - we can only give them the chance to do it on their own.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Sadly, this is what may very well happen. Better than genocide and Somalia-like anarchy though.

A benchmark for any accomplishment is Kurdistan. Until the rest of Iraq gets tired of killing one another, then nothing will change there. Violence is even routine in Basra. The only viable challenge is to create an Iraq that does not spread violence into Kurdistan.

This is not just about Sunni and Shia attacks on Kurds. There is the ongoing problem of Kurd and Turk violence across those borders. And Kurdish violence in Iran. To avoid such violence means that Kurdistan, so independent as to fly its own flag, still remain part of Iraq.

It's just not viable to wish the rest of Iraq will be peaceful even in five years. Even the electric grid is now breaking about into fiefdoms defined by the many maybe one hundred different adversaries that some foolishly want to call Al Qaeda. As a result, Baghdad now only gets 2 to 6 hours of electricity every day as outlying areas horde electricity rather than share it with Baghdad.

This is not a country that can be measured in peace. The question is how much routine violence will be acceptable AND how does a US Military that entrenched itself (with intent to have permanent bases) now withdrawal – and without letting violence expand into Kurdistan.

The Iraq Study Group had our only viable plan. The question is now whether that is still possible. Back then, violence in Basra was not routine. So far, we have been lucky. Kirkuk has not become another hotbed of overt violence, yet.

[queequeger]

The question of 'is it still possible' is a difficult one, tw. And I certainly agree with your revue of the Kurds. But any withdrawal is, in my dearest opinion, a horrible moral mistake.

And now, this is bound to upset most of the left wing in these here forums (the left of which I consider myself a part), I look at this as a simple question of cause and effect. What will happen if we withdraw? Chaos and destruction, plain and simple. Anyone argues otherwise out of their hat. I look at the American military, still (although it's getting close) the only military superpower, and I look at the mess we've made. The horrible, appalling, murderous, teeter totter that we've made. I look and worry about the families and children that I've seen and never met.

I was against this war from the start, and although the disastrous mistakes have all but ruined our chances, we can still effectively win this counter insurgency and insure a safer Iraqi people. But not with this paltry force and underfunded reconstruction we're doing now. There is so much disgust for the up-til-now handling of this war.

Problem is, this will never happen. The american voter will never stand behind the 350,000+ troops that would be needed, nor the multi-billion that we'd need to spend on reconstructing that which has rotted away (the electricity, water, business, schools and even military). America is weary of the lies and the coffins.

Counter insurgency campaigns can be won, and there are dozens of historical manuals from French, British, and even American CI wars fought. Up til now, we've broken every rule of the CI handbook with our ham fisted, short sighted tactics. We'd have to test new ground to regain lost trust, but I really do believe that if the american people stood up and said "fuck all, let's do this," we would see a thriving Iraq in about 9 years (the almost universal timespan CI campaign lasts).

And yes, before you ask, I absolutely believe that the thousands of men and women who signed up to fight in wars that would die (and have already died) would do so willingly to save the lives of the hundreds of thousands who will die if we don't.

[DanaC]

Counter insurgency campaigns can be won, and there are dozens of historical manuals from French, British, and even American CI wars fought. Up til now, we've broken every rule of the CI handbook with our ham fisted, short sighted tactics. We'd have to test new ground to regain lost trust, but I really do believe that if the american people stood up and said "fuck all, let's do this," we would see a thriving Iraq in about 9 years (the almost universal timespan CI campaign lasts).

More useful might be the gradual replacement of US Troops with a combined UN and NATO force.

[queequeger]

See, that I can get behind. I have no preference whatsoever with who's under the helmets, as long as they fight surgically, and respect the Iraqi people, not like many soldiers there now.

I could link many others, but they're not in english, so I don't know if anyone can read them.

[DanaC]

I think it may feel less like an occupying army if it was an international force.

[queequeger]

Also, it might help with trust issues... and an international force wouldn't, by virtue of working for one of the dumbest non-retarded people alive, by obsessed with fighting Al Qa'ida in Iraq (which comprises about 10% of the actual insurgency, has no weight with it's populace, and barely has ties with the UBL network).

Glad we can agree on that.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by queequeger

And now, this is bound to upset most of the left wing in these here forums (the left of which I consider myself a part), I look at this as a simple question of cause and effect. What will happen if we withdraw? Chaos and destruction, plain and simple.

Yes, the big problem I have with fellow lefties on the Iraq issue is that they are trying to tell people that pulling out is best for the Iraqi people when they are getting their sources from people that want us out of Iraq regardless if it is best for the people or not.

I don't much trust for any source about Iraq anymore, bad or good.

edit- I would be considered a leftist btw