Is it that surprising? You know...the US has already done this too many times to count. As soon as the US leaves the militias will begin murdering away in earnest, and once they are done the US government will ally themselves with the winner.

Excellent grab. Thanks for posting this.

This is an interesting point of view. I've never been a fan of the, for lack of a better term, "cut and run" presidential candidates. As against this war as I am, I've always been hopeful that there is something to be salvaged and as such have been a proponent of the Three State Solution/political solution. This is the first thing I've read that's made me think, ok, we need to get out NOW.

"This is the first thing I've read that's made me think, ok, we need to get out NOW."

So my question is, have you read any 20th century history? because what is happening in Iraq is very predictable. For gods sake, we are arming malitias and training them too boot! just like we did in El Salvador and Afganistan and many other places. It doesent matter that the policymakers think they are doing it for noble purposes (ar at least saying so on TV). the end result in the same. We are arming and training killers, and when they kill we will be to blame for it. The worst thing we could do is continue to train an "Iraqi" amry, whose soldiers defect to the malitias by the day. At this point it would not surprise me in the least that the reason the Iraqi militants are more organised and effective is because we trained them, right before they defected to shoot at thier teacher-liberators. We are digging our own grave in that country.

Oh, one more interesting fact...osama was trained and armed by the CIA, so if another 9-11 happens a few years from now as a result of an Iraqi trained and taught just like old Osama, are we going to do the deer eye look and ask "why do they hate us?" again because of this damn amnesia this country perpetually suffers from.

Okay...Im done ranting now.

Anton,

Great rant! You said the thought in my head much more intelligently thank my feeble mind could conjure up. That amnesia you mentioned coupled with a lack of knowledge of historic events that parallel this fiasco are the most damaging part of our nation's citizenry - just ahead of our near crippling apathy toward anything not covered in the primetime line-up.

"Why do they hate us?" is one of the dumbest questions every asked and sadly it's equalled by the similarly idiotic answers of "For our freedoms" and "They envy us" - it could never be because we play them like pawns in our constant quest for riches could it? Naw, they're all just evil mindless killers.

An oldie but a goodie: http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.html

To bad this dude (Zakaria) also propagandized for this annilation of Iraq. Otherwise he often has some very wise words of wisdom.

Sorry for the typos on that last post. I'm honestly not a four year old, I'm just stupid. :)

This is the first thing I've read that's made me think, ok, we need to get out NOW.

Are you serious? This has been pretty obvious from the beginning! I made essentially the same point to TeafortheTillerman earlier this month:

I will grant that in the short term (a year or two) there is likely to be more violence as Iraqis battle amongst themselves establish some kind of equilibrium. Furthermore, nothing in the past 4 years convinces me that another year, 2 years, 4 years, 8 years, ... of American occupation will prevent that same battle from commencing when we do leave. You ridicule the setting of a deadline for leaving, but do you then advocate an open ended commitment? At what point will we judge the Iraqi Parliament to be on its feet? And if that point doesn't arrive for, say, another 4 years, do you seriously propose that we just continue our involvement in this asinine war?

..and have been making this point for years. It took a century of British occupation of India for the beginings of a democratic tradition to take root. The neoconservative fantasy of implanting a pluralistic democracy in Iraq in a year or two without breaking a sweat has always been STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! What is interesting is that this fact is something that conservatives once understood:

George F. Will: Time for Bush to see the realities of Iraq

By George F. Will Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, May 5, 2004

... Pat Moynihan said: "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself." Here we reach the real issue about Iraq, as distinct from unpleasant musings about who believes what about skin color.

The issue is the second half of Moynihan's formulation — our ability to wield political power to produce the requisite cultural change in a place like Iraq. Time was, this question would have separated conservatives from liberals. Nowadays it separates conservatives from neoconservatives.

The thing about the 'liberal truth' (politics can change a culture and save it from itself) – it is extremely unlikely that the 'politics' can be imposed by an occupying power at the point of a gun. Wgen it has been, it required total defeat of the existing culture, as in Japan or Germany after WW II.

Get out?

Sheesh folks, the goal was to permanently occupy Iraq among many other countries all according to the PNAC plan.

Cheney just went over to try and get them to sign the oil bill before they lose Republican support in September. American companies will get 70% of the profits for 30 years if it passes.

The oil and permanent bases, that is why we fight.

Knowing how popular an opinion this will be: is this really a bad thing?

The various factions of Iraq were given the opportunity to participate in the government. Some groups decided not to. It makes sense, then, to side with the group who are willing to form a peaceable government.

At times it becomes hard to understand what people believe. Aren't most of you calling for the troops to leave Iraq? If so, what do you want to happen when they do? There will be war. Everyone knows that. And we have to leave sometime.

"So my question is, have you read any 20th century history? because what is happening in Iraq is very predictable."
Of course I agree with this, I don't see anything in my post that would cause you to think otherwise. As I stated I was against the invasion and against the war-- for many of the reasons you cite and more. I'm guessing you were looking for an excuse to go on a rant?
Now that we are lamentably where we are, I am opposed to an immediate end to the occupation because I have hope for a three state solution, something this administration has no intent to try-- instead they will continue to arm and train the Shia to slaughter all the Sunnis as soon as we leave. Of course I'm opposed to the way things are going now. If you have any criticism of the three state solution I'd like to hear it, otherwise this was just a mindless rant that didn't tell me anything I don't already know and did nothing to respond to my post. If you were just needing to let off some steam, then so be it. But make that clear in your post.

(not to be a dick, but it's militia not malitia.)

Sure, I have a criticism. First a little history. A family member of mine worked in Afganistan in the 1970s and we got to talking aboiut politics and he told me this story: the then afghan ruler wanted to coolect taxes from one of his more remote principalaties. he sent 3 tax collectors, a few days later he was returned a bad, containing the human heads of the 3 tax collectors. Not disuaded, he again sent 3 more tax collectors, and the next week he recieved the heads of those tax collectors as well. At that point the shah took no more measures to collect taxes from that principalaty.

the point is this: afganistan, and iraq, are and have never been true nation states. We as americans fundamentaly misunderstand their culture. not only that, but every invasion into those lands have led to complete failure. At the peak of their power the british empire sent 15,000 of their best to conquer afganistan. only one man returned from battle, the rest died, having been shot by an invisiblee enemy from the jagged cliffs of Afganistan. the soviets tried again in 1979, their defeat 9 years later crushed the soviets more than any military competition with the USA ever did and cost Russia thousands of its best soldiers. Iraq and iran were controlled by the British, but terrorism and their weakening empire led them to abandon those lands. Now we amercans are there. Up to now america was "smart" in allowing locals govern and not actually trying to directly manage events on the ground. With the first gulf war this policy changed. the first gulf war was a military success because it was a fast war that did not require occupation. Bush II decided he could replicate that success and is now helplessly stuck. But trying to divide a country in 3 peices, or 6 peices or however many you want is not the way. Iraq is not like Iran which has and always had a unified character and government in one form or another. Iraq was once part of a vast empire, always a land in the middle of some empire, whethere Ottoman or British. The people of Iraq have always been more loyal to their tribe and their local chiefs, to their community and the people they know, then to any centralized government. Like Afganistan, there is no recognition of a unified government. yes Saddam managed to hold a "county", but only in as far as he was able to crush all disent with weapons and fear and maintain a near constant state of war with iran. To split iraq in 3 will not fix the problem of militias for several fundamental reasons: (1) the groups that you would be trying to seperate in fact live in mixed communities. Baghdad for example which represents what, over 20% of the whole population, has mixed areas of sunni and shia, you cant really seperate them, and Palestine as an example of when you do try is not exactly a shining example of how this seperation could work (2) the creation of a Kurdistan will never be alllowed by Turkey. The Turks killed kurds by the hundreds of thousands in the early 20th century (its stil la crim in Turkey to ever mention this fact), and giving the kurds even a bit of true independence will mean that kurds across the border in turkey will likely want independence or a similar accomidation, this will destabalize turkey perhaps cause war. (3) Iran and saudi arabia will likely end up trying to take control of Iraq, a 3 part seperation will mean that in effect each section of iraq wil break up its allegiance to each of these powerful states, the end result is that the 3 regions will not have a truly funcitonal central government of any kind because each region will be loyal only to their patrons. (4) like I said, iraq is a mix of loyalties, not just religious and ethnic, but also regional and teritorial. like gangs, these war chiefs will protect their won, at the expense of any central or regional government.

I can go on and on. But those are probably the most important reasons why the 3 part seperation of iraq will not work. Just imagine a central government Iraqi official trying to collect taxes from a kurd area :) The end result will be some very severed heads...

meant returned a BAG, sorry for the spelling, I should have proof-read.

susceptor, what solution do you see having the best chance of progress? We know Iraq is the "historic trap", so how to go on from where we are now?

I like Murthas plan to redeploy to the border, provide border security and let them sort it out. Help the 1.2 million refugees in camps on border zones, wait for the fighting to moderate, etc.

We are stuck, with no great options it seems.

.ps liked your post susceptor! please use some paragraph breaks next time-makes longer posts easier to read (for me anyway)

The best chance at progress is to change out policies towards the middle east and to teh world in general. To stop acting like a steroid mad suprepower and use the 595 billion we currently spend on war to wage a little peace for once. Terrorists are terrorists for a reason, they have political grievences that have to be dealt with in a political (non-military) way. Look for example to the current peace accords with the Irish IRA. The British tried crushing them with weapons for almost 100 years, until they realised that no matter how much they fights, britain would never be secure from terrorism until and unless they dealt with the underlying causes.

The Middle east should be treated in the same way. Arabs and middle eastern people in general have real and very valid grievences against the US government. The US has funded dictatorships that have oppressed them, the US had funded and supported both militarily and economically the occupation of Palestine, the US stationed troops in the holiest arab lands (saudi arabia) and then we proceeded to invade an arab country (iraq) twice. Until we deal with the underlying causes of unrest such as supporting dictatorships in countries like Egypt and Pakistan, and dealing with the palestine issue, we will never find peace with the arabs.

As far as Iraq goes, the best thing we can do is just leave. At this point we are doing more harm then good. Our funding of the Iraqi military is going directly towards arming the militias. When the genocide begins there in earnest, we will bear the burden because its our weapons and training that will facilitate thie actions of the criminals. lets not help them out anymore... I know this is a messed up solution, its no solution at all really because either way, stay or leave, Iraq will face slaughter and war, but I think at this point we are doing more harm then good, and thats reason enough to just apologize, and leave.