I hate it when that happens

[jhetley]

You know, Fearless Leader is right when he says that it's a bad idea to tell the nasties exactly when the only sheriff is leaving town.  Iraq is a mess now.  It will only get worse when we pull out.

Not saying I have an answer.  Just, we broke it, we bought it.  Whether we should have been in the china shop in the first place?  That's a different question.

Enough mixed metaphors for one day.

Comments

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

...which was followed on my flist by kradical's Anguished English post of the day which contained a mixed-up metaphor.

On the subject, however: sure we broke it, we bought it. But we are not competent enough to fix it - at least not under the current leadership. The UN needs to hold this country responsible - we need to be treated as an invading army, and need to be slapped around economically. As a country, we need to face our failure and deal with it. (http://kradical.livejournal.com/900741.html) ()

[wcg.livejournal.com]

I'll agree that the US has demonstrated an inability to fix Iraq, but I have to take exception to your suggestion that the UN is the appropriate agency to fix things. The UN is at least as dysfunctional as the US. Furthermore, what military force could the UN muster without the US to secure and stabilize Iraq?

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

I only bring up the UN because they had advised the US not to start this up - they should be the one to issue punishments gainst the US.

I'm not entirely convinced that vast numbers of troops are needed to help stabilize the situation. That is far more likely to create more resistance against the occupying army.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Like I said, I don't have an answer. All of the choices seem to be between worse and worse.

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

Understood.

If the US did admit fault and accept blame, it would go badly for our us. That might shock the voting public into reality, but it might just create more bipartisan blamestorming.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

The UN can't issue punishments against the US without its permission; the US has a veto in the Security Council. Other nations might be able to if they chose to.

Much though it would be bad for my home if they did, it bothers me that they (probably) won't (and probably wouldn't if they could). The US is too valuable a trading partner, at least for now.

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

That's where the real issue is: integrity and lack thereof. The country really needs to accept blame for what it did, hold the leaders responsible, and so on.

Much though it would be bad for my home if they did, it bothers me that they (probably) won't (and probably wouldn't if they could). The US is too valuable a trading partner, at least for now.

Exactly.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

I guess the real question is whether or not we can help by staying in the china shop? Even the most contrite and well intentioned of bulls will continue to break the remaining china. The bull has to learn to stop being clumsy, and I don't see that happening.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Well, no slight intended to the USMC and Airborne troops, but using assault forces as an occupying army...

[wcg.livejournal.com]

That is indeed a big part of the problem. There used to be Marines with a lot of experience in this sort of thing, back in the 20s and 30s of the last century. There's even a nice little book called The Small Wars Manual that was printed at Quantico which discusses the practical problems of conquering and occupying a 3rd world country. The problem these days is that very few Marines have read it, and I doubt anyone in the other services has.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Actually, I've been looking at it slightly differently.

If the Iraqis know that we're gone in September of next year, say, they can start planning now, knowing that it's real, knowing that they have no more scapegoat, and knowing that they will have the country that they are willing to fight to keep. They have 15 months to make a country they can sustain.

They can ask other nations to help them; some nations that wouldn't help bail the US's fat out of the fire might be willing to help the Iraqi people, and there will no longer be any conflicts between where the US has command authority and where Iraq does.

The idea that we must not leave seems based upon one of two ideas.

1) we're doing some good by staying (or, we clearly *can* do some good, some time in the near future, by staying),
or
2) we're helping to keep the bad guys pinned down. ("we can fight them there or fight them here", which only makes sense if we have them pinned down. If we have them pinned down, then we're "fighting them there" because they can't leave. If we don't, the only reason we're fighting them there is that they think the can do more damage to us there.)

I think that 2) is completely false; I think they're fighting us there because that's where they can hurt us most easily. I think that 1) can be argued, but it hasn't been argued, it's just been asserted. If someone shows me that we are, or will be, doing more good than harm, then I'm willing to buy the "we broke it, we should fix it" argument.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that the answer, after your possible 15 months, will be all-out three-way civil war. With open intervention by Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Turkey will want to crush the Kurds and prevent an independent Kurdistan, Iran will push for total Shia supremacy based on demographics, and the Saudis will support the Sunni minority against genocide.

You seem to hope for compromise. I don't see much chance.

Sometimes you just have to let the cookie crumble

[(Anonymous)]

Not a mixed metaphor.

There's no way out; that's right. But we have to go through it. Leave it behind, turn around, and have a real hard look at ourselves, what we've done, why, and ask how can we never do that again? The bull in a chinashop theory, the flypaper theory, the "they'll follow us home" line... it's all just political bullshit. We've *blown* it. Time to take our ball and go home. And cry.