This thinking is horrible:

“One of the reasons that the Iraqi army is a joke is that it has no heavy weapons. When we leave, the Shia government most likely will be the party to acquire them and use them to enforce its authority. We can’t stop this. We could slow it down. We have to come to a decision if we want to.”

Give the (mostly Shia) army heavy weapons and you’ll get your bloodbath.

petwrecker @ 7

Five more effin’ years of Liarputz! How do we get him to change parties?!?!?

The next President could make him an ambassador to somewhere innocuous.

Zimbabwe. He and Mugabe would get along famously.

Seems a fitting reflection of the empty words we can expect from the General…..

I don’t expect much to happen with the Iraq hearings- sound and fury signifying nothing I suppose.

At the end of the day- Bush will get the money- and the dems will retain a campaign issue.

That’s about it.

The real battle is to make sure that if dem wins the White House- the war gets ended within a year.

Why do you want the Iraq war ended within a year? Is that your priority if the Clintons are re-elected? There is absolutely no chance of that. What about revoking all the existing over the air television licenses and allowing for re-application? What about getting off fossil fuels in one year?

Praedor Atrebates @ 115

We cannot change the ultimate outcome. That is a fact. Since we cannot control the outcome, we are clearly not in control of the situation AT ALL.

This is what sticks in the craw of the Bush/Cheney cabal and the DINOs. They just cannot accept the concept and feelings of powerlessness. And that’s where they derive their last vestiges of influence and support from the public.

As Juan Cole made so interestingly clear late last week with his comment about Napoleon’s invasion to “liberate” Egypt from tyrants who were working against the “security interests” of France…Napoleon got his ass kicked out of Egypt. I’m sure that stuck in his craw too.

Ah well. Tough shit though. Bush has repeated/is repeating almost down to the molecule, the debacle that was Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt…only in Iraq. Same words used (literally) to “justify” the invasion, same abuse of power when control couldn’t be gained, and ultimately, the very same leaving with tail between legs when it got to be too much for the French military to continue.

Bush:Napoleon. 200 years apart but practically no space between them.

We cannot change the ultimate outcome. That is a fact. Since we cannot control the outcome, we are clearly not in control of the situation AT ALL.

This is what sticks in the craw of the Bush/Cheney cabal and the DINOs. They just cannot accept the concept and feelings of powerlessness. And that’s where they derive their last vestiges of influence and support from the public.

First and most importantly, we need to reclaim ownership of our Iraq policy, indeed our Middle East generally. By setting unreasonable goals and tying those to events on the ground, Bush has committed us to be in Iraq to the end of his Presidency. Even if the next President wants to get out, it will still take a year or so to plan and execute such a withdrawal. We need to get back in control of our policy. We can and should coordinate with the Iraqis during our departure but our decisions should not be based on whether they come through or not.

Two, nature hates a vacuum, and power even morre so. Our leaving will create power vacuums. It is these that will cause an exacerbation of the civil war and many deaths. Coordinating our withdrawal with the Iraqis as I mentioned above can partially mitigate these. But again our leaving should not be held hostage to whether or not groups on the ground act repsonsibly or not.

Third, getting out of Iraq does not mean removing ourselves or our forces from the Gulf. We can and should keep a presence there. Again power really hates a vacuum, and our leaving this area would promote not reduce instability. Also leaving Iraq would not mean severing all contacts with it. We should keep up economic, political, and yes, even military assistance to the Iraqi state or whichever side in the civil war we decide to back. I’m assuming despite Petraeus’ recent boneheaded dalliance with the Sunnis this will be the Shia. I say this because unlike Petraeus I do know how to count.

Third, we can also mitigate regional conflict. We should definitely push for an accommodation between the Kurds and the Turks. This is eminently doable and would eliminate the most likely source of an overt outside invasion by a neighbor. We can not control Iran’s influence in Iraq. We shouldn’t try. Iraq will always need the international community and by extension us to develop and move forward. These are things that Iran simply can’t do. Also although as a neighbor and a Shia majority state Iran will have a role in Iraq I would not overplay this. Whoever ends up in power in Baghdad is going to keep control of Iraq’s oil wealth for themselves. They are not going to give it away to Iran. Historically, there have been tensions and competition between Persian Iran and Arab Iraq. While the current American occupation and Iraq civil war have obscured these, they have not gone away and will reassert themselves in the future. Iraq will not become Iran’s toy although if Iranians played this smart they could end up with an ally. But this would unlikely be an exclusive relationship. The Middle East is a complex place and interests and allegiances usually split several ways.

Fourth, more of an afterthought, we have to make some serious decisions. We have to give up the notion of permanent bases in Iraq. This has been the stealth policy of this Administration whatever the more high visibility policy (surge, etc.) has been. We have also to give up the idea of a reduced American presence confined to going after “al Qaeda”, training Iraqi troops, and controlling the borders. These have been essentially our primary goals for the last 4 1/2 years and we have not been able to accomplish them with much higher troop numbers. We shall also have to come to a decision about arming Iraqi forces. One of the reasons that the Iraqi army is a joke is that it has no heavy weapons. When we leave, the Shia government most likely will be the party to acquire them and use them to enforce its authority. We can’t stop this. We could slow it down. We have to come to a decision if we want to.

Anyway these are just a few thoughts. I have fudged considerably on the issue of the civil war but it remains the central issue among Iraqis and it is something we can not avoid dealing with once we make the decision to leave.

I think your read of the situation is correct.

Morally, your last paragraph describes the ONLY sensible, mature AND serious response left us.

Well said.

If we stay, the same shit that is happening now will continue at a low, continuous burn into the indefinite future. US soldiers will continue to die and be permanently maimed, thousands of Iraqis will die every month, and we will spend (waste) BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars month after month, year after year, with the ultimate end being us leaving and NOT being in control.

If we leave:

The same shit that is happening now will continue, in some areas at an intensified level…for a while. Thousands of Iraqis will die every month and NO US soldiers will die or be maimed every day. NO Billions and billions of dollars will be wasted in the sand of Iraq and we will not be in control.

So, what’s the difference? Basically the US soldier part and the money wasted part. Beyond that the end result is IDENTICAL. Sorry, I don’t see any good in keeping a raging, unstoppable fire (the Iraqi civil war) simply at a lower level of conflagration for a LONGER period of time vs letting the raging, unstoppable fire burn a bit fiercer but for a shorter period of time. The house STILL gets burned down but in one case, you pointlessly spent a LOT of money and lost a LOT of lives and still ended up with a burnt-down house vs a burnt-down house without the extra loss of lives and the explosive costs.

We cannot change the ultimate outcome. That is a fact. Since we cannot control the outcome, we are clearly not in control of the situation AT ALL.

One more point…the Iranian regime is, if left alone, on its last legs. The up-and-coming, pro-western youth of Iran are NOT interested in continuing the Mullah soft(ish) dictatorship. They are NOT interested in avoiding the happy trappings of western life. Leave Iran alone and in the near future, the “problem” of Iran will self-resolve. Thus, WHO CARES IF IRAQ GETS COZY WITH IRAN!? The result will NOT change because of this! The Mullah-driven Iran would STILL be on its last legs and the youth of Iran would STILL not be interested in perpetuating the whole thing. Iran is NOT a danger unless Bush and his fellow travelers in the Democrapic party MAKE it so.

Iraq IS lost. Period. It is not ours to mold or remold. Its oil is NOT ours to develop or take. Its land is NOT ours to build bases on. We have NO business, nor right, to dictate ANYTHING to the Iraqis (or anyone else for that matter).

The entire ME system is far out of equilibrium. Being thus it is inevitable that it WILL move towards equilibrium. We have no say in this equilibrium. We can merely delay, but NOT ultimately prevent, the equilibrium from being reached. That nature of that equilibrium is out of our hands. In fact, all we EVER do add catalyst to the reactions and ensure that it is broader or faster than it would be without our meddling.

Get out. Now. Period. After we are out, apologize to the people of Iraq and the world for our temporary insanity and then offer to pay reparations to Iraq and help them redevelop without military or corporate strings attached.