Iraqi Governemnt Lobbies Congress to Stay

[Republican_Man]

[Republican_Man]

Okay, so here's what I'm getting here. The Iraqi government, at its own wish and recognizing the threat of the US pulling out soon, has gone all the way to visit Washington, D.C. to tell the Congress that it needs the US to stay in Iraq longer. Here�s what this news has got me thinking about.

The Iraqi government wants us to stay. Let me reiterate: they want us to stay. If the Iraqi government wants us to stay and needs are help, doesn't that tell us something about what our course should be and how we shouldn't be talking about a precipitous withdrawal? How can we abandon the Iraqi government when they're telling us and feeling it important enough to come to the US and lobby Congress to get us to stay?

On the same token, however, I recognize that thus far their efforts at finding a political solution and so forth have either had relatively little (noticeable) success or recognizable effort to bring the country together and remedy, at least to some extent, the situation there. Therefore, my hope is that these meetings also showed the Iraqis that they need to really try to work for a political solution to their problems and actually step up now and really try to find a solution and get things going so that we don't leave. I hope that they got the message that the political will in this country is slipping day by day and that there's a point beyond which our efforts just won't continue there, and that if they're really serious about wanting us to stay they have to take recognizable steps forward that all Americans can see and realize and say, "Hey, our efforts really do mean something there and the Iraqi people are really trying to make this work. We should stay and finish the job."

Right now we're just not seeing that, and I think that's critical if the effort is to continue and succeed. The political situation has improved there in recent months, as has the military situation as a result of the surge and President Bush's and General Petraeus�s change in strategy (particularly as it relates to Baghdad).

The Iraqi government, which clearly gets the full reality of the situation in Iraq (there's no way they can't, given the circumstances and the position in which it is in, recognizes the need for the US to stay, but they must recognize that our patience is limited and weighing thin. We tend to rally behind war before it happens, but once we realize that people actually die in war, we don�t like it. Recognizing both these aspects simultaneously, they have to know that it's necessary that they step up and redouble their efforts to improve the situation there.

Iraq is a necessary and noble struggle, in my opinion, and I think we need to be there until the Iraqi people can protect themselves and sustain themselves without our intervention and the terrorists can be held at bay in that country. However, it's clear that the Congress, including an increasing number of Republicans, and the American people are losing patience, and I'm hoping that this trip gave the delegation the message: that if they don't step up soon, bad things are going to happen and we're not going to stay there because the political will, like with Vietnam, will be gone, and what happened in Vietnam when we left will happen in Iraq now. But this time we won't have Vietnamization - we'll have Iraqization, and the results will be the same, only perhaps more dire on a global scale, as what happens in Iraq affects the whole region, and what happens in the Middle East affects the Western world.

I do want to recommend everyone, especially those opposed to the effort in Iraq, to the "After Action Report" of retired General Barry R. McCaffrey, a highly-decorated military servant who returned from Iraq and produced this in-depth report in March. I haven't read the whole thing, but this report shares with us both the good and the bad in Iraq, of which there is plenty of both. As the General, who was praised highly tonight by retired Marine Colonel David Hunt, a man who, when I once heard a highly esteemed Major in the Marines speak, was hailed as something of "the only military analyst you can really trust" and who has been critical of much of the military policies of the administration, lets us all know the reality of the situation.

He tells us point-blank of the problems Iraq is facing, of which there are many, stating flat-out that �the US Armed Forces are in a position of strategic peril,� that the Iraqis are lacking in preparedness and defensive capabilities, so and so forth, yet at the same time he says that, "Since the arrival of General David Petraeus in command of Multi-National Force Iraq--- the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved." In that portion he tells us of many of the successes we've had and some ways in which the Iraqi people are standing up, which is a good thing to see happening. Is it enough? I'd certainly say not, but I think it's enough to warrant that Congressional leaders take a step back and give the policy a minimum of six months more. After that point, if things are still grim, then we can start talking alternatives.

I think, looking at the whole picture, as the General relates quite well in this report, there is enough proof of success, or at least potential for success, at this point to warrant that we give the mission one more chance, and enough proof that the situation will deteriorate if we pull out in a manner that, as the General says, "[w]ill in all likelihood result in a widened regional struggle which will endanger America�s strategic interests (oil) in the Mid-east for a generation. We will also produce another generation of soldiers who lack confidence in their American politicians, the media, and their own senior military leadership." Is it worth that, plus a number of other humanitarian tragedies which will no doubt result? I'd say not.

You can view the entire report here, and I highly recommend that everyone check it out. It�s got plenty of good stuff to read.

Furthermore, though, if I were placed in charge of deciding how Iraq should be handled politically, as I�ve said before, I�d go the route of the three state, one country solution which is advocated principally, at least on the major national field, by Democratic Senator Joe Biden, although we�d go about it in different ways.

I�d split Iraq into three separate states � a Sunni state, a Shi�a state, and a Kurdish state (they�re doing well now already) � with Baghdad as the multiethnic capital city which is not part of any of those three states. The national government, which would broadcast out of Baghdad, would then be reduced to essentially managing the distribution of oil revenues, internal security, international relations, the army, and matters that affect multiple Iraqi states and need some method of mediation for those disputes. Otherwise, the Iraqi states would essentially be autonomous and be able to run their own affairs democratically and not worry so much about working with the other groups to manage the whole country.

The main problem that is presented with this plan is for the areas other than Baghdad which contain multiple religious groups, and frankly right now I don�t have a real solid solution for how to deal with that, but I�m sure one could be figured out. No matter what the Iraqis do now I don�t think we�ll ever see complete political success with trying to make Iraq into one country in the mold of a federalist US-style state, and I therefore think the three state, one country solution is the way to go. But, seeing as that�s not all that likely, at least at this point, I vote we work to get the Iraqi government to really try to make solid progress on the political front and step up to find a solution that can work � not perfectly, but work � that would allow the Iraqi people to sustain themselves politically and be in a position for us to leave, and I do think that is possible, so long as enough pressure is put on the Iraqis to do so (though not a timetable for withdrawal, but reasonable threats of potential pullout due to lack of political will are reasonable).

Politically I would also go to the public, many of whom want us out, and say, �If you want us out, step up yourselves. If you want us out, show us that you can deal with the situation there and sustain yourself without erupting into total chaos.� Privately pressure needs to be placed on the Maliki government and they need to be told that if something clear and indisputable isn�t done over the next few months, would could be out of there due to lack of political will. Hopefully, again, this delegation got the message that our patience is wearing thin and that�ll help, but the Bush administration itself needs to really put that pressure, in private, on the Iraqi government. That�s essential to success in the country.

Militarily I would, along with the switching of Iraq�s political structure, continue to give the Bush-Petreaus strategy, which has proven to have some success, a real chance at succeeding in full, because I think it holds a great deal of promise. And so does General McCaffery, who states that, �In my judgment, we can still achieve our objective of: a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction, and fully committed to a law-based government.�

We need to stay the course. There are plenty of things we can do to improve and strategies that we can shift around, but there is, believe it or not, a lot of good coming out of Iraq right now due to our military strategies and some political efforts on the part of both us and the Iraqi government, and I say we let it continue and give it one last chance. If in six months the situation isn�t noticeably better, then I�ll seriously start thinking that we might need a sharp change in course. But let�s give it six months and not leave the Iraqis at the mercy of the terrorists and a conflict that will erupt into a full-fledged civil war if left unchecked. I believe it is our moral obligation to do so. We have obligations we�ve taken on in Iraq and we can�t leave the Iraqis out there to dry and abandon both them and our obligations to that nation. We have to finish the job, and in light of all the good things coming out of Iraq, despite all the bad, I say we give it one more shot, for a secure and stable Iraq is better for the region which is better for the US and better for the world. An insecure and unstable Iraq, on the other hand, is bad for the region and worse for the US and worse for the world. Not to mention it gives the terrorists a leg up propaganda-wise, for they will be able to say once again, as Osama did after Somalia (and increased membership numbers as a result), that America is a weak nation which will leave when the going gets tough and will give them a new sense of strength.

If we pull out now, or even by the end of the year, Osama and his ilk will look at this, Somalia, Vietnam, and other historical precedents and say, �Look at how weak America is! When they going gets tough they�ll pull out. We�re strong and we can beat back America. We�ve already done it, and we can do it again! Join with us and, with the grace of Allah, we shall succeed and be victorious! Allah Ackbar!�

Do we really want to send our enemies such a message of American weakness? I�d suggest not. Staying in Iraq has both Iraqi and American benefits, and we need to reap in those benefits, not turn them into tragedy and propaganda for our enemies.

We need to continue the fight and not abandon the Iraqi people in their time of need. We cannot give the terrorists a strategic tool which they can easily turn against us.

To close I would like to quote a passage from Ronald Reagan�s 1964 �A Time for Choosing� speech:

[WeAz]

It's not their decision. If the American people want to leave, then we will.

[Kyle Reese]

[Founder]

[WeAz]

That was back when every single piece of news said that the Iraqi gov't was taking month long vacations...

[Republican_Man]

[Link, the Hero of Time]

We're trying to establish peace in a place where three major religious groups want to kill each other, and have been for a very long time.

Since the government is supposed to follow the will of the PEOPLE, the Iraqi government sould put it to a vote and let the people decide whether we should stay or not, like it should be up to us on whether we should stay or not.

[Republican_Man]

[WeAz]

We, the American people, should decide where to commit our troops. Not the Iraq gov't.

[PrankishSmart]

[Republican_Man]

[squiggy]

[Kyle Reese]

[WeAz]

[Founder]

[Kyle Reese]

[WeAz]

Neither will staying...

[squiggy]

[Republican_Man]

Please tell me, squiggy: How do you negotiate with a group of people that have such a profound hatred for you that all they can think of is destroying you and your way of life or subjugating you and converting you to their faith? These people cannot be negotiated with. There is no way to negotiate with folks like bin Laden. All they want is an Islamic world state with the US and Israel off the map or subjugated in total. That's it.

Appeasement didn't work with Germany or the Soviet Union. How in the world can you even think it's going to work with the folks in Al Qaeda? The fact is it can't, and won't, and these terrorists are not people to negotiate with. And bear in mind that the bulk of the terrorist attacks are being carried out by Al Qaeda and other outside forces, so it's not just a matter of "they'll pick on their own government," because it's not necessarily their own government, and it's far beyond "picking on them," too.

I highly recommend you read that report I discussed in my lengthy post, squiggy, because part of it addresses the hell that will result from a pullout, not from us staying there. Us staying there longer gives this effort a chance to work. Pulling out leaves Iraq in total chaos which cannot be repaired. But I'll defer to the General's report for further argument.

[Kyle Reese]

[squiggy]

[Puck]

[Republican_Man]

[Puck]