Is this the case for immediate withdrawl from Iraq?

[SeattleUte]

History has an unanny knack for repeating itself. In any event, it's the best school master we've got. After the United States withdrew from South Vietnam, it was not long before it fell under control of Communist North Vietnam. It was wrenching to watch our friends, whom we had deserted, flee into exile, or become imprisoned or slaughtered; the United States was in morally ambiguous territory, and we didn't feel good about ourselves.

But I haven't seen one reputable historian yet say there was anything we could have done to change the outcome. Indeed, as in Iraq, the people at war with one another and slaughtering one another had been doing so for hundreds of years. Ultimately, it wasn't our fight, for one thing. Even so, who could deny that the well being of all Vietnamese has only increased since the end of that misbeggoten war and the United States' withdrawal? Lately, the West has been winning not by military conquest, but by the insidious allure of its system of liberty. Liberty is contageous; start with economic liberty as a pragmatic response to economic distress (the pull in this direction ultimately seems irresistible even for authoritarian regimes, in the long run), and the liberty fever seems to spread through all facets of a nation.

Assuming our objectives in Iraq have been noble (I'm sure they by and large have been), are those objectives feasible? I hear very little relflective talk from our leaders about whether what we set out to do is even doable, no matter how much armament and how many soldiers we throw at the problem. Staying in Vietnam as long as we did (the longest war in U.S. history) just made the experience that much more tragic and damaging to all involved. Is it time to recognize that the Iraq war is an impossible mission? Indeed, to recognize that the Iraqi people in the long run will be better off without us occupying their country?

When I was a kid growing up overseas my mother used to tell me that America was the only country that had never lost a war. I thought that was pretty neat. Now I realize that fact (no longer true) was more a reflection of our youth and callowness as a people than anything else.

[MikeWaters]

When I was growing up it was "American has never lost a war. Except Vietnam."

I wouldn't call the current situation in Iraq a war. It is bungled nation-building.

You can't build a nation when the principles are killing each other.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

When I was growing up it was "American has never lost a war. Except Vietnam."

I wouldn't call the current situation in Iraq a war. It is bungled nation-building.

You can't build a nation when the principles are killing each other.

Every invader in history could have called what they were doing the same thing. We invaded Iraq, are now occupying Iraq, and are now fighting the predictable follow-on guerilla war. Predicably we're losing. I'm sure Iran is delighted with what we've done. There is some speculation Iran lured us into a trap. That may be far fetched, but it might as well be true. Because we've played right into our enemies' hands. In the words of George Will, it's maybe the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. History.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

When I was growing up it was "American has never lost a war. Except Vietnam."

I wouldn't call the current situation in Iraq a war. It is bungled nation-building.

You can't build a nation when the principles are killing each other.

Rebuilding a nation beset by sectarian strife is one of the biggest reasons that one would need to do nation building. That is the whole point of doing nation building is to help a very damaged society settle itself into an organization that can handle problems internally. We better figure out how to do it, because it is the future of warfare. Obviously next time we might want to make the operation more open and not subject to an ideological blueprint.

[Archaea]

We should stabilize as much we can, then get out and watch the carnage begin. We'll end up with Iran 2d. We should hole up in Kuwait to guard some access to oil.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Obviously next time we might want to make the operation more open and not subject to an ideological blueprint.

This is a quote from one of my favorite commentaries on the subject.

"Yet the splinter of our presence
in Iraq is increasing, not reducing, violence. By making
this a battle of values, Tony Blair and US President
George Bush risk pitting one culture against another, one
religion against another. This could rapidly become—and
for many it already is—the politics of humiliation.

"Yet absolute despair would be the wrong response.
Instead, the disaster that is the West’s current strategy
in Iraq must be used as a constructive call to the
international community to reconfigure its foreign
policy around human security rather than national
security, around health and wellbeing in addition to
the protection of territorial boundaries and economic
stability.

"...[F]oreign policy is still governed by principles that had
their origin in the 19th century, based, as they were,
around notions of national sovereignty and economic
and geographical self-interest. Those principles need
to be radically revised."

By Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet


He goes on to propose that if we wish to stay in Iraq, that we do so with an increased emphasis on providing basic necessities...health care...to those who live there. He believes this is the only hope for stabilizing Iraq and minimizing loss.

[MikeWaters]

we can't build schools and hospitals when we're getting shot at. and supply trucks are getting dynamited. that's the problem. journalists can't even leave the green zone without military escort.

[BarbaraGordon]

very true.

I think Richard's argument may be that certain individuals in positions of authority never intended schools or hospitals to be a priority.

I find his full argument rather simplistic...that free vaccinations (etc) for third-world countries would magically make the rest of us safe from terrorism.

I'm not sure I can post the whole thing here as it would be a copyright violation and I'm a librarian (and at work) and supposed to uphold these principles.

But I do agree with his assessment that, for the most part, Western foreign policy is still rooted in 19th/20th century tradition and that we need to reconsider how and why we get into (and out of) war.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

History has an unanny knack for repeating itself. In any event, it's the best school master we've got. After the United States withdrew from South Vietnam, it was not long before it fell under control of Communist North Vietnam. It was wrenching to watch our friends, whom we had deserted, flee into exile, or become imprisoned or slaughtered; the United States was in morally ambiguous territory, and we didn't feel good about ourselves.

But I haven't seen one reputable historian yet say there was anything we could have done to change the outcome. Indeed, as in Iraq, the people at war with one another and slaughtering one another had been doing so for hundreds of years. Ultimately, it wasn't our fight, for one thing. Even so, who could deny that the well being of all Vietnamese has only increased since the end of that misbeggoten war and the United States' withdrawal? Lately, the West has been winning not by military conquest, but by the insidious allure of its system of liberty. Liberty is contageous; start with economic liberty as a pragmatic response to economic distress (the pull in this direction ultimately seems irresistible even for authoritarian regimes, in the long run), and the liberty fever seems to spread through all facets of a nation.

Assuming our objectives in Iraq have been noble (I'm sure they by and large have been), are those objectives feasible? I hear very little relflective talk from our leaders about whether what we set out to do is even doable, no matter how much armament and how many soldiers we throw at the problem. Staying in Vietnam as long as we did (the longest war in U.S. history) just made the experience that much more tragic and damaging to all involved. Is it time to recognize that the Iraq war is an impossible mission? Indeed, to recognize that the Iraqi people in the long run will be better off without us occupying their country?

When I was a kid growing up overseas my mother used to tell me that America was the only country that had never lost a war. I thought that was pretty neat. Now I realize that fact (no longer true) was more a reflection of our youth and callowness as a people than anything else.

There may be something to the idea that there is no way to win. My only quibble is that I don't think we had "noble" intentions in going there. I think our motives were selfish: everyone in the universe believed that Iraq had WMD and the administration believed that it was only a matter of time before our antagonism toward Saddam for having them would cause him to give one to a terrorist. Whether that was really true, I am convinced that is what was believed.

Once we were there, and found no WMD (which I would not be surprised to re-surface the second we leave) I think at that point we had noble motives in staying. I think we had to give it a try.

I think that a lot of the analysis on nation building and invasion/occupation misses that point that you don't do these things for fun or as an experiment. You do them because you think there is a threat and that whatever follows cannont be worse. I think this is what we thought. Seems like we may have been wrong, but who knows.

I also wonder whether in the long run there may not be some value in America losing face to the Islamic extremists. Maybe such a thing would embolden them. Maybe it would give them less of an axe to grind. I don't know.