Brilliant political move yesterday by Romney

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I did you the favor of addressing each of your questions after your prodding. You chose to ignore many of mine, then linked to a year old Cato article on Iraq. Not very good form.

Which of your questions did I ignore?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Which of your questions did I ignore?

Start with these:

How do you plan to deal with the fallout of leaving an unstable regime in the region? What will you tell our friends there, especially Arabs who will see Persian dominance of a fellow Arab state?
How will you protect our Kurdish friends in the north from reprisals/dominance from Iraqis, Iranians, and Turks?
How will you prevent a civil war and what are the contingencies should one break out?
How will you deal with those Iraqis who worked with us and will certainly face reprisals at the face of those we are fighting? For example, what about the tribal chieftans in Anbar province?
How will you secure our diplomatic facilities and diplomats in country, or is the plan to significantly reduce that presence as well?

As best as I can tell, I guess these are your responses:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ideally, our withdrawal from Iraq prompts the Iraqis to get far more serious about internal progress and they accomplish what you have set up as our goal in Iraq.

As for the Kurds, they are likely easier to protect than the Sunnis. Turkey is susceptible to influence, due to their strong desire to be integrated into the EU. The Iraqis have shown, at least of late, a willingness to be more tolerant of the Kurds. The recent oil agreement is an example.

As to how we prevent a civil war and what the contingencies are, those are issues that must be answered whether we are in Iraq or not, likewise with the tribal chieftans.

Where's the beef? Sounds like a lot of hopeful thinking and expectation. We will be able to exert diplomatic pressure on Turkey not to attack Kurds in Northern Iraq? They take shots at them already and we're there. Why do you think our absence will increase our ability to influence their actions? I think it likely that they will increase their cross border activity, destablilizing the one part of the Iraq that appears to be actually working. What would prevent Sunnis from cooperating with Turkey to decrease Kurdish power?

While you're contemplating those questions, here's one that is very near and dear to Dem hearts. How will you prevent Al Qaeda from taking advantage of the internal instability and setting up more training facilities inside Iraq? That Cato piece acknowledges the presence of training camps. Aren't these terrorists our real targets?

We haven't even discussed Israel's reaction to our pull-out.

Or do you agree with Obama when he says the internal situation may necessitate we keep our troops there beyond his timeframe for withdrawal?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Start with these:

How do you plan to deal with the fallout of leaving an unstable regime in the region? What will you tell our friends there, especially Arabs who will see Persian dominance of a fellow Arab state?

I already answered this. The plan is not to leave an unstable regime in the region, but to prompt the Iraqis to plan for our exit and begin implementing measures that will allow them to be self-sufficient in 2 years time (or longer) when we do go. Is it possible that will fail? Absolutely. Just as it is possible that plan of remaining in Iraq to make it stable could fail. The US won't be entirely absent from the region. It has several military bases in the area.

Fortunately, a gigantic civil war isn't in the best interest of any of the regional powers. Syria, Iran and Turkey all have substantial Kurdish minorities in their borders. Civil war in Iraq would almost certainly lead to tremendous instability with the Kurdish populations throughout the region. Iran is the nation most frequently talked about that would cause problems, but it isn't even clear that a full-scale civil war is in their interest. While Iran is Shia, they are also Persian, and the Shia in Iraq largely view themselves as Arab. Iran could face issues if the Arab Shia turn on the Persian Shia and nationalism increases. furthermore, too much meddling by Iran would almost certainly lead to a proxy war with Saudi Arabia, something neither of those two countries can much afford. The US would need a strong blend of diplomacy and possible threats of military intervention against foreign powers wanting to meddle too much within Iraq. This is, by the way, the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group as well.

Is it a perfect answer? Hardly. But is it at least as good as yours? Definitely.

How will you protect our Kurdish friends in the north from reprisals/dominance from Iraqis, Iranians, and Turks?

How are we protecting them now? Turkey is invading northern Iraq with regularity. What is our occupation doing to stop that? Withdrawing from Iraq forces each of the three major groups within Iraq to reevaluate their position and political realities, something that will never happen as long as we are in Iraq protecting the Shia from the Sunni (which is the opposite of what most would view as being in our best interest). The three groups, through recent oil sharing agreements, have shown an ability to work together. That can be built upon.

The best protection, long term, is a diplomatic solution, as I mentioned above. Do you honestly believe that 100,000 US troops can require everyone to get along in Iraq?

How will you prevent a civil war and what are the contingencies should one break out?

I already discussed this as well. This is an issue that is equally pertinent whether we are in Iraq or not. Iraq has been on the verge of civil war many times during the US occupation. Could a full-scale civil war erupt? Possibly. All three groups in Iraq are heavily armed, so at the least, mass genocide is unlikely. The US may need to assist people in relocating to safer areas in Iraq in the event substantial armed conflict arises. If civil war is going to erupt, it is going to happen whether we are in Iraq or not.

How will you deal with those Iraqis who worked with us and will certainly face reprisals at the face of those we are fighting? For example, what about the tribal chieftans in Anbar province?

How are we dealing with them now? They are already being executed. You are fooling yourself if you think the military presence can guarantee their safety. We just have to do the best we can to help them. Relocate them if necessary. But in the meantime, we work to minimize the threat they face by announcing a withdrawal date and encouraging the Iraqis to prepare for our departure and for their own future.

How will you secure our diplomatic facilities and diplomats in country, or is the plan to significantly reduce that presence as well?

Have you seen the embassy we constructed in Iraq? It is a fortress, designed to be a fortress. It will be heavily guarded and fortified.

Where's the beef? Sounds like a lot of hopeful thinking and expectation. We will be able to exert diplomatic pressure on Turkey not to attack Kurds in Northern Iraq? They take shots at them already and we're there. Why do you think our absence will increase our ability to influence their actions? I think it likely that they will increase their cross border activity, destablilizing the one part of the Iraq that appears to be actually working. What would prevent Sunnis from cooperating with Turkey to decrease Kurdish power?

"A lot of hopeful thinking and expectation?" Now that is amusing. Are you going to pretend that remaining in Iraq with our military presence requires any less hopeful thinking and expectations? You seem to be of the opinion that there is one obvious clear answer to Iraq's problems. Just stay! You will see! Everything will be fine! If it were that easy, we wouldn't be having this argument. There are very real costs (in lives and money) to remaining in Iraq. There are very real possibilities of total destabilization. There is the very real possibility that the US presence is actually hindering progress in Iraq. This is a garbage situation with lots of garbage answers. We have to sort through the trash and hope we pick out the one that stinks the least.

While you're contemplating those questions, here's one that is very near and dear to Dem hearts. How will you prevent Al Qaeda from taking advantage of the internal instability and setting up more training facilities inside Iraq? That Cato piece acknowledges the presence of training camps. Aren't these terrorists our real targets?

This threat is hugely overplayed. According to US estimates (yes, the Bush administration's estimates), there are only 2,000 al-Qaeda members in Iraq right now. The Iraq Study Group puts the number at 1,300. That is a very small number. Most are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, areas where Obama and Clinton (and McCain) have indicated they will search in order to destroy al-Qaeda cells.

We haven't even discussed Israel's reaction to our pull-out.

Discuss away.

Or do you agree with Obama when he says the internal situation may necessitate we keep our troops there beyond his timeframe for withdrawal?

Sure I agree. Any president will have to look at the situation on the ground as things progress and make decisions based on new information. That should be obvious (at least to those of us who want a president who is NOT stubborn and unwilling to change course like Bush).