Iraq - What do we do now?

[Samus]

This article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=514&e=5&cid=514&u=/ap/20030419/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_neighbors) off of Yahoo! news got me thinking about Iraq, and where we go from here.

Iraq's neighbors want us gone as soon as possible, and want the Iraqi people to form their own government. They also want the U.S. to police Iraq unitl said government is established.

The U.S. wants to have an interim government with Iraqi advisors, then begin to transfer authority over to Iraqis.

As usual, I've got mixed feelings about both plans. We risked our troops, we removed the regime, we liberated Iraq, shouldn't we have at least a small hand in the reconstruction? Isn't that only fair? Asking us to now step back and let Arab nations (or worse, the U.N.) do all the work seems foolish.

On the other hand, we have no business being there any longer than we need to, and I don't like the idea of U.S. personnel exclusively calling the shots in rebuilding the government.

My thoughts? Have a joint U.S.-Iraqi coalition begin to restructure the government and restore essential infrastructure (water, electricity, roads, etc.) Once they come up with the best way to govern, we begin to step out. We help them write a constitution. As for the U.N., I'd just assume they keep out, or at the least, not have a dominant role in rebuilding Iraq.

Comments? Flames?

[Mel]

Originally posted by dwb

Iraq's neighbors want us gone as soon as possible, and want the Iraqi people to form their own government. They also want the U.S. to police Iraq unitl said government is established.



I'd be more apt to consider Iraq's neighbors IF they had any concept of what a government is supposed to be.

Aren't they rushing us out ONLY so another fundamentalist country can spring up in the area? The one thing we have to 'credit' Saddam with is that his corrupt & brutal form of government was secular as opposed to the corrupt & brutal RELIGIOUS governments in the region.

And gee, it's nice of them to agree that we should stick around long enough to get the people calmed down. Has it ever occured to these geniuses to appeal to Muslims in general to NOT use violence against other Muslims or infidels??

You'd think at least ONE of the fat Princes in Saudi Arabia could take time out from his busy scheduele to denounce violence? You'd think the King of Jordan would find his voice and decide to stand up for what's right even though some people might call him traitor to Arabs? The silence from Egypt is deafening as well.

We're dealing with a whole region that will NOT change a thing unless and until they have NO CHOICE.

[aerocontrols]

It's a little difficult to take seriously calls for democracy in Iraq from Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Fraudi Arabia. Each of them wants a big chunk of power in the vacuum that will be created if we leave too soon.

[Tricky]

I feel like we must stay in Iraq until order is brought (because "restored" is probablly not the right word). By doing this, of course, we will bring down the wrath of the Arab world, as well as the Iraqis themselves, but we must do it anyway. We broke it. We have to fix it. This is why so many have said that winning the war would be easy, but winning the peace would be infinitely more difficult.

Of course, I also believe that we must work with the people of Iraq, not do anything that would make it look as if we were trying to plunder their resources or set up a puppet government, and keep our nose out of Shiite vs. Sunni politics. A tall order, to say the least. It's one reason why I was against going to war, but now that that option is gone, we cannot leave these "liberated" people free to kill each other in tribal squabbles, as we seem to have done in most of Afghanistan. Here's where the Coalition must show that they truly are compassionate liberators, not vengeful warlords. I hope it is possible, but I'd say the odds are against it.

[iain]

Originally posted by dwb
We risked our troops, we removed the regime, we liberated Iraq, shouldn't we have at least a small hand in the reconstruction? Isn't that only fair? Asking us to now step back and let Arab nations (or worse, the U.N.) do all the work seems foolish. Just a small point. The main reason for the war, according to Bush and Blair, was always to protect the US, Britain and other Western countries from the threat posed by Iraq.

This is perfectly reasonable (as long as Iraq did pose a threat and the whole thing wasn't made up); but I don't think we should fool ourselves that the war was a war of liberation.

Remember that if Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions to America's satisfaction, he would still be in power today.

[Gem]

I was against the war in the begining. I changed my mind after hearing about hte terrible conditions the Iraqis are in. Of course, I still doubt the motives for the US (Changing from threat to liberation argument).

My opinion is the US will never withdraw the troops. THink about it, Iraq touches syria, jordan, iran, and saudi arabia. It has a lot of oil, and the new government (puppet or not) will support the US like Kuwait did in the 1990s. Iraq as a base of military operation will make the neighboring countries think twice before attacking isreal or any other country.

I think they should withdraw, maybe in a few years or so, when everything is secured and there is an Iraqi peacekeeping (military and police) force loyal to the government.

Gem

Originally posted by Mel

Aren't they rushing us out ONLY so another fundamentalist country can spring up in the area? The one thing we have to 'credit' Saddam with is that his corrupt & brutal form of government was secular as opposed to the corrupt & brutal RELIGIOUS governments in the region.




I agree with this 100%. I think Iran is behind the move to get us out quickly so they can exert their own influence on Iraq. There is a lot of bad blood between Iran and Iraq.

The irony is that the attack on the WTC by OBL was supposedly because he was protesting our presence in the Middle East. This got him a lot of sympathy over there. And now here we are an even bigger presence. So this resentment about our presence there is a very handy tool for Iran to use to meddle in our meddling. :)

[iain]

Originally posted by LukeT


I agree with this 100%. I think Iran is behind the move to get us out quickly so they can exert their own influence on Iraq. There is a lot of bad blood between Iran and Iraq.

The irony is that the attack on the WTC by OBL was supposedly because he was protesting our presence in the Middle East. This got him a lot of sympathy over there. And now here we are an even bigger presence. So this resentment about our presence there is a very handy tool for Iran to use to meddle in our meddling. :) Which rather begs the question of whether Iraq can ever be a real democracy.

[Mel]

Originally posted by iain
Which rather begs the question of whether Iraq can ever be a real democracy.

Iraq can be a democracy if they WANT to be a democracy and if their NEIGHBORS allow this to happen.

IMO, the BEST chance for any lasting democracy in the region is to remove the one sticking point that the Arabs "CLAIM" as the reason for the unrest in the area....... the Palestinian problem.

Resolve this issue to some type of satisfaction & you have removed their favorite excuse for not being able to exist as civilized people.

Nothing will change until you force them to put up or shut up.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Mel
Iraq can be a democracy if they WANT to be a democracy and if their NEIGHBORS allow this to happen.

Not necessarily. The Kurds pose a large problem. It's going to be very difficult to prevent a tyranny of the majority.