10 Shias killed, 50 kidnapped in Iraq ambush
- Thread starter CBC News
- Start date
USA Must Get Out of Iraq NOW!
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...253&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
U.S. must get out of Iraq — now
Iraq taught him that the West has overestimated the influence of the coalition and underestimated Iraqis, says Rory Stewart
Nov. 8, 2006. 01:00 AM
RORY STEWART
Iraqis are the only people who can rebuild their nation. The U.S.-led coalition cannot. It has done what good it can do. The coalition should get out now.
The positions of U.S. politicians and voters on Iraq before the mid-term elections reflected guilt, wishful thinking, impotence and panic. President George W. Bush is backing awkwardly away from his slogan "Stay the course;" many Republicans are attempting to dissociate themselves from the problems in Iraq.
Democrat positions range from support for the Bush administration's decisions to calls for withdrawal. But almost all fear that Iraq will sink into deeper anarchy if coalition forces leave, endangering the interests of the United States.
I felt the same when I handed my post as coalition deputy-governor of Dhi Qar province to my Iraqi successor, Muhammad Abbas, in June 2004. I had spent about a year in the Shiite south working with U.S. colleagues to dispense millions of dollars of development aid, hold elections and bolster the state.
But Iraqi leaders had been reluctant to co-operate with each other or fight the insurgency and the province was sliding into anarchy. By the time we left, the Italian forces responsible for the province's security had locked themselves inside their bases and senior Iraqi politicians were begging us to stay. I expected that the regional government would collapse after our departure into a village by village fight between tribes, criminals and Islamist militia.
But when I returned in 2005, I found that Dhi Qar had become one of the most secure provinces in Iraq. Our departure had forced Iraqis to take responsibility.
It had not become the society of which we had dreamed: the streets were dominated by Shiite militias; women who had walked confidently under Saddam Hussein now hid under black abayas (hijabs); and there were police checkpoints every 50 metres on the highways.
But politicians who'd previously fought were now co-operating on the provincial councils, the criminals and tribes were under control, and government was functioning. Iraq taught me that we have overestimated the influence of the coalition and underestimated Iraqis.
In the United States, an odd mix of neo-conservatives and idealistic Democrats still argue that the coalition needs only to improve its strategy to win in Iraq. Other candidates dance around the question of how to withdraw honourably, generally proposing decreasing troop levels over years.
Many Democrats and Republicans believe that the basic problems in Iraq stem from Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's planning and implementation of the invasion. All sides are wrong, because they assume that the coalition can play a positive role provided we follow better tactics. In fact, the real problem is not our tactics but our very presence.
We need to withdraw immediately to avoid further damage. Rumsfeld's plan to topple Saddam Hussein, replace him immediately with an Iraqi government and get out as soon as possible may turn out to have been the best chance we had of success — whatever its rationale.
Most Arab Iraqis dislike U.S. troops simply because they are U.S. troops. Twice the number of troops would have deepened resentment and still failed to defeat the insurgency. Our government institutions are unsuited to nation-building in Iraq: We do not have the personnel, the training or the political culture to succeed.
Iraqi politicians now need to rebuild a functioning state by cutting deals with some opponents and fighting insurgents. But our presence encourages them to be uncompromising and to rely on the coalition to support them against their enemies. And when they try to compromise, we frustrate them.
We have at times prevented Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from cutting deals with powerful and popular individuals, such as radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the leaders of the Sunni insurgency and we have refused concessions such as troop withdrawal and amnesties.
At the same time our presence makes Iraqis less willing to fight. Most Iraqis are pragmatists who will avoid fighting when there are coalition troops to do it for them. Even the security forces are reluctant to tackle insurgents who claim to defend Islam and Iraq against foreign occupiers.
Our withdrawal will remove the main justification and support for the insurgency and force Iraqis to take responsibility.
Iraqi politicians are far better informed and far more competent than the coalition administrators and, indeed, American politicians and voters believe.
They are able to control their militias and strike deals with their rivals.
This was demonstrated in late October when leaders in Najaf and Baghdad brought a burgeoning civil war in the city of Amara under control within two days. Most Arab Iraqis — Sunni or Shiite — do not wish to divide their country into different nations.
Withdrawal will never feel comfortable. Iraq will almost certainly become an Islamist state that implements authoritarian policies and is not particularly friendly toward the West. But there is nothing we can do about this. These are the parties selected by Iraqi voters. Our enemies will describe our withdrawal as weakness. But they already interpret our current position in Iraq as a defeat.
We cannot continue to throw away our lives, money and strategic interests in the vain hope of impressing Al Qaeda. Every day that we remain, more American and Iraqi lives are lost, more enemies take up arms against the United States, and the anarchy spawns increasing horror.
Our best defence against terror is to allow Iraqis to rebuild a functioning state while keeping troops nearby to destroy terrorist training camps if they emerge.
Who controls the House and Senate today is immaterial to the question of what to do in Iraq. Withdrawal is coming. The sooner it happens, the better for Iraqis and for the United States.
Rory Stewart is the author of The Places in Between and The Prince of the Marshes, an account of his year as a coalition official in Iraq. He now runs the Turquoise Mountain Foundation in Kabul.
Americans are now VERY tired of Bush's war of imperialism. This impacted on the election last week. Yet, we have many war "hawks" on this forum who still insist that the war must be fought. If that's the case, then they should set an example by fighting the war themselves.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...253&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
U.S. must get out of Iraq — now
Iraq taught him that the West has overestimated the influence of the coalition and underestimated Iraqis, says Rory Stewart
Nov. 8, 2006. 01:00 AM
RORY STEWART
Iraqis are the only people who can rebuild their nation. The U.S.-led coalition cannot. It has done what good it can do. The coalition should get out now.
The positions of U.S. politicians and voters on Iraq before the mid-term elections reflected guilt, wishful thinking, impotence and panic. President George W. Bush is backing awkwardly away from his slogan "Stay the course;" many Republicans are attempting to dissociate themselves from the problems in Iraq.
Democrat positions range from support for the Bush administration's decisions to calls for withdrawal. But almost all fear that Iraq will sink into deeper anarchy if coalition forces leave, endangering the interests of the United States.
I felt the same when I handed my post as coalition deputy-governor of Dhi Qar province to my Iraqi successor, Muhammad Abbas, in June 2004. I had spent about a year in the Shiite south working with U.S. colleagues to dispense millions of dollars of development aid, hold elections and bolster the state.
But Iraqi leaders had been reluctant to co-operate with each other or fight the insurgency and the province was sliding into anarchy. By the time we left, the Italian forces responsible for the province's security had locked themselves inside their bases and senior Iraqi politicians were begging us to stay. I expected that the regional government would collapse after our departure into a village by village fight between tribes, criminals and Islamist militia.
But when I returned in 2005, I found that Dhi Qar had become one of the most secure provinces in Iraq. Our departure had forced Iraqis to take responsibility.
It had not become the society of which we had dreamed: the streets were dominated by Shiite militias; women who had walked confidently under Saddam Hussein now hid under black abayas (hijabs); and there were police checkpoints every 50 metres on the highways.
But politicians who'd previously fought were now co-operating on the provincial councils, the criminals and tribes were under control, and government was functioning. Iraq taught me that we have overestimated the influence of the coalition and underestimated Iraqis.
In the United States, an odd mix of neo-conservatives and idealistic Democrats still argue that the coalition needs only to improve its strategy to win in Iraq. Other candidates dance around the question of how to withdraw honourably, generally proposing decreasing troop levels over years.
Many Democrats and Republicans believe that the basic problems in Iraq stem from Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's planning and implementation of the invasion. All sides are wrong, because they assume that the coalition can play a positive role provided we follow better tactics. In fact, the real problem is not our tactics but our very presence.
We need to withdraw immediately to avoid further damage. Rumsfeld's plan to topple Saddam Hussein, replace him immediately with an Iraqi government and get out as soon as possible may turn out to have been the best chance we had of success — whatever its rationale.
Most Arab Iraqis dislike U.S. troops simply because they are U.S. troops. Twice the number of troops would have deepened resentment and still failed to defeat the insurgency. Our government institutions are unsuited to nation-building in Iraq: We do not have the personnel, the training or the political culture to succeed.
Iraqi politicians now need to rebuild a functioning state by cutting deals with some opponents and fighting insurgents. But our presence encourages them to be uncompromising and to rely on the coalition to support them against their enemies. And when they try to compromise, we frustrate them.
We have at times prevented Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from cutting deals with powerful and popular individuals, such as radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the leaders of the Sunni insurgency and we have refused concessions such as troop withdrawal and amnesties.
At the same time our presence makes Iraqis less willing to fight. Most Iraqis are pragmatists who will avoid fighting when there are coalition troops to do it for them. Even the security forces are reluctant to tackle insurgents who claim to defend Islam and Iraq against foreign occupiers.
Our withdrawal will remove the main justification and support for the insurgency and force Iraqis to take responsibility.
Iraqi politicians are far better informed and far more competent than the coalition administrators and, indeed, American politicians and voters believe.
They are able to control their militias and strike deals with their rivals.
This was demonstrated in late October when leaders in Najaf and Baghdad brought a burgeoning civil war in the city of Amara under control within two days. Most Arab Iraqis — Sunni or Shiite — do not wish to divide their country into different nations.
Withdrawal will never feel comfortable. Iraq will almost certainly become an Islamist state that implements authoritarian policies and is not particularly friendly toward the West. But there is nothing we can do about this. These are the parties selected by Iraqi voters. Our enemies will describe our withdrawal as weakness. But they already interpret our current position in Iraq as a defeat.
We cannot continue to throw away our lives, money and strategic interests in the vain hope of impressing Al Qaeda. Every day that we remain, more American and Iraqi lives are lost, more enemies take up arms against the United States, and the anarchy spawns increasing horror.
Our best defence against terror is to allow Iraqis to rebuild a functioning state while keeping troops nearby to destroy terrorist training camps if they emerge.
Who controls the House and Senate today is immaterial to the question of what to do in Iraq. Withdrawal is coming. The sooner it happens, the better for Iraqis and for the United States.
Rory Stewart is the author of The Places in Between and The Prince of the Marshes, an account of his year as a coalition official in Iraq. He now runs the Turquoise Mountain Foundation in Kabul.
Americans are now VERY tired of Bush's war of imperialism. This impacted on the election last week. Yet, we have many war "hawks" on this forum who still insist that the war must be fought. If that's the case, then they should set an example by fighting the war themselves.
Can you point them out or are you just generalizing again, without merit?
What are you saying, that there are no pro war types on the forum?
What are you saying, that there are no pro war types on the forum?
from the thread topic article:
Shia Muslims, a minority in that district, have routinely come under attack from Sunni insurgents who control the territory. The highway passing through the region from Baghdad leads to Najaf, the holiest Shia city in Iraq, and Shia pilgrims have become a favourite target of Sunni gunmen.
Such attacks were not taking place until Bush invaded and sent in John Negroponte who installed death squads in Central America under Reagan. Here's a question for your consideration: how many of these people who were killed under Bush's watch would still be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded?
Shia Muslims, a minority in that district, have routinely come under attack from Sunni insurgents who control the territory. The highway passing through the region from Baghdad leads to Najaf, the holiest Shia city in Iraq, and Shia pilgrims have become a favourite target of Sunni gunmen.
Such attacks were not taking place until Bush invaded and sent in John Negroponte who installed death squads in Central America under Reagan. Here's a question for your consideration: how many of these people who were killed under Bush's watch would still be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded?
No I'm saying you assert that some people are supporting the war in Iraq, even though they have clearly stated that they do not, just like you continuously assert that Bush is my hero, yet I am critical of his policies and his invasion of Iraq and said he should be tried at the Hague.
Most of them, hence why the invasion of Iraq, based on lies and forged intel, should be seen as a war crime and those responsible held to account.
Gopher
If you think the US will just get up and leave because the Democrats are slowly obtaining power, you're delusional. Do you really think because the US is there they are fighting OR because Saddam isn't there? Can you comprehend the difference?
I've often heard the left cry the US had no plan invading Iraq (I agree), we shoul get up and leave NOW (I don't agree), the war was based on a lie (I agree). But I never hear the left say ANYTHING about how they were going to depose of a tyrrant. What's your personal take on this? How would you have deposed of Saddam Hussein?
If you think the US will just get up and leave because the Democrats are slowly obtaining power, you're delusional. Do you really think because the US is there they are fighting OR because Saddam isn't there? Can you comprehend the difference?
I've often heard the left cry the US had no plan invading Iraq (I agree), we shoul get up and leave NOW (I don't agree), the war was based on a lie (I agree). But I never hear the left say ANYTHING about how they were going to depose of a tyrrant. What's your personal take on this? How would you have deposed of Saddam Hussein?
Given the horror Iraq has turned out to be, maybe we should regard Saddam as a miracle worker. He kept the lid on these murderous idiots for years. Yes, he got his hands dirty. But I doubt Iraq has ever been more dangerous in the last half century than it is today.
Saddam was and still should be a nesseccary evil. Despite his megalomania and cruel violence, he held Iraq and by threat of serious retaliation the surrounding countries in check. His removal is detrimental to the well being of the ME. Only an opinion.
No I'm saying you assert that some people are supporting the war in Iraq, even though they have clearly stated that they do not,
You may a point there.
Yes at one time there were a number of people who were adamantly pro war on this forum. But that enthusiasm for Bush's stupid war has been toned down considerably. Perhaps what I should be doing is congratulating those formerly pro war enthusiasts for coming to their senses - that is, if they have now changed their minds.
There simply is no excuse or justification for Bush's criminal war. As Ben Ferencz has said Bush deserves to be brought before a Nuremburg Tribunal for his crime in illegally invading Iraq. Ferencz is the world's foremost authority on the subject of the Nuremburg Doctrine because he is the legal scholar who invented it.
In the event that some of you have changed your minds about Bush's war I say to you: Congratulations for awakening to the truth that Bush's war is a crime and without justification.
You may a point there.
Yes at one time there were a number of people who were adamantly pro war on this forum. But that enthusiasm for Bush's stupid war has been toned down considerably. Perhaps what I should be doing is congratulating those formerly pro war enthusiasts for coming to their senses - that is, if they have now changed their minds.
There simply is no excuse or justification for Bush's criminal war. As Ben Ferencz has said Bush deserves to be brought before a Nuremburg Tribunal for his crime in illegally invading Iraq. Ferencz is the world's foremost authority on the subject of the Nuremburg Doctrine because he is the legal scholar who invented it.
In the event that some of you have changed your minds about Bush's war I say to you: Congratulations for awakening to the truth that Bush's war is a crime and without justification.
I never hear the left say ANYTHING about how they were going to depose of a tyrrant. What's your personal take on this? How would you have deposed of Saddam Hussein?
ITN,
You are very often a reasonable poster on this forum. While you are correct that Saddam was an evil ruler you must understand that his government was recognized by the UN. As such there is no legal basis for removing him from authority under international or under American law. Bush did NOT have the authority to invade Iraq. As I have mentioned enough times already, BUSH HAS VIOLATED THE NUREMBURG DOCTRINE and should be brought to trial for his crime.
Therefore, as someone who believes in the rule of law, I would not have violated international law by invading Iraq. Contrary to what you may want to believe, this is not a leftist position as conservatives William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, and the John Birch Society have all said that Bush's actions are criminal!
As for who is to pay for the consequences of Bush's crimes, I will leave that up to the newly convened Nuremburg Tribunal to determine the proper remedy. Most likely it will compel the wealthy elites who profited from the war to pay for it and for the compensation due to Iraqis.
Like it or not, it's the law.
ITN,
You are very often a reasonable poster on this forum. While you are correct that Saddam was an evil ruler you must understand that his government was recognized by the UN. As such there is no legal basis for removing him from authority under international or under American law. Bush did NOT have the authority to invade Iraq. As I have mentioned enough times already, BUSH HAS VIOLATED THE NUREMBURG DOCTRINE and should be brought to trial for his crime.
Therefore, as someone who believes in the rule of law, I would not have violated international law by invading Iraq. Contrary to what you may want to believe, this is not a leftist position as conservatives William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, and the John Birch Society have all said that Bush's actions are criminal!
As for who is to pay for the consequences of Bush's crimes, I will leave that up to the newly convened Nuremburg Tribunal to determine the proper remedy. Most likely it will compel the wealthy elites who profited from the war to pay for it and for the compensation due to Iraqis.
Like it or not, it's the law.
As much as this might tarnish my imade with ITN, I must strongly agree. i will admitt hat I do like Bush for some reason, but he has clearly crossed the line. He deffinetly has broken laws, I'm not sure I would group Gitmo in that, but the invasion of Iraq was ridiculous. Plane and simple.
I'm still not absolutely sure why he did, but I'm not buying "to get even for his Dad". That one smacks of tinfoil.
My question was actually about cleaning up, not paying. If the US pulls out now, do you not believe that Iraq would be left in chaos?
Who sould bare the brunt of the responsiblity of cleaning that up?
What if the whole region goes for a shyte?
Do you believe we should maintain a military presence until stablity is reached or should we simply pull out and leave it to the locals?
1)My question was actually about cleaning up, not paying. If the US pulls out now, do you not believe that Iraq would be left in chaos?
2)Who sould bare the brunt of the responsiblity of cleaning that up?
3)What if the whole region goes for a shyte?
4)Do you believe we should maintain a military presence until stablity is reached or should we simply pull out and leave it to the locals?
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
1) 'cleaning up'
By this you mean resolving all conflicts within Iraq, I assume.
Bear in mind that Iraq is already in chaos - one created by Bush - so that things can only improve if there is a cessation of hostilities. The quick solution is, US out - UN in.
An international peace force comprised exclusively of Middle Eastern forces has already been suggested (forgot who said it but I can look it up later on). It should be administered by the UN but no other international forces as that is considered rather objectionable by ME people. This is a far better option than what we see today in Iraq.
See the following for proof:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_dc_1
2) UN administers, ME troops patrol militarily.
3) During Vietnam we were told the entire region would go "shyte". But after the USA left, the entire region became capitalist. Quite ironic, eh?
4) US out - UN in. That's the law.
2)Who sould bare the brunt of the responsiblity of cleaning that up?
3)What if the whole region goes for a shyte?
4)Do you believe we should maintain a military presence until stablity is reached or should we simply pull out and leave it to the locals?
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
1) 'cleaning up'
By this you mean resolving all conflicts within Iraq, I assume.
Bear in mind that Iraq is already in chaos - one created by Bush - so that things can only improve if there is a cessation of hostilities. The quick solution is, US out - UN in.
An international peace force comprised exclusively of Middle Eastern forces has already been suggested (forgot who said it but I can look it up later on). It should be administered by the UN but no other international forces as that is considered rather objectionable by ME people. This is a far better option than what we see today in Iraq.
See the following for proof:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_dc_1
2) UN administers, ME troops patrol militarily.
3) During Vietnam we were told the entire region would go "shyte". But after the USA left, the entire region became capitalist. Quite ironic, eh?
4) US out - UN in. That's the law.
But the countries with forces strong enough to use in Iraq, have a problem with Iraq. I like your ideas and agree whole heartedly to some of what you have put forward, but I see failure on the horizon if we leave Iraq in the state it is in and its enemies at the helm.