Forex markets Forex: USA dollar collapse http://www.pxcomp.org/user/view.php?id=101&course=1 [URL=http://www.pxcomp.org/user/view.php?id=101&course=1]Forex: USA dollar collapse[/URL]

tjcnopops2, dr t:, and Alan: Elbonian: …. I liked your posts. Lucid, clearly written and to the points. I mostly agreed with you.

SLCastner, Robert: Matt Irwin:….. Et tu, but I mostly disagreed with you.

First…We had no business whatsoever invading Iraq in the first place. If all of the intelligence had actually been true there would still have been no legal reason to invade Iraq. Iraq was no threat to the United States in any shape or form, imminent or otherwise. To see Iraq as a threat to the US was plainly utter nonsense. We need to face the fact that we did a really stupid thing from our point of view and a wrong thing from an Iraqi point of view. Welcome to reality.

Second …. our occupation of Iraq has been almost as stupid as the invasion decision. Destroying what was left of the army, turning debaathification over to friend Chalabi (a Shia as well as a con artist), ignoring Sistani, appointing the first puppet regime, Falluja yes, Faluja no, Faluja yes, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, …. gets tiresome, doesn’t it?

Third …. things are not always what they seem. The Shia are not monolithic and do not necessarily want a theocracy. The Sunni are not monolithic. Some of them are Islamists, some of them are secular. Al Qaeda is a polyglot of foreign and native Sunni’s tending towards the extremes. The Kurds want a state of their own, to include Kurd populations in Iran and Turkey.

We have no business sorting out the internal political affairs of Iraq even though we are entirely guilty of destabilizing them. Read our Declaration of Independence for a primer on the proper relationship of a people with their government. There in lies an American principle or two that we might do better to live up to more often. However painful our present guilt might be, designing and installing the Iraqi Government for the Iraqis is no remedy for our pain. That job can only be done by Iraqis and cannot be delegated.

Our exit plan should be simple and address military roles and responsibilities appropriate to our position. Our military objectives should be:
--Keep the Turks out of Iraq, keep the Turkish Kurds out of Iraqi Kurdistan and keep Iraqi Kurds out of Turkey.
--Keep the Syrians out of Iraq.
--Protect Jordan from Iraqi destabilization.
--Keep the Iranians out of Iraq.
--Destroy any large military formations acting to destabilize or unbalance internal areas of Iraq.
--Provide force protection for our military and civilian forces.
--Destroy any organized force engaging in large scale genocide of any internal group.
--Maintain constant and effective offensive operations against Al Qaeda in Iraq.
--Continue training the Iraqi Security Forces.

Turn something straightforward like that over to a couple of good Generals and they will have a force plan in short order, something along the lines of half of what we have there now would be my guess.

As for partition or not…. that is their business….secular civil law or sharia, their business….democracy, theocracy or dictatorship, their business. We can assuage any guilt we might feel on these issues with the knowledge that whatever they might choose, it will surely not be as bad as Saddam. How they get where they want to go, that is their business as well. Sometimes a fight is a necessary path. That has already been pointed out about India/Pakistan, but hey ……how about Korea, North/South Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Timor, Northern Ireland, South Africa, Colombia, Congo, Zimbabue, Peru, Chile, Panama, Argentina, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico (Chiapas). Civil strife has been with us for a long long time and will not disappear in our lifetimes, not even those of you who are young.

I find it interesting that so many expect the Shia to win in the end on the basis of relative numbers. I don’t. If I had to bet, I would bet on the Sunnis prevailing, since they prevailed with 20/60 odds before. Nor would I worry too much about the “terrorists” answerable to Bin Laden and Company. In due course I’m sure the Iraqis will kick them out along with us; if they don’t kill them with ½ inch drills first.

Leon, from what you have written I would have guessed you were American rather than Mexican. YOU may not see a realistic way to put the lid back no. That does NOT mean there isn’t one. The number of possible outcomes exceeds 2 by a very large number. Were we actually to leave, the chances are at least as good that it will become considerably LESS bloody. You think Iraqis will continue to tolerate large scale suicide attacks on markets and such? The politics becomes quite different.

“Outright Shia domination of Iraq should never be allowed.” Sounds so “Neo-Conish”, doesn’t it? As though we are actually in charge of these kinds of things in this world. And by the way, Iran is NOT actually a theocracy; it is actually a constitutional republic, which includes both theocratic and democratic elements in its structure.

“Cut and run”, or “Stay the course.” If these are the only two choices you see, you have lost your imagination as has our President his.

Hola, paisano. Yes, it seems like the Pottery Barn rule by Collin Powell ("You break it, you buy it") is a good way of justifying the extended stay of US troops in Iraq. Apparently, the US leadership totally miscalculated the consequences of unilateral military intervention in Iraq. Now, the damage is done and it would be completely irresponsible in the part of the US to just leave. They made the mess, now they better help clean it up. And do not get me wrong, I was convinced going into Iraq was a mistake in the first place, but I have to agree with Leon that withdrawing US troops right now would leave a power vacuum that who knows what will lead to. Eventually, the US will have to pick which faction of Iraq they will support, and that may accelerate the stabilization one way or another. That, however, would imply choosing between the lesser of two evils: a return to the Baath party led government ruling the Shia majority with an iron hand and friendly towards Syria, or a Shia theocracy Iran-style. What would you prefer? A Kurd state is not an option because Turkey is one of those count-with-your-hands-friends the US has in the Middle East that they can not afford to lose.

Iraqis have to get rid of their "Illusion of Identity" and then work together towards an Iraq - their country - 'Safe for Diversity'!

Learn from India. It has a successful and functional Democracy: a safe, secure and secular state, where people from diverse backgrounds and beliefs are happily living together with muliculturalism as their way of life!

How I wish Mahatma Gandhi was still alive, and in Iraq these days!

Att: ALBANION a/k/a E.L.B.O.N.I.A.N. et al;

Come out, Come Out from Wherever You ArE!

You said, " ... fight it out over where to draw the line for their individual borders...."

Will slep on this. Thank You Elalbanian et al:

NA ZDAR OE VE AH! : + ) /' Eeeeee Haaaa Ya Ya Mons!

You are too concerned about "Shiastan" while ignoring Sunnistan or Wahabistan. Any stan is bad period. It is a direct form of fascism based on religion. But you miserably fail to acknowledge the fact that it is the Baathists and Al Qaeda groups that have been destabilizing Iraq in the past, present and will do in the future. Also we have read news about, at least, some Sunnis getting nervous about possible US withdrawal. That means Sunnis know and are capable of practicing pragmatism when the US withdraws knowing that the odds of regaining the control of Iraq is not in their favor in the slightest margins. In this case an infusion of diplomatic initiatives will work miracles after US withdrawal. Right now Sunnis are supported by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria and possibly Iran. Once US leaves these countries will definitely pour water on the fire because they simply don't want the violence to spill over their borders. Syria will have less incentive to support Sunni insurgency as it would not serve their interest since Iran is their ally. Saudi Arabia don't want to train another militancy just to have turned against the kingdom itself as it happened after Afghan Jihad. Iran will most likely support the effort the stabilize Iraq since it would achieve its main objective of pushing US out of Iraq and to keep Iraq destabilized post US occupation does not make sense unless US does not withdraw completely. The past four years of violence has taught all sides the harsh reality of violence and outright dominance. Every Iraqi group should settle for their fair share.

This is an old new Nation.

Sometimes new countries have to have Civil Wars.

The US had one.

"It's just growing Pains."

Condi Rice.

The one good thing that may come out of this entire mess.

The destruction of the Hypocrite party.

Oops I meant the Republican party.

*The only way for Bush’s project to succeed is to assume a military engagement that will last a generation*

Won't happen. Why not? It would require a bipartisan consensus. And Karl Rove has spent 6 years fostering partisan divisions, attempting to supress Democratic votes, and smearing Democrats. Bush ignores their concerns and their advice. Broadly, Republicans would rather lose Iraq and be able to blame in on Democrats than to invite Dems to the table and build a sustainable plan.

*The worst outcome for Iraq would be a full-scale civil war that ends in the country’s partition.*

Which is the worst part of it, the civil war or the partition? Maybe we can avoid the war if we quit trying to force the new Iraq back into the old bottle, created by the British in the interest of divide and rule? Sure, the Shia and Kurds will try to monopolize the oil revenues, but eventually they will realize that it is cheaper to reach a financial settlement with the Sunnis than it is to defend the oil infrastructure against Sunnia attacks.

4 years into this, and we still have no true support from the Iraqi neighbors whose support would have been critical to the success of the endevour. While it does little good to dwell on mistakes, since there are so many and varied examples... this is one that, for me, stands out quite boldly... besides the US (military) and a handful of our "coalition" there is simply no true supporting cast of players interested in the kind of outcome our leaders have deluded themselves into believing is possible.

Whether we stay or go, I think there will be a push from the neighbors of Iraq to arrive at an unfair, potentially Islamist and yes, somewhat violent solution where there is a level of stability and a strongman government in place. Economics and oil production/distribution will be managed in a way that places this government somewhat in alignment with the West for fear of otherwise being overthrown. To me this would sort of be a return to Business As Usual.

The economics at stake will in the end result in a stability of sorts. While there are similarities to Afghanistan, there were never any incentives to do much besides protecting national security, and that only emerged as a priority after a disaster occurred.

The questions for me are around "who will emerge as the key players to prop up and do business with an Iraqi government? While I certainly believe Iran cannot be ignored, it will be some state(s) that will provide the $$ and the choices are the US, Russia, China, India-- hence will wield the influence. Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but if you agree that economics and oil are the only incentive to stability in Iraq, then let's simply get over it and turn this into a purely economic strategy and stop with the idealistic delusions.

There are some spoilers here and they include a full blown regional conflict... which would destroy all economic considerations in the region. Sorry but I don't think an extremist government going on an organized jihad is one of them.

Do you really believe that coining a silly little phrase like 'shiastan' makes you an expert.

28 years ago, the name of the game was to leverage Sunni Arabs against Shia Persians because the earlier game of pitting the old Persian civilization against desert Arabs with countries that are no more than oil wells had failed.

George Will's and Jim Hoagland's hatred against "ya mani or ya life" and aghinst the "Little King" had backfired, so they turned around and tried to coopt them plus Saddam Hussein against Iran.

Ask for them now and find them seeking a rathole to hide their hideous faces.

Bush is an unworldly man who is not supported by a great intellect. I agree that he opened a pandora's box and that he has no prospect of closing it. He seems to operate on assumptions rather than knowledge supported by analysis and careful planning. So far, he has treated us to tales about the outcomes he wants and denigration of the people that he disapproves of. He doesn`t no where he is going and nor do we. It is foolish of Congress to allow this guy to lead the US and Iraq down the garden path to a place called oblivion. They have to emasculate him. He and Rice have no prospect of bringing peace to this region. They have shown that they deliver failure. Congress will have to take the initiative away from Bush because he is living in a fool's paradise and has no chance of finding reality.

You are obviously young and ignorant of history to wish for "a state more like India than the former Yugoslavia." The partition of India into three nations, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, with a huge ongoing battle over Kashmir, is exactly like the dissolution of Yugoslavia after its Stalinist dictator died.

I believe the possibility of a unified state in Iraq vanished long ago. The USA would be better off now to declare a rational partition to Iraq, withdraw to the Kurdish areas, and prepare to protect the Kurds from all comers (including both Turkey and Iran). It is the least the US can do for the only real allies we have in that part of the world. And of course, the Kurds are the only people whose opinion polls consistently favor the Americans.

Finally, a US-occupied Kurdish area would probably keep the Turks from invading. If the US left entirely, the Turks would feel duty bound to invade Kurdistan and bring bloody war to that otherwise-peaceful section of the former Iraq.

The US should get out of the way and let the Sunnis (both Saudi and Syrian factions) and Shias (all backed by Iran, so far as I can tell) fight it out over where to draw the line for their individual borders. Protect the Kurds and ignore the rest is my prescription for "least worst."

1. There is little question that, once the American forces leave, the country will become a far bloodier and more lawless battleground than it is now. 2. The only way for Bush’s project to succeed is to assume a military engagement that will last a generation.

Grand statements! The first gets repeated ad nauseam. So what? Prove it! You cannot... ; anymore than you can prove what you say in the second, that Bush's project will succeed... whatever "succeed" may mean here!

I agree with those who say America attacked the wrong country at the wrong time, and that we have squandered an opportunity after 9-11 to reduce worldwide terrorism. Instead, to my dismay, we have promoted it.
However, my main point that I hope more people will consider is WHAT ABOUT THE KURDS? They are the only part of Iraq that has a chance for peaceful democracy - in fact they have already achieved it. It is possible that once the US leaves, the shia and sunni will want to dominate them as they have for at least the past 80 years. The Kurds will continue to struggle for independence as they have for the past 80 years, and Iran and Turkey will support their destruction as they have for the most part for at least the past 80 years. Read the gripping book, "The End of Iraq" by Galbraith and the more mundane "The Future of Iraq" by Anderson, if you want to learn more about "The Other Iraq". Of 54 posts here, only two mention the Kurds at all, the rest act as if they did not exist.
The only media coverage I have seen was an article in the washington Post on April 23rd - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201568.html

You must look past the stupidity issue with the adminstration and look at the brilliance of the decison to invade Iraq and maintaining the status quo. OIL.

Why leave Iraq? All the major U.S. oil companies are chomping at the bit to gain a piece of the bounty. Matters will soon be decided. We don't want $6 per gallon in U.S.

The U.S. military should re-deploy to the Iraqi oil fields and lay low, allow the civil war to carry on to an outcome. The idea of walking around Bagdad to get blown up is stupid that securing the oil fields should be top priority.

The problem with Bush is that he just doesn't let on that Oil is the reason--the reason he comes across as dumb to most, but if you know who's behind him, you'll know it's not dumb. They're Texans and Texans pilage all areas of the world they can get ahold of.

"It is time Iraqis realised that the US presence will do no good for them or their neighbours."

Gee, Alan, I think the Iraqis already figured that out, quite a while ago actually.

I think we're underestimating the global effect of a mideast oil crisis. Frankly, WMD's and nuclear threats were secondary motives. We went in to assure that when all hell broke loose we would still be there. No one could trust that the inevitable deposition of Saddam would leave a regime sympathetic to the global economy, ie. pragmatic enough to allow the unfettered flow of oil.
Problem is, we expect too much too soon. We expect conflicts we're involve in to be quick and tidy. We've come to expect measurable results from overwhelming military superiority. But "Shock and awe" mean very little in this drawn-out conflict. The process will take many more years, and many more lives. We may even need a draft, God forbid!
But the alternative is far worse. Its not a matter of just letting them duke it out over there. You know what $12 a gallon gasoline will do to us? The economy will grind to a halt. Its not just gas prices. Its markets crashing, businesses failing, housing, food prices, transportation, unemployment, you name it. And for a long time.
And its naive to think we can tough it out with our own oil supplies - its a global economy, and if Japan and China and Europe crash, we crash.
The problem is, this real reason to go in and stay at whatever cost could not be articulated to the "masses", let alone the UN. So they were left with the old "WMD" deal.

The sunni arabs from morrocco to saudi arabia won't give maliki and company the legitimacy he seeks until he sends the american boys home. Maliki is afraid that once he sends the boys home the sunni arabs will usurp power again as they have in the last couple of centuries and so refuse to send the american boys packing. The sunni arabs bomb the iraqi shia's indiscriminately to put further pressure on maliki. Iran (not to mention hezbollah) come to maliki's rescue by intensifying its nuclear program in opposition to the US and peppering israel with missiles. This gives the iraqi shia's greater room to manoeuvre with the US without being labeled stooges but ends up in dual containment of the US and Iran. Iran dosen't mind given that in a lose - lose game with the US the americans always have more to lose. In the end, everyone's happy except the US, since it has the least stamina for this game. Just wait - afterall its a waiting game.

Can someone take the Kool-aid away from JOZEVZ already? He is way too far gone, and needs to stop polluting this strand.

Jamal, sorry, but we are getting ready for a regime change. Our current involvement in your country was based on a web of deceit spun by our current administration. The best we can do is impeach them for high crimes and misdemeanors, which will not be easy. We will be lucky to survive the eight years of this gang ourselves. Unfortunately, you are going to have to find your own way out of this--we are not bound by commitments made as part of a criminal conspiracy.

The current government is far from perfect and Sunnis are underrepresnted, but by choice. What's increasing the likelihood of a Shiite theorcracy is our inability to defeat the Sunni insurgency.

Al Qaeda in Iraq/Baathist extremists/Sunni insurgents are really one and the same, just slightly different flavors. The bottom line is the Sunnis cannot stomach the idea of living in an Iraq where they are the minority.

We spend alot of energy targeting the Shiite militias which is completely counterproductive. It enrages the Shiites who see their militias as the only instrument preventing the Sunnis from committing genocide. It undermines the authority of the Maliki government as it is viewed as incapable of suppressing Sunni violence. It increases the power of men like al Sadr at the expense of moderate more secular Shiites.

What we have to come to grips with is a democracy we helped create that is going to be dominated by Shiites. It's time for us to deal with it.

There is no way 80 percent of the population is going to allow 20 percent to dominate them again. And if that is our end game (Sunni domination) then we're the world's biggest hypocrites when it comes to democratic rule.

What on earth is all this RANDOMLY capitalized gobbledygook? I have never SEEN this kind of thing. Anyone know?

There are two principal views of what would happen if and when the United States withdraws before Iraq is pacified. One is that the Shia fundamentalists would take power. The other is that the Sunni-controlled states would intervene to halt Shia depradation of Sunni, that Shia-controlled states would then intervene against the intervening Sunni states and that the Middle East would devolve into regional war.

In the first case, people who hate the industrialized nations would control the world's second largest oil reserve. At best, the consequence would be higher fuel prices.

The second case raises the risk of interruption of most or all of the Middle East oil supply. Presumably, if the Shia took control of Iraq, they would simply charge more for their oil. But if a regional war ensued, then most of the Middle East oil flow could be interrupted and the industrialized world would be a dark, cold place in which to live.

Either way, terrorists would have their run of the Middle East. Terrorism and an uninterrupted oil supply are as compatible as a bull in a china shop.

These are the issues that Congress and the American electorate should be debating. The issue should be how to best protect the oil supply upon which the industrialized world depends.

I agree with you. I live here and I am afraid that, once the americans leave, this is gping to get even more complicated. You must stay and help un rebuild our country. It is your duty.

you offer a hunch at this point. the situation is already lost,has been for a coupla years. there is nothing anything the US can do to stop the creation of another religious state; you voted for the decider, now begin to be a good loser.

I really get pissed off with this kind of opinion piece. The cost in blood and lives lost and deformed both in the US and Iraq is not worth it. The Americans should get out. The Iraqis should decide their future. If they want to have a civil war then so be it. They will have to bear the consequences. They have oil, they have resourceful people and they have thousands of highly skilled Iraqis who have fled the country. It is time Iraqis realised that the US presence will do no good for them or their neighbours. The US is a discredited power and no amount of pushing and prodding by Ignatius and Zakaria, who make a good living in this business and are well connected Washington insiders, will result in peace. That is for the Iraqis to achieve.

Hi Everyone-
Sometimes when one is up to ones gluteus maximus in alligators one loses sight that the original purpose was to drain the swamp.
Our country is in the middle of an illegal occupation of a foreign country. We have done what Saddam Hussain did to Kuwait, although with a good deal less historical justification. Desert Storm II is not brewing simply because we are presently too strong. We have stayed four years, and installed a succession of puppet governments, run by Quislings who, despite their own aspirations and politics, have to dance to the tune of the American paymaster and master of a war machine that we paid for at a rate which has impacted our ability to provide even simple health care to our citizens and will inevitably swallow our ability to care for our helpless and old.
Those who remember that there was the American project of a few years ago, signed on by the best and the brightest that encouraged the naif-like George W. Bush to take down Saddam, that encouraged the domination of the future world by our nation, will see that the closest example of what America is doing in Iraq is the establishment and expansion of the First Reich.
Up until the invasion of Iraq, American foreign policy was to dominate by economics, and the softer suasions in most of the world. The exception was Latin American, which we considered ours. One does not have to read very much to know that we have repeatedly invaded any Central and Latin American country that had something we wanted. We still fume at Cuba, which only escaped asw part of a package deal with the Soviet Union. After murdering Allende, overthrowing the Sandinistas, etc., we had established our comfort zone, a zone only recently upset. The Third Reich used the concept of "elbow room" to create regions in the countries around it, but considered the inhabitants so inferior as to not require integration, merely control. So they used their power, often disguised, to put their Quislings into power. Our history in Latin America is the distortion of the politics of the region for our purposes in much the same way, with outright invasion and occupation having been required a mere 200 times over approximately as many years.
Iraq is simply an extension of the Reich into a new mineral-rich area. Again, as in Vietnam (our attempt to expand in South-East Asia), we used the fairly clumsy tool of direct occupation because, unfortunately for our Reich, Iraq had gone through a failed British attempt at control so recently that people remembered it could be defeated. Having used the narco-warlords in Afghanistan to try to acheive revenge, I guess we realized how easy it could be.
So, for those who talk about Iraq like we should determine its fate, try to imagine what the response was of the Czechs and the French to the Third Reich. If the region around Iran wants to estblish Shiastan, I don't remember many Persians in California trying to counter American ideas of Manifest Destiny. If the Sunnis in the country the House of Saud owns are upset, shouldn't they sort it out with their neighbors in their own inimable style?
If this sounds isolationist, I think one should reconsider the contrast of engaging a neighbor to talk about a problem, and breaking down his door. Fueled by the efforts of countless immigrants we have had domination for a while, like many countries before us. Our Reich threatens to collapse into shambles, like the Brits when we took over. We can either manage the oncoming change, or resist it like the many, including the Germans did before.

Hate to tell you the bad news:There IS a war already....Regardless U.S. presence or not there is -and will be-a civil-sectarian WAR

First of all, the anlysis by many (including Krauze) is flawed due to lack of information about what is going on in Iraq. Assumptions are made without an understanding of Iraq, its people, or the situation on the ground.

I've traveled there on three occasions, entirely in the "Red Zone" and just returned from meetings with Iraqi refugees in Jordan this week. (During my last trip to Iraq I even met in person with Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf).

When will America quit listening to the pundits and those who got us into this war and begin listening to those who actually know what's going on?

Charlie Jackson, Texans for Peace
http://www.texansforpeace.org/endthewar

It seems no one has lost money betting that things will get worse in Iraq...but the argument that the US should make sure that Iraq remains a federation is the height of arrogance. Our ineptitude has surely disqualified us to make any decisions for these people. Other than politicians and Bin Laden, most people want us out. I just don't understand the Savior Complex. If we had put a $1T into fusion, we wouldn't need the oil. So, at this point a Shiite strongman doesn't sound like such a bad idea. And remember...Iraq's neighbors won't step up until the US steps down.

Sadly, it doesn't matter what's going to happen in Iraq when we leave, but we ARE going to leave. There's a timetable and it started the day Bush announced that the mission in Iraq was accomplished. I guess he also shouldn't have challenged the Iraqi insurgients to "Bring it on" but he did.
Blame Bush. Bush lied and people died.
And, yes, more will. But if this is a fight for western civization... May I ask where the rest of friggin' "western civilzation" is? Why is Great Britain withdrawing from Iraq if the results will be oh, so apocolyptic?

I don't think this nightmare scenario will play out. Yes, the Shias will sweep across the country in a huge civil with shades of genocide, but that is already happening now. The Sunnis, with help from the Saudis, will fight back, and many will die. We started this, and now the Iraqis will finish it now or later. It is out of our hands. Yes, this is bad, but unavoidable. I hope voters remember what the Republicans did to our country during the next election.

well, regardless pandora's box is in fact open. but leaving in a controlled and organized manner is the only reasonable option. we should concentrate on afghanistan and the newly lit brushfires flaring in parts of africa instead. while are bogged down in iraq the al-qaeda are quickly outflanking us. in order to bait them out in the open afghanistan and eastern africa is much more preferential than the cities of baghdad. where we go they will soon follow. as far as maintaining secularism in iraq goes. the people themselves will determine this for themselves sonner or later. i believe they will do a better job of it than we can. without our interference in will in fact become easier for them to determine their own futeure. isn't this what we call a democratic process? or will we call it that only after we have stolen their oil? maybe it will be a so-called democratic process like we are now seeing in turkey where the armed forces determine who will be elected through threats and intimidation. this seems to be the favorite method of the bush white house. what do the american people believe to be the proper approach to democracy? bombs or duly and freely elected officals, or puppets like we now have in iraq and afghanistan?

stop using Iraq as a pawn in your game, America.

Mr. Krauze:

Excellent precis of reasons against a precipitous withdrawal. Do you think there is any possible plan or strategy to finesse a withdrawal over time? It strikes me that only a creditable back-channel threat to ruin key components of the Iranian and Syrian economies by air assault can act as a stick in a carrot-and-stick approach to these two players in the regional situation.

Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq, either due to his orders, or his acquiescence. We took care of that problem. The shame of it all is that we destroyed the entire country in the process of getting him and his cronies. And we all know there were no WMDs, and Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq before we invaded.

The worst part is the extreme hatred the various groups in Iraq have for each other. Even if every foreign troop left the country today, they'd be killing hundreds of thousands of each other over the course of the next 5 to 10 years, and in the end, would have a dictatorship even worse and repressive than Saddam ever was.

However, we invaded the country, we destroyed their infrastucture; morally, we own ALL the Iraqi people a country better off than if was before we invaded. We need to leave them a functioning government that can stand on its own feet. We own them a public utilities system as good as they had before. We own them a general level of safety from militas, gangs, terrorists, and thugs at least as good as they had under Saddam Hussein. Once we have done that, then we can leave.

First of all, given the unfortunate religious ties of politics in the region, any remotely democratic Iraq is going to be Shia Dominated. If the USA openly opposes Shia Domaination, then the USA forfeits the little remaining moral standing it has in the world for the forseeable future.

However, the USA should encourage religious tolerance and religious, enthic or gender base discrimination and make sure those are codified into law. It may not work, but trying to force a non-Shia person on IRaq would be evil and its fairly unlikely that the 10-20% of the Population that identifies as Sunni is going to win any top posts in a remotely Democratic Government.

"Outright Shia domination of Iraq should never be allowed."

It already exists, and to prevent its continance something of which American military power is incapable. The only question is how soon Americans will wake up to this reality, soon or not till January 20, 2008.

As to a Shiastan, it too already exists: it's called Iran. But one may reasonably hope that an Arab Shiastan will in time balance the power of the Persian one.

Whether we leave Iraq sooner or later, the US is likely to be engaged in warfare again in the region over the next ten years or so. This is simply because it commands about 40% of the world's cheap oil and it is far too powerful an economic weapon for our opponents there not to wield it.

The road to salvation for the US is to apply the same kind of money and "political capital" we have spent in Iraq on a focused package of research funding, tax policy, and more that will make Middle East oil relatively unimportant to our national economy.

So what will the end result of the invasion? No one seems to be interested in Joe Biden's earlier proposal to split the country in 3, so I tend to agree with earlier posts that the Shia will control the current Sunni area.

Then what happens to the Kurds? Will they be some kind of protectorate of the Southern area? They will want their own country, Turkey and the rest of Iraq will want to annex them. This spells trouble.

Why fear a Shiastan any worse than a Sunnistan? Remember, the Sunni's ran the place for decades, and under their rule, Iraq certainly wasn't a shining example of a benevolent state. And just who has Iran invaded in the last 30 years? Um, no one? Sure, they rattle the sword against the U.S. and Israel, but so do their Sunni neighbors. In other words, let the Shia take over, they can't do worse than the Sunnis.

And remember, not all civil wars are a bad thing. Recall our own. Compromise after compromise only headed off the inevitable. It took 4 years of a terrible civil war to rid us of the scourge of slavery and firmly unite the country. Perhaps that's what's needed in Iraq.

"Shiastan" was assured the instant we invaded.

We can't avoid it. Our troops are just holding boulders over their heads against inevitable gravity.

The only difference between sooner or later is the death toll.

Keeping troops there in the hopes that we can eventually create a moderate government is absurd. The USA is not that powerful. No nation is.

Equally absurd is the notion that once we leave, Iraq will be lawless. Quite the contrary. Strict Sharia law will be imposed quickly by Sadr and his buddies. There will be quick flash flood of Baath, al Qaeda and secular Sunni blood and then the world will witness another surly, snarling Islamist state in the Middle East.

THAT is exactly how stupid this war is.

Is Washington Post so desperate to have op-ed columns that they are highlighting this ignorant guy who knows nothing and is spouting nonsense?

He might be good enough for a private blog but not acceptable for a newspaper of the caliber of Washington Post.

Word of advice for Washington Post:

Get someone who knows the subject, who has lived in the region or is from the region and not someone who is parrotting random bits of opinion heard around the blogosphere...

It's amazing. This is exactly what some of us were saying - EXACTLY - in the winter and spring of 2003. We saw this clearly and predicted it - aloud. And now we are supposed to be shocked and appalled by what was in the Pandora's Box and play dumb like it's some sort of surprise. In order to "prevent things getting worse", we are to continue to support the leadership and the punditocracy that was too deaf, dumb and blind that has failed thoroughly in judgment and leadership and continue to support a policy that will do nothing to prevent that "getting worse" from happening, only ensure we are still there in the middle when it does? Can anyone who argues for keeping us involved in this ongoing trainwreck present ANY evidence that - by not jumping off the train - we are somehow preventing the inevitable?

The crucial decision - the one that decided the fate of Iraq and the region - was made over four years ago. THAT was the moment to think hard. It's gone. It's done. This chain reaction could only have been prevented - it cannot be stopped. There were only two ways to avoid it: either we chose not to wage this unnecessary war, or we waged it in earnest, with the kind of force and commitment that the grown-ups in the military asked for. Instead, our "leaders" fired the grown-ups and jumped in with their fingers crossed, with no real commitment to wage the "existential struggle" that is sold to us without substance, only as convenient political rhetoric, and accompanied by spin, sugar-coating and clear, obvious deception.

THAT was the moment for thinking about potential Shiastans and the geopolitics of the middle east and millenarian passions inflaming the Sunni/Shia divide. Some of us were - apparently only those of us who aren't paid to run the foreign policy of the only remaining superpower. But not now. It's done. All that's left is to manage the carnage as best we can from the margins and ensure that those cavalier fools and liars who led us into it will forever wear this grand and grotesque folly around their historically cursed necks.

This is no mere "blame game". It is the least requirement and the first step that may eventually lead to our global redemption. But first you must admit you were worng - in plain and contrite terms. You must confess your sins before you can be forgiven them. And this war was a sin - against honesty, against sense, against the global community, and against our own history. As long as we stay, we merely enable and perpetuate our denial. The desire is understandable. It prevents us from having to see and understand the damage - the pointless damage - that we have done. We can stall the confession, but no good will come of it. Delaying will not clean up the mess, it will merely postpone the reckoning and further poison the well through continued denial, deceit and intransigence.

Do we really want to mimic the Soviets in Afghanistan, sending our boys and girls to be convenient targets in a nation-wide terrorist training camp? Because that's all were doing at this point by treading water (or sand). We aren't building a democracy anymore - as was just reported, whatever we did manage to build before has largely fallen apart. We're merely helping to train al Qaeda. The longer we stay, the more experienced they get, the more immune to American tactics and power they grow. That's the point, folks. Bush is Osama's best friend at this point.

It's done. Time to come to Jesus.

Humpty Dumpy sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpy had a great fall, and all the King*s horses and all the King*s men couldn*t put Humpty back together again. Yes, there will be bloodshed, regardless of what is done. It is mainly an issue of whether blood will slowly flow in a trickle from thousands of small cuts over a prolonged period or whether it will gush forth from a huge gash in a short time. Sadly, thousands of Iraqis will die, and no amount of sacrifice of our youth will prevent this. Bush, Pearle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld and the other evil dissemblers responsible for unleashing the carnage have to hope there is no hell wherein they would roast for eternity.

It seems we overlook the only viable alternative - a "real" war - one in which there is a victor who claims the spoils. While it was a mistake that got us to where we are, the mistake is in execution, Once we decided a war was necessary, then a war is what we should wage. That means the "insurgents" are not "insurgents" - they are "resistance fighters." To deal with them summarily means to proceed as if we really ARE at war - announce that we ARE the victors, that the spoils include the real estate and oil and that we now own the place. All weapons of any kind are to be stacked by a date certain after which anyone found with a weapon will be shot on the spot. We then tell everyone to sign up for food stamps and other relief - if they don't sign up, they don't eat. when they sign up, they are assigned a work group and that group is headed by the American military. We then announce we will never leave - never - until the oil dries up. In the meantime, we own the place and the population will serve us. With neither question nor complaint. It most assuredly is NOT a democracy - it is a fiefdom.

Or - leave.

Just don't hang around trying to figure out how to react to the next bad news. Or where we should next challenge them to target us. If it's a war, then conduct a war. If it's not, then don't pretend while killing a lot of our own soldiers in some kind of perverted idea of "necessity."

I, a New Yorker and a vehement opponent of the Iraq invasion who stood & marched against the War 4 years ago ("before it was cool"), completely agree with you Mr. Krauze. The Iraq War is an unmitigated disaster, the essence of a Pandora's Box foreign policy problem for which the Bush Administration is completely to blame. Further, an American withdrawal is probably not going to result in positive Social, Economic or Political consequences for the people of Iraq in the short-term.

Such agreement must be, however, accompanied by a nugget of American Political consciousness:

You have presented the kind of nuanced, based-on-factual-reality, free-from-ideology analysis that is almost totally lacking in American Media and Punditry today. This paucity of good journalism is a critical issue.

Without reality, fact-based journalism dominating our Media environment, all issues become reduced to a "A Conservative says vs. A Liberal says" form of analysis that does not enlighten the public, does not raise awareness, and generally muddles any possibility of reality-based "conclusions" by promoting the catch-all, meaningless tautology "Liberals and Conservatives disagree, therefore the issue is partisan and contentious {and we can't reach any objective, fact-based conclusions, so we won't try}."

Most Democrats (incl. all Senators save Russ Feingold D-WI), to their detriment, did not speak out against this War strenuously in 2002/2003 and therefore have been forced to "make up" for that lack of original foresight by forcefully arguing for withdrawal today.

The position "for withdrawal vs. against withdrawal," by no small coincidence, fits perfectly into our standard Media Political consciousness: Libs support Withdrawal, Cons oppose Withdrawal, the issue therefore is partisan and contentious, and the Media's only perceived obligation is to continue reporting the disparate positions and note when individual Congressional Actors "switch sides."

Conducting an in-depth analysis of the feasibility of a particular withdrawal plan, for instance, is rendered unnecessary in the current Media mindset. Once an issue is defined as "partisan" and a Democratic and Republican "position" are formulated, the Media seems to lose any obligation to probe and discover facts to inform the issue. Objective, fact-finding journalism is shunned in favor of fact-free, "who's on which side of the Fence today?!" reports that offer no insight into the veracity of the various reasons for and against withdrawal, and the workability of various withdrawal plans.

New articles on Anti-War Republicans, such as Mr. Novak's yesterday on Mr. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), are finally scratching beneath the veneer of "Libs say; Cons say" journalism, but it is enlightening that an in-depth discussion of Iraq is reserved for an article discussing a GOP Iraq-War defector.

Would Mr. Novak be as momentarily interested in the chaos in Iraq if Mr. Hagel had a scarlet "D" next to his name? Signs point to no. MiguelPakalns@gmail.com

Given the current political instability in Turkey, Iraq's neighbor to the north, over the selection of a Muslim as president instead of a secularist, do we honestly think Iraq can come to a rational solution to its factionalism? Our presence in Iraq, whatever the reason/justification the Bush Administration had for it in the beginning, now serves only one purpose: forestalling the inevitable partition of the country and its attendant civil war. My position: get out of their way and let them go to it.

The same thing happened in India after the British left: partition, civil unrest (if not civil war), and the assassination (by a religious fanatic) of the one political figure who could have controlled events, Mahatma Gandhi. India's history at the time was turbulent and bloody, but they survived. Britain survived as well, humbled by the experience of colonialism eclipsed. Iraq lacks someone of Gandhi's stature and wisdom, but its lurching down India's path looks more and more inevitable. Let us engage in the humility of leaving Iraq without fixing blame.

Dear Leon,

There is already a civil war, and the Shiites have taken power. If the US leaves, the civil war will end--because the Shiites will consolidate power.

There are times I wished I was Mexican!

best,
Lichtme

That means we should stay there to see that the region works peacefully. Is this our role around the world? One way or the other it must settle down with its neighbors, whatever form it may take, and move forward. There are more important issues we must address for our own people. If the region is disrupted, let the neighbors think about that!!

Picture is very cute.

This is yet another spin-doctor trying out the neo-con talking point which is that America has made
such a huge mess in Iraq that only America can fix it. Of course if Iraq had no oil, we would have been
out of there already.

For those of you who feel the author's position is unsupportable, you need only look to the reduction of secular violence after "The Surge". This is only temporary. The most likely scenario, and the one most supported by events, is that the killing will increase when the soldiers leave.

Does this make me a proponent of the war? Far from it. I opposed the war before the invasion for all the reasons that have come to fruition. Unfortunately, we have the Tig