When I was a kid people always told me that two wrongs don't make a right. Apparently everyone didn't receive the same lecture.

I find it amusing that it has come to this. The fact that the people who were so opposed to the American invasion in the first place, the collateral damage it has caused, and all the resources it has cost to get to this point; they are now the ones who are so eager for an exit that they are willing to cause even more damage on the way out.

It might just be me, but I am relatively sure that disengaging from Iraq will not nullify everything that has happened in the last 5 years. Allowing thousands of Iraqis to die in a bloody civil war and ethnic cleansing is not going to make up for the thousands that have been killed by sectarian violence during the occupation.

Are people honestly so naive that they believe American forces quickly leaving Iraq will increase America's standing in the world? Especially considering all the carnage and chaos that will follow a withdrawal? Please rest assured that all the pleas of "America can't stop the Iraqi civil war, it is coming one way or another" will fall on deaf ears.

The same people who are cheering America's withdrawal will very quickly turn around and condemn it for allowing Iraq to fall into chaos, and blame the United States for all the innocent Iraqis who will inevitably perish. The United States went into Iraq in 2003 and now it must responsibly deal with the aftermath. All the fingering pointing about who lied and how it was wrong to invade Iraq will not magically turn back the clock to 2002.

I know Americans love the easy way out, but unfortunately there is no easy way out of Iraq. Many people may believe that going into Iraq was a big mistake, but the solution to that problem is not to make the even bigger mistake of packing up and taking the first boat home.

I am glad the Obama people at least secretly realize what the consequences of their terrible policy will be. Up until now the silence has been deafening.

"We must be as careful in getting out of Iraq as we were reckless in going in." - Barack Obama

So what part of that sentence don't you understand? Obama has never proposed that he will withdraw our troops immediately after he is inaugurated president. You are just setting up a straw man argument by suggesting that he would.

It is a bit late to start worrying about Iraq falling into chaos and civil war. Haven't you been paying attention? Iraq has been in a state of chaos and civil war since we lost control of the security situation shortly after our invasion five years ago. Our troops have been policing that chaos and civil war ever since.

The difference between Obama and John McCain is that McCain wants to keep our troops in Iraq until "victory" is achieved. Victory over whom? McCain is as unclear on that point as he is unclear on the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

The majority Shi'ites have largely succeeded with their program of the ethnic cleansing of minority Sunnis. That, as much as our troop surge, has caused the violence to diminish. Ethnic cleansing has turned as much as one sixth of the Iraqi population into refugees.

Powerful factions of the Shi'ite majority are now closely allied with their coreligionists in Iran. So there is now no chance that "victory" will result in a pluralistic democracy in Iraq. That, in turn, means either a 100 year occupation or negotiating some sort of deal to restructure Iraq politically to end the civil war.

Iraq as a nation was an artificial creation of the British after the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the First World War. It may be that the country of Iraq will not exist after a political restructuring. For all practical purposes, Kurdistan has already separated.

This is the situation that President Barack Obama will inherit. No, we can't just pull the plug and leave. Obama isn't suggesting that we should. Nor can we stay 100 years. There is no military resolution to the problem, as much as McCain believes that to be so. That leaves diplomacy, our traditional last resort when all means of violence have failed.

And are you so naive as to believe we will stay there indefinitely? To begin with , you just don't know what's going to happen when we leave. And since the war supporters had it so wrong about how things were going to go in the beginning, how can they be so prescient this time? You just like to try and make the dems look like cut and runners, when the reality is

a) Iraqis want us out, sooner rather than later

b) a majority of Americans want us out sooner rather than later

c) even Bush is talking about "time horizons" in order to declare mission accomplished (again)

d) no one knows what will happen when we leave.

You know very well any and all insurgent fighters will be dancing in the streets and declaring victory over "the infidels" and even though it wouldn't be true McCain and Co. just can't face a "defeat" like that. That's the true horror for you guys, but the fact remains that "victory" like you imagine, say signing treaties on the deck of some battleship, a la 1945, just isn't possible.

You just don't want to face up to the fact that the whole purpose of this war was to establish a permanent American presence in the Middle East. Iraqis be damned. And the Iraqis aren't going to let that happen.

No, the only disaster bigger than going is staying in.

<link>

This did not happen on purpose. Not even applying that. But this has been happening. And not just to relatives of the leaders. And it is because of the surge and its reduced violence is all smoke and mirrors. Then the White House pressuring il Maliki to deny his statements to Der Speigel means that the government while wanting to be ready to stand up isn't being allowed to. It's all a house of cards built on shifting sands.

Victory is no longer of question here. We are not fighting a war, we are waging an occupation. Our troops should not be in the business of shoring up legacies because of the Mini MacArthurs, McCain, Petreaus, and Cheney wanting to win at any cost.

Our only option is a safe withdrawal.

pwoxby,

"We must be as careful in getting out of Iraq as we were reckless in going in." - Barack Obama

So what part of that sentence don't you understand? Obama has never proposed that he will withdraw our troops immediately after he is inaugurated president. You are just setting up a straw man argument by suggesting that he would.

16 months. I hate to break it to you, but in the realm of ethnic violence 16 months is immediately. You believe Obama is going to solve Iraq's sectarian violence in 16 months? Hate to shatter your dreams, but think a moment, look around at the world. Ethnic conflicts aren't "negotiated" away.

It is a bit late to start worrying about Iraq falling into chaos and civil war.

No, no its not. This is exactly what I specifically said is a childlike argument. Do you hear yourself? Right now, in Iraq, there is no ethnic civil war occurring because US forces have separated the groups and are keeping the peace. If you remove those troops in 16 months, 20 months, however long, you have to be sure that such a conflict will not restart. Its not about JUST the US, as you seem to view it. You cannot write off thousands of Iraqis as inevitable casualties of a conflict that the US sparked in the first place and will now reignite with a timed withdrawal.

Why don't we just remove UN troops from Kosovo, and the former Yugoslavia, and East Timor, and all the other places where international forces are separating ethnic groups? Humanitarian interventions should be thrown out the window. After all, its inevitable that these things will happen, we should just let them. Rwanda was a good thing after all.

The difference between Obama and John McCain is that McCain wants to keep our troops in Iraq until "victory" is achieved.

Cute, but this isn't a policy comparison. Whatever "victory" means, I'm almost completely positive it doesn't involve the US allowing Iraq to fall into a sectarian civil war.

The majority Shi'ites have largely succeeded with their program of the ethnic cleansing of minority Sunnis. That, as much as our troop surge, has caused the violence to diminish. Ethnic cleansing has turned as much as one sixth of the Iraqi population into refugees.

Exactly. The only thing holding the groups apart are US forces. Should that buffer leave then the ethnic cleansing with return. There are still millions of Sunnis to be cleansed and thousands of armed Sunni insurgents to fight back. I am glad you agree that the US leaving without some kind of conclusive solution to Iraq's problems will be a total disaster.

No, we can't just pull the plug and leave. Obama isn't suggesting that we should. Nor can we stay 100 years. There is no military resolution to the problem, as much as McCain believes that to be so. That leaves diplomacy, our traditional last resort when all means of violence have failed.

Hate to break it to you, but sectarian hatreds can't be "negotiated away". The fact is that you are grasping for a 16 month solution to Iraq when in fact there is so such solution. You can elect all the people you want that promise such a quick solution, but none of them can manufacture something impossible. US forces need to be in Iraq indefinably. That means until they can be sure that leaving will not cause chaos and ethnic violence to erupt. Not because of American geopolitical goals, but because Bush broke it and now America has bought it.

dantesfurlough,

You just don't seem to get it. Iraq isn't about American politics, its about peoples lives. Its not about Republicans and Democrats, its about thousands of Iraqis who have died and thousand more who seem destined to join them.

Ask any ACTUAL international expert (not some hack TV pundit or democratic strategist) what will happen in Iraq after the US leaves and they will explain it to you. Read a paper in Foreign Affairs Magazine or something. There is NO QUESTION from anyone on what will happen if the US stops keeping Iraq's ethnic groups apart without a strong authority in the country. Saddam was that authority before, now he is gone, no one has yet taken his place.

a) The Iraqis are playing politics. Maliki doesn't want US troops out in 16 months, he is squeezing Bush's balls trying to get a better deal now, and hoping in the future he can get a President whose balls are easier to squeeze.

That and the fact that some Iraqis simply want US forces out so they can kill their domestic enemies.

b) It does not matter what the majority of Americans want. it mattered when the US went in, but now that boots have hit the ground its tough cookies. The US cannot simply leave Iraq now after the troubles they have unleashed. Its irresponsible.

c) Bush is playing politics too, he is trying to undercut Obama in order to help McCain. "Time horizon" sure sounds like "timetable" for withdrawal doesn't it? He hopes all the other muppets like you think so too. Why? Because that undercuts Obama's message and the massive appeal he receives from people who want out of Iraq. Post-election rhetoric will be a different story.

d) As I said before, no one with half a brain is questioning what will happen when US forces leave without a conclusive solution. Link me an analysis by someone who believes Iraq will be all sunshine and gum drops after a 16 month US withdrawal.

Regardless of the purposes of going into Iraq, the US is there now and, as I said before, getting out fast and killing thousands of Iraqis in the process is not going to make up for the going in part.

pigbodine,

Your right, its not about victory, but its also not about occupation. Its about preventing ethnic cleansing and lawlessness. A few Iraqis may die questionably in the occupation, but many many many many many more would die in a civil war. A new government is not going to stand up if US troops leave. Its going to look like either Afghanistan after the Soviets leave, where a civil war ends when the strongest dictator gets the upper hand, or Somalia (most likely option) where all the little ethnic enclaves and tribes break off and form their own little warlord fiefdoms. The situation now is superior to both alternatives.

The fact is that there is no current solution or option, so stop pretending their is one.

Not only is there no current solution, there isn't a future one unless a whole lot of conditions change. The sectarian violence in Iraq isn't necessarily Iraq based - it comes from Iran and Sryia, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia and probably Jordan, too. There's a heck of a lot of oil under that mess of a country, and to the victor go the spoils. After we leave, whenever that is, the covert war over Iraq will become an overt war. Whenever we leave, and however long we stay, the war starts. No amount of time is likely to change that.

So why stay? I admit fully that it will be devastating for Iraq and the Iraqis, but I don't see how later will be better than sooner.

Once again, the excuse of "its going to happen either way" is not an excuse. If that is the case then US forces will need to responsibly be in Iraq forever. I can't pitch you a permanent solution right now, thats not my job, all I can do is point out what is not a permanent solution.

@ msummo:

"Ethnic conflicts aren't "negotiated" away."

It is easy to falsify this statement. When India was granted independence by the British, a negotiated partition of the country into India and Pakistan resolved the conflict. The process wasn't pretty but it was a whole lot preferable to the alternative.

The Bosnian ethnic conflict was ended through negotiations resulting in the Dayton Peace Accords. The ethnic conflict in Northern Ireland was largely resolved with negotiations leading to the Good Friday Agreement.

A glib generalization that ethnic conflicts can't be resolved through negotiations naturally leads to McCain's proposed 100 year occupation of Iraq. Of course, McCain, like Bush/Cheney, wants a permanent American military presence in Iraq for imperialist "national security" reasons. That is why McCain and his supporters dismiss a negotiated settlement out of hand.

And how will America pay for this indefinite stay. Isn’t the price millions per day? And if we need troops to be sent someplace else – like Afghanistan for instance, where will we get them from? A draft? Only in the name of protecting the people of Iraq? ??????

pwoxby,

When India was granted independence by the British, a negotiated partition of the country into India and Pakistan resolved the conflict.

How has that worked out? The original partition cost how many thousands of lives? More than 50 years later and they have had how many wars? How many ongoing ethnic insurgencies? How many near nuclear wars? Gandhi was the only reason the partition wasn't a total disaster. Iraq does not have a Gandhi, and they are still one of the worlds most unstable regions.

The Bosnian ethnic conflict was ended through negotiations resulting in the Dayton Peace Accords.

There was a UN mission keeping and monitoring the peace in Bosnia until 2002. And the only reason this succeeded was BECAUSE the Croats and Bosniaks defeated the Serb minorities in the civil war following the break up of the former Yugoslavia. So again, another conflict that only ended after hundreds of atrocities and thousands of deaths.

The ethnic conflict in Northern Ireland was largely resolved with negotiations leading to the Good Friday Agreement.

The ethnic conflict in Northern Ireland? The one that required how many uprisings, how many massacres, how many hundreds of years of open conflict to solve? Not an good example my friend. And the Brits have been and are still separating them in Northern Ireland.

Let me be clear. A negotiated peace IS possible after one side has beat the other and thousands have already died. But you can't do so UNTIL they have worn themselves out. The only way to PREVENT the killing is to separate them. Sure the US could help negotiate a settlement in Iraq by leaving, you just have to be willing to say to me that a hundred thousand innocent deaths and a war torn landscape is a price worth paying.

It would be much easier to wait and build a central authority in Iraq that could keep the groups in line. There are many stable countries with multiple ethnic groups. Like Canada or Russia.

Irdim,

How much is a human life worth to you? What happens when Afghanistan becomes too expensive and costly? Just leave there and the Afghan people to their fate? Thats the reason the Taliban were able to take hold after the Soviets left. Because no one cared and bothered to try and rebuild the country. No wonder the world doesn't like the US anymore, apparently its wiling to buy and sell foreigners lives depending on its own domestic political tides. Its not like the US is going into somewhere like Zimbabwe to solve a preexisting problem. Iraq is a problem that the US has created and therefore is responsible for solving. Not simply cutting all ties because the US doesn't want to spend any more money.

No matter anyone's stance on the war or withdrawal...people better start to understand how the violence has been reduced in Baghdad and its unending devastation to all parties. It is so much more than buying (renting?) the bad guys for a while.

The Guardian - The surge is much misread. It has involved pouring 20,000 extra troops into forward operating bases in central and western Baghdad, mostly Sunni areas. As a result, a formerly mixed city has been segregated into fortified enclaves as in Jerusalem and Belfast.

Neighbourhoods have been flooded with armour, and soldiers embedded in each community. Not surprisingly, there has been a relative decline in lawlessness and violence, though they remain devastatingly high.

BAGHDAD — Despite an outcry from infuriated Iraqis and opposition from lawmakers, the US occupation army insisted Sunday, April 22, 2007 on going full speed with erecting more concrete and cement segregation barriers across the capital Baghdad.

"The intent is not to divide the city along sectarian lines," Brigadier-General John Campbell, deputy commander of US forces in Baghdad, said in a statement cited by Reuters.

He announced building more separation walls in five Baghdad districts.

"The intent is to provide a more secured neighborhood for people who live in selected neighborhoods," he argued.

Campbell said new "barrier walls will outline selected neighborhoods around Baghdad in an attempt to help protect the Iraqi population from terrorists."

The main targets of the plan are the mainly Sunni districts of Adhamiya, Amiriya, Khadra and the mixed neighborhoods of east and west Rashid, he added.

"We've selected communities that have seen an increase in violence, a heightened violence, and we're protecting some of those communities with walls."

Nearly two months after the new security crackdown in Baghdad was proven a failure with bombs and explosions rocking the capital every day, the US unveiled the "gated communities" plan.

Since April 10, American US forces have been constructing a five-kilometer wall made of six-ton concrete sections along the highway dividing Adhamiyah from its Shiite neighbors.

Famed British reporter Robert revealed the US plan on April 11, asserting that the controversial gating tactic had proved its failure in Vietnam, Algeria and the Palestinian territories.

Is the drop in violence - particularly in Baghdad - the result of a successful surge or a successful purge? Meaning that the forced segregation of Baghdad neighborhoods, and the resulting flight of tens of thousands of residents, was the reason for decreased violence. There were quite simply fewer people, and fewer Sunnis, to be attacked and killed. Certainly one aspect of the surge strategy has been to purge Baghdad.

By Shawn Pogatchnik, Associated Press Writer BELFAST, Northern Ireland — March 2008 Lee Young, 8, and Cein Quinn, 7, live barely 200 yards apart, but they have never met, and maybe never will.

Lee is Protestant, Cein a Catholic -- and their communities in Belfast's west inner city are separated by a wall called a peace line.

It's nearly 40 years old and 40 feet high.

Ten years after peace was declared in Northern Ireland, one might have expected that Belfast's barriers would be torn down by now. But reality, as usual, is far messier. Not one has been dismantled. Instead they've grown in both size and number.

We have chosen the worst kind of option to ensure 'media' numbers...

In Belfast the Good Friday Accords brought an end to the worst violence but the city and its people are even more segregated. And it won't last. The bombs will begin to fly over the walls again as people begin to feel even less connected to whomever is on the other side. Ethnic segregation is a step from ethnic cleansing.

Gaza is safety fenced - how's that been working out?Baghdad will be the same...

Better to go now. Before generations have been born and raised and died behind those fences.

It'll be a blood bath, now or later.

The Iraqi's will be hating our guts either way.

Ethnic conflicts require a shit load of dead bodies before the negotiations can begin...better if it isn't us being dead.

@ msummo:

We appear to agree that diplomacy has a chance of working when it is clear to one or both sides of an ethnic conflict that continued violence won't resolve the conflict. That clarity can be imposed (India), it can come through defeat (Bosnia), or it can come through stalemate (N. Ireland).

You correctly observe that negotiations never lead to universal brotherhood and peace on earth. Point taken. Having established that diplomacy won't turn Iraq into the Garden of Eden, we can still ask this question: How close are the sides to acknowledging that diplomacy is preferable to violence?

At this point the answer is unknowable, as several respondents in this thread have pointed out. Your certainty that a diplomatic settlement can't be achieved in 16 months is misplaced. Maybe you're right but until negotiations get under way there is no way of knowing how long the process will take. One thing is clear. The Bush/McCain policy of keeping our troops in harms way and hoping for a miracle isn't going to work.

The key is to keep Americans manning those walls until such time as the Iraqi central government can man them. If that takes 16 months (it wont, without some kind of deus ex machina) then thats how long it takes, if it takes 10 years then so be it.

16 months is not an educated guess, it is political rhetoric. The same man who is predicting a safe and effective pullout 16 months in the future is the same one who said 16 months ago that the surge would fail, wanted US troops withdrawn by today, and that the situation would never improve. The head of the Joint Chiefs recently said that if the US pulled troops out of Iraq in 16 months it would be extremely messy and dangerous. Forgive me if I do not trust the forecasts and judgments that come out of Obama's crystal ball, they haven't exactly been too spot on in the past.

Will the situation improve to the point that withdrawal will be acceptable in the next 16 months? Perhaps. Is the smart money on such an improvement? I wouldn't put my paycheck on it. At this pace the Joint Chiefs wouldn't advise it.

msummo,

You could have said what you really mean with much fewer words: "We must never leave Iraq."