Korean Job Discussion Forums

[On the other hand]

I'm not really interested in a debate, in fact I'd prefer if if people just confined themselves to one post, long or short, explaining their position. This is more of an opinion poll than anything else. And I'd like to hear from both supporters and opponents of the original invasion.

So. What do you think the US and its allies should do in Iraq?

[On the other hand]

My own view is that the US and its allies should withdraw within a year at most, regardless of how things are shaping up politically in Iraq. I don't see any advantage for anyone in continuing the American presence.

[VanIslander]

Get out and provide training and funds for a military-backed local government led by an American-friendly "democratic" dictator.

That is the CIA way.

[Junior]

Partition it.
Oversee free and fair elections in each of the 3 new states.
Retain a small US military presence in allied Kurdistan to help them rebuild and protect them from their neighbours.


Send the vast majority of troops home.

[Pligganease]

Rambo.

[madcap]

I never wanted to go in the first place, but now that we are there I think we have to stay until the Iraqis can handle things themselves and we have rebuilt hospitals, power plants, etc. I don't care if it takes ten years. We broke it, we ought to fix it. Otherwise we have to face hundreds of thousands of widows, cripples, and orphans whos lives we ruined for nothing.

[stevemcgarrett]

Even ordinary Iraqis who are polled see a bleak future for their country. The few moderate leaders among them admit that the Muslim propensity for seeking revenge for wrongful acts has only fanned the flames. And then you've got the clandestine Syrian and Iranian presence to consider (with the Saudis threatening intervention of their own), plus huge remnants of Baathist loyalists feeding the insurgency and spurred on by elements of al-Qaeda.

In short, a real mess. A power vacuum with an ensuing civil war was inevitable given these prevailing conditions.

Solution: offer to assist with UN support in partitioning the country: perhaps Iraq is as much a political entity as was the former Yugoslavia. Gain consensus in the UN on non-interference from all outside powers, if that's possible, once American and British forces withdraw and hope for the best.

If that can't be arranged, shoot that punk mafia man al-Sadr, cut our losses, and get the heck out of there. The present Iraqi gov't is bought.

[bucheon bum]

[ChuckECheese]

Separate religion and state.

[mateomiguel]

Personally, I'd like to see the US pull out immediately and send the entire region into instability. Hopefully Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will get into a 3-way war trying to gobble up unoccupied Iraq and will hopefully spawn hostilities that last for decades. That way the angry people can be angry at each other and our skyscrapers will be safe for another generation.

[stevemcgarrett]

mateomiguel:

Well put response. I'd only add that I don't think the evidently fruitless pursuit of democracy in the Middle East is not worth the life of one single American soldier, nor the anguish of his family.

[madcap]

Obviously there is no "right" answer for Iraq. I say let the people of Iraq decide. they are the ones who are most affected by it. However, I don't see us pulling out until Bush is out of office. he already sank half a trillion dollars into the country and I don't see him taking a loss on it. He at least wants the oil industry up and running and secure before we even think about leaving and unless they do something drastic, that isn't going to happen. Our next president might pull us out, but this one doesn't give a sh!t about what we think.

[Kimchi Cowboy]

[MissSeoul]

[stevemcgarrett]

Miss Seoul:

Better stick with what you know best apparently: beauty pageants.

Saddam ruled by using dictatorial powers and extreme force or the threat thereof. Period. It was a reign of terror unlike any in modern Iraqi history. It produced a climate of fear and distrust. Got it?

As for the civil war, it was brewing under Saddam: he only repressed it.

The Iraqis have no one to blame but themselves for their current plight. The insurgents, who are mostly Sunni modernists, allow al-Qaeda, which claim fundamentalism, to aid and abet them. The Shiites, who claim to be victims of the Baathists, rely on support from Iran, their former enemy over which they waged a senseless border war that costs millions of lives. And they hold allegiance to al-Sadr, an insurgent masquerading as an imam rather than to their own Shiite dominated but more moderate government.

Then there is the not so small matter of Syrian infiltration, which fuels the crisis and provides a staging ground for further attacks.

There is also the matter of the Islamic culture of revenge. Revenge is not only condoned; it is expected.

The problem with finding bin Laden is compounded by sympathetic tribal leaders and a Pakistani government which has sought a truce with them rather than confronting them head-on.

People said we would be defeated in Afghanistan same as the Soviets. It didn't happen. And had not sympathetic Pakistani and Iranian forces not come to the aid of the defeated Taliban, along with al-Qaeda funding, there would not even have been this recent upsurge in attacks there either.

Stop making Americans the scapegoat for the shortcomings of other nations. Fact is that most Iraqis put cultural and religious allegiance ahead of nationality, which is why dividing the country might be the only workable solution. However, oil revenues would need to be guaranteed to the oil deprived Sunni triangle.