Does anyone see a “clean way out” for the U.S. at this point?

I don’t see one, and neither did George Bush Sr.  He wrote in his book that invading Iraq would be a more-or-less no-win situation.

Too bad GWB didn’t read it, or take it to heart if he did.

I could have sworn that GWB doesn’t like to read, but perhaps I am wrong.  Maybe he will stop by SEB one day to checck in.

Does anyone see a “clean way out� for the U.S. at this point?

Sure, but I can’t conceive of a scenario that falls short of the current US government completely losing face and eating huge amounts of crow.

At this point I don’t see any entirely clean way out for the US.  Even if we were to completely withdraw troops from the region we would encounter hostility and attacks on the way home.

I agree with Elwed’s statement that nothing approaching clean way out can be reached without the US getting some egg on its face.  That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t proceed along those lines.

When I say a clean way out, I am referring to sometime in the distant future of 3 to 6 years from now.  Right now, we broke it open and we have certain obligations there.  Staying the current course should not be one of them.

Attempting to place a US led democracy in this environment is a mistake on the grandest scale.  In my opinion, Iraq could have been better served by a combination of a hagiocracy and hoplarchy during the duration of the transition.  One of the main reasons Osama bin Laden and fundamental Muslims are so strongly opposed to the US as it stands is because over-bearing western influences in their countries.  To think that the removal of Saddam Hussein would change that mindset is just ludicrous.

The US needs to set its ego aside and stop with the ‘father knows best’ attitude and allow this government to find its own footing.  I would protect Iraqi infrastructure and oil fields and focus on rebuilding areas that are welcoming assistance.  I would also re-arm the Iraqi military to forward battle-field strength and allow them to deal with insurgents with notice that the we and the rest of the world a closely watching.

With the ministers and military in power I would focus on the surrounding countries giving strong notice not to negatively interfere and stressing their interests that Iraq become a stable presence in the Middle East.  Then I would humbly apologize to the rest of world and ask for their assistance in rebuilding this country stressing that an negative regime had been removed and with it’s stabilization, one less bastion for terrorism is available.

All said and done, the Iraqi people could then hold open elections for a full representative democracy sometime around 2008 and we would have one more ally on the planet.

Or we could turn another corner.

StinkAss said: “...consider how effective the Afghans were against the Soviets.”

I’m sure you meant “...consider how effective the Afghans and U.S. CIA were against the Soviets.”

deadscot said: “After 9/11 we had the majority of the world on our side and I would argue that pursuing an avenue self-restraint, core discipline, prudent understanding and cooperation would serve us much better...”

Huh?  “Prudent understanding”?  What does that mean?  Consider the reasons for 9/11 before retaliating?  Consider the culture of the people we’re invading, attacking, liberating?  I guess I’m too myopic to understand this one.

“Cooperation” with whom?  The U.N.?  The U.N. who vetoed the resolution to enforce the previous U.N. resolutions that permitted military action for non-compliance?  The countries of France, Germany, and Russia who were all violating U.N. sanctions against Iraq by supplying them with military equipment and/or had illegal oil contracts outside the food-for-oil program.  Please.  With whom should we have cooperated?  Should we have waited until France, Germany, and Russia agreed to join us?  If you’re a pacifist and we should never take violent action, just say so.  But, France, Germany, and Russia (and Kofi Annan’s son) had too much to lose by agreeing to take military action and they would never have agreed to invade.

Most people would say that if an American President fails to act on a threat and it cost American lives, he has failed one of his responsibilities.  If you think Bush is a lying war-monger, he can never satisfactorily justify his actions.  I think deadscot and StinkAss are in that camp: they hate Bush and oppose anything he says or does.

I’m not defending Bush.  I’m disputing the logic of the arguement.  I didn’t vote for Bush (or Gore) and I can’t in good conscience vote for either Bush or Kerry.

deadscot,

One thing to keep in mind though is that Saddam Hussein wasn’t nearly as traditionalist as other leaders in the middle-east.  Iraq, from what I hear, is fairly “modern” though perhaps not so much as Dubai or Qatar.  It seems that the citizens there on the large part would probably prefer a more western style democracy than oligarchial system.  However, this is second hand reporting, I’m just saying here what some friends of mine (who spent some time in the middle east) have said to me.  That said, I do agree with you that the United States forcing any particular system of government on the Iraqis is mistaken, even if the people would likely prefer a western style democracy, they probably would get upset that the decisions regarding their government are made for them by an outside power.  People do have this thing about self-determination.  I think a strategy similar to what you suggest, pace asking for some foreign assistance, would be useful.  However, I think the countries that need to be involved are countries from the area.  I’m talking Eqypt, Dubai, the UAE, Jordan and Qatar, these are all countries that are relatively progressive considering the regional political climate, and they’re all countries that might offer their assistance for some oil rights (though I would assume that the provisional Iraqi gov’t should make the offer of oil rights versus the US doing it).  That’s just my two cents though.

JJL,

Touche, you have a point there, the Afghans did get a fair amount of assistance from the US.  However, I’m pretty sure if the insurgency in Iraq becomes protracted, countries not to friendly with the US are bound to get involved.  I’m sure China and North Korea are itching for the US to get some “egg on their face” as deadscot puts it.

JJL -

Huh?  “Prudent understandingâ€??  What does that mean?  Consider the reasons for 9/11 before retaliating?  Consider the culture of the people we’re invading, attacking, liberating?  I guess I’m too myopic to understand this one.

Well, the rest of the line you chose to leave off pertained to this course of action versus assuming a bully pulpit in the Middle East.  We clearly went into Iraq without a clear understanding of what we were going to have to deal with once Saddam Hussein was removed from power.  Intelligence is this area is sketchy because of the United States’ limited understanding of Muslim culture and its inability to come to terms with the fact that the US military is ill equipped for a post-war scenario. 

A proper course of action would have been to retaliate against the Taliban, Al Qaeda and continue to seek out Osama Bin Laden and his supporters, showing restraint not to go off and invade another country and practicing prudent understanding of the cultural and political climate in that area.  Iraq played no immediate threat to the United States and could have been dealt with over time and on a cooperative basis with countries around the world. 

“Cooperationâ€? with whom?  The U.N.?  The U.N. who vetoed the resolution to enforce the previous U.N. resolutions that permitted military action for non-compliance?  The countries of France, Germany, and Russia who were all violating U.N. sanctions against Iraq by supplying them with military equipment and/or had illegal oil contracts outside the food-for-oil program.  Please.  With whom should we have cooperated?  Should we have waited until France, Germany, and Russia agreed to join us?  If you’re a pacifist and we should never take violent action, just say so.  But, France, Germany, and Russia (and Kofi Annan’s son) had too much to lose by agreeing to take military action and they would never have agreed to invade.

Pacifist?  Hmm… I’m and advocate of responsive force when properly directly and vented.  It’s too simple to advocate force when it’s someone else making the sacrifices.  If we were in imminent danger, then force is a prudent measure.  That’s why we need responsible elected officials.  Were we in imminent danger of attack from Iraq?

Please be sure to add the United States to the list of countries violating UN sanctions by providing weapons to Iraq and maintaining illegal oil contracts.  We’re too quick to point to finger and too slow to take responsibility for our own dirty little secrets. (How much do the Bush family and friends investment group have at stake in those oil and natural gas fields?  And, whatever happened to those chemical warheads found in Iraq reported to WMD’s and quickly discovered to be US Army ordnance?) Russia definitely would have been the hardest to bring to the table but I do feel it could have been done.  As far as France, Germany and the surrounding Middle Eastern countries, my belief is that if the US had shown due diligence in Afghanistan and then pointed out the vested interests that these countries have in a stable Iraq, they would have participated in the action.

Keep in mind, most countries do not posses the military fire-power that the US has but they do offer some unique skills that would have been extremely useful in the postwar scenario.  In Bush’s, ‘your either for us or against us’ rhetoric, and his axis of evil, he makes it painfully clear that he does not recognize the necessities of these skills in post-war Iraq.  This is a situation where we need a ‘uniter’ not a ‘divider’.  Yes, the US military is going to do the blunt of the attack work but that shouldn’t prohibit other countries from participating in post-war Iraq clean-up and post-war contracts.  That’s self-serving at best and deadly ineffective at worst.

Most people would say that if an American President fails to act on a threat and it cost American lives, he has failed one of his responsibilities.  If you think Bush is a lying war-monger, he can never satisfactorily justify his actions.  I think deadscot and StinkAss are in that camp: they hate Bush and oppose anything he says or does.

If an American President fails to act on a threat and it cost American lives, he has indeed failed one of his responsibilities.  Bush is a liar but I’m not sure about the warmonger part.  I think that Bush really wanted Saddam out of power and needed to ensure the protection of US oil interests in the region along with establishing a US presence in the Middle East on a future basis.  I don’t hate President Bush.  I‘ve only met the guy one time.  I think his policies are severely flawed, his personal agenda interferes with his responsibility and he is ill equipped mentally/emotionally to deal with the problems we face today.

I’m not defending Bush.  I’m disputing the logic of the arguement.  I didn’t vote for Bush (or Gore) and I can’t in good conscience vote for either Bush or Kerry.

So you would rather your vote go to waste?  I didn’t particularly like Bush or Gore in 2000 and ended up voting for Bush because of the policies he laid out in his campaign.  The very same policies that he isn’t adhering to today.

StinkAss -

One thing to keep in mind though is that Saddam Hussein wasn’t nearly as traditionalist as other leaders in the middle-east.  Iraq, from what I hear, is fairly “modernâ€? though perhaps not so much as Dubai or Qatar.  It seems that the citizens there on the large part would probably prefer a more western style democracy than oligarchial system.

That’s a good point.  It’s hard to tell since Saddam was such an oppressive leader.  Without having the proper human intelligence as to what type of religious sentiments were brewing before the invasion it made it even more difficult to predict which factions would erupt in a post-war scenario.  Prudent understanding.

Either way, they weren’t going to receptive to an US instituted government.

deadscot,

And that’s really the point isn’t it.

Another side effect of Iraq seems to be that other nations are increasingly looking out for their own interests, to the detriment of the US. Such a valiant effort in the game of “How to lose friends and influence"…

“The US military’s accounts of incidents in which it claims to have targeted insurgents but only civilians have died are frequently discredited by Arab television pictures of the incident which US officers apparently do not watch before issuing statements. At the weekend the US was claiming to have precisely hit insurgents in Fallujah while Iraqis were watching pictures on television of an ambulance gutted from the air in which a driver, paramedic and five patients died.”
- Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=562235

Only those who have never experienced war rush in when there are several other options available. I can tell who the old guys are here without asking. We were the most powerful nation on earth, now we are a paper tiger, punching above our weight. I am reminded of what Theoden said upon learning of Boromir’s fate, “Alas!” he said, “that these evil days should be mine, and should come in my old age instead of that peace which I have earned.” I lived through the sixtys and seventys, I survived when many of my classmates did not. Death is not glorious unless your a great grandfather, surrounded by four generations of your decendents, lying on your own bed, breathing your last.

And two more telling quotes from the Independent article:

The US State Department has announced it is switching $3.4bn of US funds from water and power projects. Most of the money will be reallocated to boosting security and oil output.

It is not clear how much real security the additional security men will provide. Even aspirant police officers injured by a massive car bomb in Haifa Street earlier this week expressed approval of resistance attacks on US forces. In April, the US military command were horrified to find the soldiers and police they had trained went home or switched sides during the Sunni and Shia uprisings.

Larkinsjapn, a statistic I’m always curious about is how many of those defending the invasion have done what should be their patriotic duty - served their country in the armed forces…

elwedriddsche, probably, not counting people serving right now or seconded from the guard, 0, I don’t know anyone in my local chapter of the VFW that thought it was a good idea. In fact we made our view know in the local paper, and the big regional before this little quagmire started. Our local representative is not going back to washington. New blood, who has been blooded, will back up our new President.

...probably, not counting people serving right now or seconded from the guard, 0

Even taking into account the active duty military the latest military poll has the president leading 52 to 44 percent with a 5 point margin of error.  If I’m not mistaken, this would be the narrowest margin of support that a sitting Republican president has garnered from the military.  President Bush is 10 up and 2 down.

Seeing these figures leads me to believe that some of our engagement policies in Iraq may be directed toward gaining electoral support from military personnel.

I find these numbers even more interesting given Kerry’s actions upon returning from Vietnam and the harsh rebuke many veterans have for him.  It would seem that a vast number have weighed those actions against the betrayal our country is currently facing and come to terms with their grievances.  For those vets who refuse to support Kerry because of his anti-Vietnam actions, I can be empathetic to that position.  Old wounds sometimes just won’t heal.  Unfortunately we’re creating a whole new set of wounds for future generations.  Namely 1032 dead, 7132 combat wounded and 12,000 non-combat wounded US troops.

Who better qualified to protest a war than someone who’s actually fought in it?  I think Kerry’s actions were eminently reasonable.  If someone who has risked his life tells me we’re doing it for the wrong reasons, I’d take HIS word for it, not the word of a draft-dodger in Washington.

(Speaking of draft dodgers, have you noticed how desperate Cheney, Bush and co. seem to be to appear macho?  I guess you have to act extra tough if you’ve never actually done anything tough.  Whereas Kerry, who doesn’t have to prove himself, doesn’t need to strut and bluster.  It’s a common phenomenon.)

Speaking of draft dodgers, have you noticed how desperate Cheney, Bush and co. seem to be to appear macho?  I guess you have to act extra tough if you’ve never actually done anything tough.

What GM said.  Reminded me of another quote:

“Oh, I forgot to tell you… you had to have actually hit someone once.”
-The Fonz, explaining to Richie Cunningham why tough talk won’t resolve his dispute with a bully.

I can’t fathom how Bush’s supporters say his TANG experience is equivalent to having gone to Vietnam.  The argument I’ve seen several times is that the plane Bush flew wasn’t the most reliable so, theoretically, he could have been killed.  But he was in the US and his safety depended on intelligent ground mechanics who were doing their level best to keep him safe.  Kerry was on a river in Vietnam where intelligent guerilla fighters were doing their level best to kill him.

Texas (not equal to) Vietnam.

What GM said.

Chickenhaws.

Texas (not equal to) Vietnam.

Tell it to JFK.

deadscot, I apologise I mostly log on at about 11pm. my time it looks early to you but I am half way around the world with a malfuncti9oning f--n keyboard adb type ergonamic because of my hands!!
I really meant Cheney, et. al. I know that most old soldiers trust the Republicans, but I am hoping that this year there will be a weather change. Because the imposter in the Whitehouse does not have the military’s best interest at heart. I do feel stronly about this point but I would never denigrate fellow veterans their belief in the Commander-in-Chief. I really worry that to cover his ass he will reinstate the draft!! I don’t want my nieces and nephews chewed up for no good reason. Are we really safer than 4 years ago.

I really worry that to cover his ass he will reinstate the draft!! I don’t want my nieces and nephews chewed up for no good reason.

What Larkinsjapn said.  I sure as hell didn’t raise my kids to be cannon fodder so some dumbass who can’t say “nuclear” can push us closer to the brink.

I can’t believe that Bush said that “people love America” (just not the decisions we make).  “People” didn’t love America or Americans before Bush decided to make us look like the big playground bully.  People around the world have shared this view prior to our invasion of Iraq that Americans are wealthy, selfish, rude, arrogant, etc…

I’m sure a lot of this comes from their own personal experience with Americans in their home countries--most of them don’t get the pleasure of meeting normal, everday Americans.  Instead, they meet Americans who can afford to travel abroad (i.e.--usually the wealthy, who unfortunately are overwhelmingly selfish, arrogant, rude, and have the manners of a spoiled 2 year old child!).  In fact, especially after watching this last presidential debate, it really seems to describe our “president”. 

Maybe some Americans thought he came off as a leader, but he appeared to me as an illiterate, idiotic, little hothead as he interrupted the moderator and kept jumping up to dispute nearly everything Kerry said.  He would be an embarassment as a congressman or senator, let alone as our “president”!  Civilized, educated human beings do not act like tantruming 2 year olds and any elected official should be able to stay calm and cool in any situation and not get so upset by something someone says that they start hopping around interrupting others or starting wars. 

I hope the majority of Americans see this little arrogant bastard for the prick he is and get him out of office.  I don’t care if you don’t like Kerry--we can worry about getting someone in to replace him if he turns out to be a crappy leader too, but another 4 years of Bush will get our former allies wanting to use WMD’s on the US!  The way Bush acts, how do they know he’s not going to attack France or Germany next for harboring terrorists?  They live over there too.  Oh, and also in the US, let’s not forget about that.  Maybe we should bomb our own back yard?  It would probably make sense to the little psycho...I mean after all, “...if you’re not with us, you’re against us...”

Great way to keep allies!

Stephanie

The way Bush acts, how do they know he’s not going to attack France or Germany next for harboring terrorists?

You’re not nearly the first one to voice that thought. Even before Gulf War 1.1 started, I remember that plans were leaked to the effect of a covert US PR operation in Germany that was supposed to influence German voters in favor of the US (and in detriment to their own national interest). Allegedly the plans were quickly dropped following the leak.

Clearly, Germany and France are candidates for regime change.

Stephanie, I don’t mind the president jumping up to dispute something he disagrees with.  What I mind is that when he does jump up to speak, what comes out of his mouth is pure idiocy.  That’s the difference between passionate, intelligent debate and someone just yelling out, “Nuh-Uhh!  Is not, either!”

Another thing that didn’t make sense to me was the long pause after some questions, where Bush seemed to be looking at nothing in particular for a moment before answering.  Almost as if he were listening to an earphone

that’s awesome.  ain’t war hell?  bwahahaha

Not to pour water on the hate-fest… but there aren’t any US tanks or helos in the West Bank.  Maybe Israeli ones, but no US ones.  So it’d be a little shy of impossible for a US helo to fire a US missile at someone next to a disabled US Bradley, in the West Bank.  This story wasn’t in the int’l media because it’s obviously bogus.