Any plan for the cut and run

don't get your hopes up.

"The House voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal."

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/18/congress.iraq.ap/index.html

 

Ewan

"Just out of interest, what would going well have been?"

Ok for the Neo-cons what would have been ‘well’ was the PNAC fiction they had sold to many in the US elite.

I probably don’t have to recap this for you but as explanation for others I will.

They saw Iraq as being an asset to US strategic interests.

They saw Saddam as weak.

They believed a lightening attack by a smallish force (I believe Rummy only wanted to send 80,000) Saddam would be toppled.

They would then place in his place their tame pro-American exiles.

The Iraqi people would be so grateful for Saddams toppling that they would accept the exiles without fuss.

The exiles would then give over some of Iraq so that the US could build bases from which to dominate the Middle East. They would also hand over parts of the economy to US interests.

The US battle group would be returned home and US garrison troops moved into the bases.

When another opportunity came along Syria or Iran would get the same treatment.

**

It was a fantasy and many experts and lay people told them so.

**

As to Iraq ‘nationhood’ it should be remembered that it is not exactly a ‘nation’ but a colonial European construct. Mesopotamia has been host to a number of empires and has at other times been part of other peoples empires, but it owes its present configuration to European concerns not the people of the area.

**

I have to explain that I was supporting campaigns against Saddam over twenty years ago when he was supported by many western governments. I was not in principle against his removal from power, but what was known before and is clearer now was that this would have to be done in such a way as to allow the Iraq people a chance at a peaceful future. This would mean taking into account the desire of Kurds for independence, the strong links between southern shia and the Iranians, and the disappointment of the Sunni at losing their power. Of all the ways to do this invasion by a country that had little concern over what the Iraqis wanted or needed was the worse of all possible methods.

**



I hoped the US might see sense and not invade because they were doing out of what they thought was there interests with little thought of what it would mean to the Iraqi people, but they did.

I then hoped they would see sense and change their policies, to one that would truly be in the interests of the Iraqi people, they didn’t.

Now that things have not gone the US’s way I fear that many Americans are more interested in cutting and running because they see it as being in US interests than they are in what happens to the Iraqi peoples.

**

This was not a matter of doing something wrong for the right reasons it was the wrong reasons and it is not a surprise that it has gone ugly. But it seems to me that some people want to compound the wrong which has already been done by leaving without even trying to help the Iraqi people in this time of need.

That is not to say I agree with the continued presence of US troops in Iraq but I do believe the US and the American people have a duty of care toward Iraq and the people of Iraq, which might mean them having to pay for others to clean up their mess.

 

Sorry balbus i understadn what you were saying. When you said going well, i thought you emant oging well for the iraqi people.

And coolner, are you some kind of stalinist? You cannot impose socialism by invading someone. The working class of each country must impose socialism themselves, sure they can be aided by other countries but your idea that invading another country and imposing socialism on it is feesable seem scompletely warped.