E Pluribus Unum

Avedon Carol nails the bumper-stickers we need, and masterfully rejects the GOP framwork for thinking about Iraq.

We already won the war. We are occupiers. You don't win an occupation, you either continue it, or end it. Our choice. Our decision.

Don't even call it a war, unless you're referring to the Iraqi Civil War where we are assisting in a Shia purge of Sunni insurgents.

There is no "war," asymetrical or otherwise. There is ethnic cleansing and an occupation.

At this point, it's likely that if US troops are pulled out, the Shia militias will begin exterminating the Sunni. Should that happen, Saudi Arabia steps in, then Iran, and likely Turkey, and the whole friggin' region goes up in flames.

Much as I would like this mess to be over, troops out isn't the answer. A lot more people will die.

”Much as I would like this mess to be over, troops out isn't the answer. A lot more people will die.”

That might be true but: 1) a lot more people will likely die if we stay (fyi, Shia militias are already exterminating Sunnis) and 2) we’ll be doing a lot of the killing. A lot of people die in car crashes and from smoking cigarettes, it matters a great deal how and why and which people die.

Right now, in my opinion, people are dying mostly to secure our territorial acquisitions. The neocons will resist paying such a mighty price and not get their forward bases and control over the region and its resources. They’re playing for time and a friendly government that will ask us to stay and thousands of innocent people are paying the tab with their lives, along with the steady erosion of moral authority of the world’s lone superpower.

I say bring in Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and Turkey. And Kuwait, and Jordan, and Syria. Bring in the Arab League. Our best chance to avoid complete disaster is not to “stay the course”. We need to negotiate an exit strategy with the Iraqi government and internationalize this thing.

Iraq needs a political solution right now and US troops and permanent bases are nothing but obstacles to that end. We simply can’t be honest brokers of peace in that country, our motives are too questionable. At least, not without an ironclad agreement for the eventual and complete withdrawal of all US military forces from Iraq.

dpu:

Much as I would like this mess to be over, troops out isn't the answer. A lot more people will die.

It's false choice -- stay the course vs. immediate withdrawal. Don't fall for it.

There's another choice: crafting an exit strategy that serves the best interests of the US and its allies in the region including, of course, Iraq itself.

There is no easy answer. There are no good options. All of those came and went long ago, run into the ditch by the Bush war cabinet. Now all we can do is choose from among several less-than-good choices. And as time passes, even those choices are degrading in quality.

Stay the course is not a plan -- it's a slogan.

We need a change in direction. We need an exit strategy. And I believe that the Republican majority is not capable of providing one.

It's false choice -- stay the course vs. immediate withdrawal. Don't fall for it.

I'm not falling for anything, this is based on my reading of quite a few analysists, most of them opposed to the war. Some who who originally called for withdrawal are now reversing their position based on the ferocity of the civil war. The US forces right now are keeping a lid on this. If they're gone, the knives really come out.

Sorry guys, I know it's not a popular stance, especially considering the domestic political situation, but if there's an enormous bloodbath after a pullout, that's not going to reflect well on the troops out faction.

No need to apologize, ++, except by inference that I support withdrawal because it’s popular. I am quite ambivalent about it myself and inasmuch as we are actually peacekeepers, I agree with you.

But the proposition itself is questionable, it comes at an enormous and unsustainable price and there is at least equal risk that our future deployment (beyond 6-12 months) will make matters worse and not better. Like I said, there are more credible peace-brokers and peacekeepers (with the warring factions) than western troops. We need to get the process of transition from the US occupation of Iraq moving. Almost as important, we need to be seen as making that transition start to happen.

But the proposition itself is questionable, it comes at an enormous and unsustainable price and there is at least equal risk that our future deployment (beyond 6-12 months) will make matters worse and not better.

If the violence were just the insurgency, I'd be with you on this, as I think a prolonged US military presence feeds that violence. But the sectarian and ethnic violence can escalate well beyond the simple violence of the insurgency. That's when you see hundreds of thousands killed, and millions displaced.

Like I said, there are more credible peace-brokers and peacekeepers (with the warring factions) than western troops

Who? The Sunni (and the US) would not stand for Iranian peacekeepres, the Shia would take up weapons against the Saudis, and the Pakistanis would revolt against their own dictatorship if they were seen cleaning up the US's mess.

We need to get the process of transition from the US occupation of Iraq moving. Almost as important, we need to be seen as making that transition start to happen.

Agreed, but I don't know how at this point. And I bet that the adminstistration doesn't know either, other than hang onto the tiger's tail and hope things work out.

Let me clarify my position (and what I hope is the Democrats' position):

1. There has to be an exit strategy.
   
2. It must be crafted after looking at all the facts.
   
3. It should be based on performance metrics and not calendar dates.

“Agreed, but I don't know how at this point. And I bet that the adminstistration doesn't know either, other than hang onto the tiger's tail and hope things work out.”

Of course, Republicans don’t do diplomacy – just like they don’t do good government. You see, they simply don’t believe in those things, which is why they govern so badly.

I get your point about Iraq’s neighbors doing peacekeeping, it would have to be a very carefully crafted multi-national force after some very carefully crafted diplomacy (yes, I know). Almost a sticky as having a western Christian army try to do the job. And I think our presence does inflame sectarian violence or, at least, provides it with fertile ground.

And not to put too fine a point on it (or to seem entirely cold-blooded and self-serving about it), Shias killing Sunnis (and vice versa) isn’t the same thing as the Unites States or British troops killing Shias and Sunnis. Every Haditha, or Abu Ghraib, or even the countless aerial bombings into oblivion of innocent Iraqi families, greatly magnifies the risk of further terrorism against America. The reason that isn’t (entirely) self-serving is obvious – look at the price the world has paid already for 19 Wahhabist fanatics who thought they had good reason to give their lives to commit mass murder of American citizens because of (kindler, gentler) Middle East policies of the past. Just imagine what we might do if the next attack against us were to kill, instead of 3,000 citizens, say, more than 38,000 US citizens.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Be. Very. Afraid.

Ara (if you're still speaking to me after Saturday's outrage-fueled apostasy), if I can adopt your list and add one more item: 4. It [US Withdrawal] should be premised upon the expressed behest of the Iraqi government.

(if you're still speaking to me after Saturday's outrage-fueled apostasy)

Heh. I donned my flame retardant hazmat gear while I was at Rosemary's and I haven't taken it off yet....so I guess I must have missed the apostasy you're referring to. Refresh my memory!

Sorry, lost me at "And even if..." (Russert started yakking and dangled something shiny).

That?

P.S. I accept the addition of your item.

No, my comment about arguing about "amnesty" for soldiers. Not really meant to be inflammatory, just venting my own red-hot spleen.

I remember:

I just haven’t bought into that post WWII ethic where a soldier’s life is the coin of the realm, against which all other lives are measured.

Let me think about that some more; yours wasn't the first comment of that sort I've bumped into.

I've been cross posting stuff at Daily Kos and I've discussed this with others there.

Just to be clear, I'm not discounting the lives of our soldiers in any way. I'm simply appalled – a little frightened actually – about how callously we’ve cheapened the value of the lives of innocent civilians in war. The hard numbers don’t lie, in relative terms we’re perfectly willing to accept the deaths of 10 or 20 innocent noncombatants for every military casualty. That ratio is about the exact opposite of what morally defensible warfare used to or ought to allow.

The hard numbers don’t lie, in relative terms we’re perfectly willing to accept the deaths of 10 or 20 innocent noncombatants for every military casualty.

I believe that when Romeo Dallaire, the UN military commander in Rwanda during the genocide, was discussing potential loss of US soldier with US military analysts prior to intevention, he was told by one analyst that they would likely only commit troops if the loss of life was equal to or less than one US soldier for every 80,000 Rwandans saved. Dallier wasn't impressed.

Not that our failure to risk troops to stop such carnage is in any way respectable (although Rwanda happened pretty fast - on Sudan we’re still holding our d*cks after more than two years), failing to stop one group from killing another is far less objectionable than actually engaging in war crimes:

CHAPTER I
Means of Injuring the Enemy,
Sieges, and bombardments
Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
(b) to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; (d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; (h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
Art. 24. Ruses of war and the employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and the country are considered permissible.
Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
Art. 28. The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague/hague5.html

Violations of the Hague Convention are also violations of the US War Crimes Act.

As are violations of the Geneva Conventions:

“Inhumane acts against a civilian population are crimes against humanity and violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. The targeting of civilians and failure to protect civilians and civilian objects are crimes against humanity.

The dropping of 2,000-pound bombs in residential areas of Baghdad during "Shock and Awe" were crimes against humanity. The indiscriminate US attack on Fallujah, which was collective punishment in retaliation for the killing of four Blackwater mercenaries, was a crime against humanity. The destruction of hospitals in Fallujah by the US military, its refusal to let doctors treat patients, and shooting into ambulances were crimes against humanity. Declaring Fallujah a "weapons-free" zone, with orders to shoot anything that moved, was a crime against humanity.”

http://www.viewzone.com/hero.html

“Seven Iraqis killed at checkpoint,” CBS News, March 31, 2003,
“You just f---ing killed a family because you didn’t fire a warning shot…” Captain Ronny Johnson reportedly yelled over a radio at his platoon leader after US troops poured cannon fire into a civilian vehicle approaching a checkpoint near an-Najaf. Packed inside the vehicle under fire were thirteen members of a family, including five children under the age of 5. At least seven members of the family were killed instantly and up to four of the injured did not survive. The embedded Washington Post correspondent, William Branigin, reported that he counted ten dead in the vehicle. “‘It was the most horrible thing I’ve ever seen and I hope never to see it again,’ Sgt. Mario Manzano, an Army medic, told the Post. He described how one of the women who survived the attack sat in the vehicle clutching the mangled bodies of two of her children. ‘She didn’t want to get out of the car,’ he said.”

“An Iraqi mother in a van fired on by US soldiers says she saw her two young daughters
decapitated in the incident that also killed her son and [at least] eight other members of her family…‘I saw the heads of my two little girls come off,’ Lamea Hassan, 36, said numbly.…Lamea is nine months pregnant. ‘It would be better not to have the baby,’ she said. ‘Our lives are over.’”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/01/iraq/main547091.shtml.

The fact is, every day we stay in Iraq we become less distinguishable from the enemy we claim to hate.