It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Setting the stage to withdraw from Iraq

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:32 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury....

It is my opinion that we should now be setting a timetable for leaving Iraq. Now before you slate me as a cowardly liberal (I am liberal but by no means a coward) I ask that you consider the following points.

1) We have a new democratic and legitimate Iraqi government. What better way to empower it in the eyes of the people than to scale back the number of US/UK troops...... That would please a lot of people and give the population has something it can rally around. The government could also show it as proof as it is delivering stability!

2) Removing troops will drive a wedge down the middle of the insurgency. Why? If we look at the makeup of the Iraqi insurgents we can see hardcore Nationalists and Islamists who are fighting for different reasons. In the long term we need to win over the nationalists and destroy the Islamists and what better way of isolating the Islamists than to withdraw troops. That makes it a fight against the Iraqi army and Government.

3) It will kick the new Iraqi government up the backside and force it out of what I see as a current mood of complacency i.e. its alright, the Americans will take care of it.

4) Less American/British troops in harms way means less body bags. Better from a political point of view. (Sorry its macabre but its true)

5) Proves that we are serious about letting the Iraqis take over and run their country.

Counter arguments state that this will empower the insurgency but the fact is you can only win a war of this type with good intelligence, (thats how we nailed Zarqarwi).The best intelligence comes from the local population and they are the people we need to win over i.e. the man on the street. People are fed up with the occupation. If they see it ending as a result of the governments actions then we are onto a winner.

I don't think it will embolden the insurgents. If anything it will worry them, Americans/British soldiers are a nice fat juicy target and the Iraqis don't care if they get nailed. Now when you start targeting the Iraqi army.....

I'm interested in all opinions and please lets not let this turn into a conservative vs liberal argument.

Thank you. I look forward to your replies.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 03:25 PM
Enslaved83 I really like your points accept the bit about kicking the so called government up the backside. Just as today (and as just like the beginning) so long as Iraq's government remains a government it will continue to remain a government at war with itself. This war comes from the fact that Iraq is made up of many different peoples who have historically only ever worked together when they were forced to by a dictator.

So long as 60 percent of Iraqis are Shiite Muslim fundamentalist Iraq does not need a democracy. This is because even the Shiite doesn’t go in for Western ideals of democracy; instead they go in for the Muslim ideals of a holy state.
At the current time we cannot withdraw from Iraq because if we do Iraqis Shiite will unite-collaborate with Iran as they are practically (ethnically and religiously) the same. Senior Iraqi Shiites (no doubt as a power grabbing promise) have already threatened to fight with Iran if it was attacked by the U.S. It’s the fact such promises can be a popular power grabber that makes my point.
Young Iraqi Shiite are rather like the older generation in Iran which is thought to be at the route of the power base causing us in the West so many security-diplomatic problems today. Furthermore if we leave now the Shiite will exterminate the remaining Sunni even more than our forces do today (mostly when they are shot at by this highly educated former ruling class).
The ethnically, tribally and culturally divided state of Iraq was not right for democracy in 2003, nor will it be today in ten or even a hundred years so long as the volatile social fabric makeup of Iraq persists. And short of genocide it will do (as well as ought to).

Kicking the Iraqi government up the arse is rather like kicking a horse with broken legs. It might move but it won’t accomplish anything. In fact in Iraq the government would just become more disconnected from reality (no matter what appears on our telly, and trust me few decisions would make a difference on the street). You and I can be frustrated at the Iraqi government but its countries that created modelled on us in spite of the parell world in which it exists.

If Iraq is to have a dictatorship why let the Iraqi Shiite elect it? Like Iran this will just represent another long term problem.
Instead I seriously propose putting Saddam back in charge, or if not him (for political reason) then someone just like him.
But Saddam was a guy we could negotiate with, and like how he got rid of all his WMD’s proves he is also a man we could trust. I wish he hadn’t got rid of them because then we would not have invaded him, and at the same time set such a globally bad example from North Korea to Iran. But if we restored him Iraq would have order, and without the sanctions of 1991 Iraq would in time surely return to the first world health and education status it had (put their by Saddam) before 1991. Restore him and he is the one man who would require no army but our own to defend him, and would commit no crime that we would not condone.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:07 PM
Totally agree with you Liberal!

new topics

log in