A Question for Our Readers

by Liberty and Power

"One Last Push and That's You Finished in Iraq, Mr President." That's how Simon Jenkins begins his column in today's Sunday Times. Jenkins concludes,"The only good news is that it surely must be the beginning of the end." Amen.

Read it and consider what I'm about to say. I invite our readers, and especially those who supported U.S. intervention in Iraq either in March 2003 or subsequently argued against withdrawal, to tell us what they think George Bush should do now and why they think it would be the best course of action. And if you think U.S. armed forces should incrementally stand down as the Iraqi army steps up, tell us why you think this would work now.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Craig J. Bolton - 1/9/2007

Let's put it this way: What did Judas do? What did a Japanese samari do when disgraced?

John Richard Clark - 1/8/2007

He should let Ambassador Lodge arrange a military coup that will overthrow President Diem and usher in a regime more pliable to American military and political advice.

Aeon J. Skoble - 1/8/2007

I answered this question in Nov 04, here. As usual, they didn't listen to me.

Jonathan Dresner - 1/8/2007

What?

Craig J. Bolton - 1/8/2007

To answer that question would be immoral as well as to invite prosecution.

Bill Woolsey - 1/7/2007

My worry is that the forces are to be added in order to fight the Shia militias. When that is happening, claims of Iranian "interference" in Iraq, including Iranian aid to those fighting U.S. forces, will be more plausible. They will probably be true. And so, there will be "cause" to expand the war to Iran.

As an aside, many have assumed that if the U.S. attacks Iran, then Iran will retaliate in Iraq. Shia Iraqis of some sort will supposedly begin attacking U.S. forces. If that is true, then certainly the Iranians and Iraqis would be making at least some preparations for that possibility. And so, we should see Iranian aid to Iraqi groups aimed at attacking U.S. forces at some future time. It has always been implausible that the Iranians are arming Sunni guerillas, especially those that are involved in attacking Shia government, much less Shia civilians. But why wouldn't they be preparing Shia forces for a future confrontation with the U.S., even if those forces are largely following the dominant Shia strategy of being patient and making sure they remain on top when the U.S. finally leaves?

As for the other question, the only problem with "as they stand up, we will stand down," is that the Iraqi government must be given control of its military and deadlnes. Dreams that this Iraqi military will be an independent pro-U.S. force in Iraqi politics must be given up. That this fantasy remains becomes obvious everytime someone worries that the Iraqi military is infiltrated by militias of the political parties that make up the Iraqi government.

It seems likely that the Iraqi government will behave badly towards dissenters, sweeping up many innocent civilians along with terrorists of various stripes. Enthic clearning, torture... the Iraqi way. The solution will be to cut the Iraqi government off completely.

Of course, that will leave Iran "in control" of Iraq. And wasn't that always inevitable? That is exactly why the U.S. didn't topple Saddam in 1992.

Ah, but what if the U.S. topples the current regime in Iran......

It is the only way this makes any sense.