Will Iraq Really Fall Apart When We Leave?

[Herb Schaffler]

Lawrence Korb who was assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration had this to say in the May 19, 2008 "The American Conservative". "A US departure will not necessarily lead to genocide and mayhem. Iraq today belongs to Iraqis, a people with their own norms and tendencies. It is quite likely that in the absence of the cumbersome and clumsy American occupation, Iraqis will make their own bargains and compacts, thereby fending off the projected genocide and evicting outside groups like al-Quaeda. Once the US sets a date for withdrawal, it will compel the region to claim Iraq, forcing neighboring countries to decide whether an Iraqi civil war, with all its consequences, is in their interests. If nothing else, a failed Iraq will force surrounding nations to confront another deluge of refugees on top of the 2.5 million who have already fled the country. Faced with this reality, it is likely that the Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, Turks, and others will seek to mediate rather than further inflame Iraq's internal conflicts. The US can move this process along by launching a diplomatic surge with these neighbors as it begins to remove its troops. Finally, setting a date for a US withdrawal will give Iraq's political leaders the best incentive to undertake meaningful political reconciliation. The US military presence allows the current dysfuntional central government to avoid making difficult decisions."

[Herb Schaffler]

Richard Clarke: Staying in Iraq 'Helps al-Qaida'


Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:50 PM

Article Font Size




Maintaining US combat troops in Iraq "helps Al-Qaeda" and Washington should pull them from the ravaged country if it wants to see progress in the war on terror, former US anti-terror czar Richard Clarke said Tuesday.

"I think the best thing that we could do to hit Al-Qaeda's attractiveness to the Muslim world was in fact to get out of Iraq in an orderly way over the course of the next two or three years," Clarke said on CNN.

"Our being in Iraq helps Al-Qaeda," he added.

"We have to beat them in the ideological struggle. Getting out of Iraq will help that."

The US presence in Iraq has become a flashpoint issue in the 2008 presidential race. Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both said they will withdraw troops if elected, while Republican John McCain supports the war in Iraq but recently said he envisioned most troops could be home by 2013.

Clarke said that wasn't soon enough.

The security and counter-terrorism advisor to three US presidents who resigned in the first term of President George W. Bush's administration, also said Washington should reassure Muslim nations that the "war on terror" launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks is not a war on Islam.

"We're not fighting Islam," he said.

"And it's not terrorism we're fighting, it's the fundamentalist Islamic movements that use terrorism as part of their overall approach."

In 2006 Clarke said US security can easily be beaten and the country remained vulnerable to attack -- an assessment he reiterated Tuesday by warning that despite "hundreds of billions of dollars" spent on securing US borders, "no significant vulnerability in homeland security has been removed."

Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.

[nohil-billy]

Both of those opinions appear to run contrary to what has already happened.

Lawrence Korb proposes that once a US withdrawal date is set, the region will have to decide whether a civil war would be in it's best interest. Yet haven't the MSM and the Democrats in Congress been insisting that Iraq was already in the middle of a civil war. And hasn't Iran and Syria been providing weapons and sneaking insurgents into the country on a regular basis since the beginning of the war? And weren't the Sunnis choosing to side with Al Qaeda for fear that the US would pull out and leave them high and dry as happened to the Shia in the first Gulf War?

Admittedly, mistakes were made in the process of fighting this war but it seems to be under control and well in hand as is evident by the silence coming from the Democratic side of the aisle. Not only is there evidence of progress on the streets in Iraq but there has been political progress as well. To suggest taking a chance of throwing all this progress away by withdrawing too soon is absurd.

[Herb Schaffler]

"To suggest taking a chance of throwing all this progress away by withdrawing too soon is absurd."

And how many young American soldiers will continue to lose their lives in order to maintain this "progress" in a war we had no business to be involved in in the first place?

If you read carefully what Lawrence Kobe wrote above, he is saying that he doesn't see how a civil war is necessarily a foregone conclusion because it would be in the interests of the other countries in the area to have a stable Iraq and they could police the situation, as they should as it is their neighborhood, not ours. It is not our place to be the policeman of the world. Doing so is a big drain on the lives of our young and on our treasure.

[nohil-billy]

I agree with you 100% Herb. It is not our place to be the policeman of the world and I hope we learn a valuable lesson after this one's over, but the facts are that we are making progress and that in that part of the world you can trust no one. Especially Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda.

I understand what Lawrence Kobe wrote but is that the way he felt this time last year? When the insurgency was at it's peak and our troops were getting killed almost daily, we were assured by the MSM and the Democratic Party that a civil war was indeed happening right this now. A year later as progress is being made between the peoples of Iraq, cooperation with the Sunnis is being enjoyed by our troops, and political reconciliation is starting to show promise, we are informed that a civil war is not necessarily a foregone conclusion. They can't have it both ways.

The country was indeed on the verge of civil war and the reason was too few troops. Now that troops have been added with the surge and the situation is under control, we are told it's okay to remove them, civil war isn't inevitable.

[Herb Schaffler]

"The country was indeed on the verge of civil war and the reason was too few troops. Now that troops have been added with the surge and the situation is under control, we are told it's okay to remove them, civil war isn't inevitable."

Is it really under control? There is talk that a major civil war with Sadr could erupt anytime.

"I understand what Lawrence Kobe wrote but is that the way he felt this time last year? When the insurgency was at it's peak and our troops were getting killed almost daily, we were assured by the MSM and the Democratic Party that a civil war was indeed happening right this now. A year later as progress is being made between the peoples of Iraq, cooperation with the Sunnis is being enjoyed by our troops, and political reconciliation is starting to show promise, we are informed that a civil war is not necessarily a foregone conclusion. They can't have it both ways."

Lawrence Kobe isn't a Democrat as far as I know. He was assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan Administration.

[hrdman2luv]

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.
(sorry, I forgot how to post youtube vids)

I thought this was interesting.