POLL: Iraq: Should the Coalition Stay or Go?

Remove all ads!

Now that Saddam's regime is finished, the sudden power vacuum has caused almost total chaos in Iraq. Not so much from physical devastation resulting from the military campaign, but from the lack of electricity, running water, and paralysis of almost every business there. Nearly all of Bagdhad is unemployed right now because no businesses can operate without electricity or funds to pay their workers. There's also the looting and destruction caused by Iraq's own citizens as a result of the chaos that came after the Iraqi military & government police fled so quickly.

Many Iraqis, mainly from the Shia population, have the attitude of "Thanks, Saddam is gone. We owe you one, now please f*ck off, America. We'll take it from here." There are also many who say "at least with Saddam, I had a job. I had running water. Is this any better?" However, there are also many still who want the U.S. to stay and rebuild as we said we would. Not permenantly, but long enough to get things up and running smoothly. They feel they can deal with the hardships for now because in the end they will have the kind of government they've always wanted.

It can also be argued that if we do pull out, things will get even worse. With the only real local leadership coming from the religious establishment, particularly the Shia who have not been allowed to publicly practice their religion for 30 years, it has been argued that a fully religious-lead government will create the same kind of hardline religious state that has been so problematic in other countries of the region. Or worse, the current conditions could give rise to yet another dictator.

What do you think?

I personally was for the war and am glad Saddam is gone, but I'm very concerned about the chaos that has ensued as a result. I think that U.S. intervention was a good thing for Iraq for the most part, but now that so many Iraqis want us gone, I'm not so sure we shouldn't oblige them. So many insist they can rebuild Iraq on their own, but can they really? They have severely limited means on their own with which to do so, and clearly need aid from the coalition or (god forbid) the U.N. to rebuild Iraq quickly and efficiently. And I'm not sure we've done as good of a job as we could have to set the Iraqi citizens at ease, and frankly I can't blame them for the unrest.

So what's the solution? If this action was ultimately for the benefit of the Iraqi people, and those people now want us to leave, should we? Even though it may very well be in their best interest for us to stay?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 17 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Iraq: Should the Coalition Stay or Go? (17 votes.)

Iraq: Should the Coalition Stay or Go? (Choose 1)
* The Coalition should stay and finish what they started. - 65% (11)
* The Coalition should leave and wash their hands of it. - 0% (0)
* The Coalition should leave, but still supply aid. - 24% (4)
* Still too soon to decide. - 12% (2)

 

Leaving now would mean total chaos in Iraq, mayybe even militairy interventions from neighbouring countries, like Turkey, or Iran.

Besides, there's still no evidence that Saddam is dead. he might pop up again, together with a bunch of loyals, and reclaim his throne. Then the US would have to go in once more, and repeat the whole thing.

Imo, it's better to stay, until the people elected a government, wheter they like it or not. They lived under Saddam for decades, so they can hang in there for a few extra months.

 

Why not ?

a. The countries of the Region will be needed anyway. (Even if some say, they're "axis of evil")

b. The UN has the necessary neutrality and expertise.

c. How you want to make it without unicef and the red half-moon ?

c. Never change a winning team. Who is the UN ? The Japanese, Germans, Swedes, British, Koreans, Greeks, Dutch, Belgians, French, Italians, Spanish, Australians, Pakistani, Indians, Chinese, Canadians, Danish, Brasilians, Russians, Mexicans, Polish, Czechs, Norwegians, Portuguese, Indonesian ... and so on .... What makes you think that all those countries aren't able to get something done in Iraq ?

And if Iraq gets democracy, what I hope, it may not please the west. Neither Europe nor America. They're going to have democracy the Arabway. Which by the way means in the long run, NO US TROOPS on Iraqi soil. So, plans for a longer Troop stay aren't helpfull at all.

[ April 23, 2003, 00:23: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

@ Yago (I was hoping you'd jump in! )

Aid supplied by the U.N, (through Unicef, etc.) I feel are very important and need to continue. The UN should always participate on a humanitarian level. Their expertise should also be offered and their council should be sought by the coalition in dealing with the reconstruction. Just because there's not a UN flag waving doesn't mean the UN can't help out. But I think you'd agree that the U.N. has lost a ton of credibility in this matter, at least that's my view. And as of late, the view of many Iraqis too.

The majority of Iraqis want nothing to do with the UN because of their ineptitude at enforcing their own resolutions over the last 12 years. Saddam invited and broke resolution after resolution and the UN couldn't (or wouldn't) follow through with appropriate action. Now that Saddam is gone, the UN still wants to keep economic sanctions in place. They say this is because they want to declare Iraq free of WMD, but actually lifting the sanctions would end any control the UN has over Iraq. Well, the point of the UN sactions was not for the UN to gain any kind of control over Iraq, but to punish Saddam and force him to change his policies. So this reasoning is highly suspect and makes it sound like the UN is entitled to it's sanctions. Not to mention the fact that France and Russia, the 2 staunchest "vetoers" are now scrambling to see that the lucrative oil contracts they struck with Saddam are still honored. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't France accuse the US of engaging Iraq merely for its oil? Hmmm.

That winning team you mentioned - they should all participate and support the effort to rebuild Iraq. But when 2 of the biggest UN players are so blatently self interested when it comes to the fate of Iraq, it makes the whole of the UN look bad. Yes, the US has it's own interestes in mind, as always. But if France and Russia wanted in they should have come clean from the beginning about their dealings with Saddam Hussein and supported the attack. It's reasonable to think then they would have had a fairly legitimate say in the fate of Iraq's oil.

As far as a US military presence in the long run, that is not now, and to my knowledge has never has been part of the plan. The US military will stay until Iraq has a proper police force and at least an interim government to direct it, and then that's it. The US will leave as a supporter and ally, with the military only returning as a launching pad in the region if needed (ala Saudi Arabia and Kuwait).

[ April 23, 2003, 01:08: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

I would not count on the US pulling out of Iraq any time soon.We will be there for years.

To pull out now would defeat the purpose of the invasion.It seems to me that if we left now civil war would break out and Iraq could end up in a worse position than they are now.

Hopefully it wont take years,but I think we have to stay long enough to make sure the new goverment is firmly in place.We only have to look over at Afghanistan,to see rebuilding countries is never an easy job.

 

Yes, and I did too and am still.

Ok, Ok, I don't intend to start the same old song and dance again. It's clear which one i mean. But:

1. A lot of Europeans don't agree with that point.

2. Obviously, I don't know anyone from Iraq personally, but taking into account point 1. and the information that comes from the middle east, mainly the custom of burning a certain flag and the neverending fuss about Al-Jazeera, which is the freest outlet of Arab opinion, I think that it would be farstretched to say, that it's the UN that has lost a lot of credibility in the Middle-East.

I don't want to start a discussion about who's the bogeyman and who's not. I just want to stress, that imho, it's problematic to argue that Iraqis share the same feelings versus the US and the UN as the Americans do. That may well be. But I don't think it's likely. Therefore, conclusions drawn from this argument are in my view a little bit shaky.

 

I'm going to use this opportunity to once again illustrate how nothing the US can do will make everyone happy -- not even at home!

1: If they leave, they came, smashed, and left the place a mess -- what evil, inconsiderate Satan Spawn!

2: If they stay, they are controlling, Imperialistic, Fascist, ethnocentric bullies only in it for the money -- what evil, inconsiderate Satan Spawn!

3: If they partialy pull out, leaving behind a skeleton crew, as it were, they are not fully committed to re-building Iraq -- (I'll shorten the chorus, here) WE,ISS!

4: If they bring more troops in, then they are looking for control and oil and occupation -- WE,ISS!

I could go on . . . I figure they should stay and try to fix the wreckage.

 

I don't want to start a discussion about who's the bogeyman and who's not.

Actually, I have bet money on that outcome.

And if they let the UN in and the other countries of the region and would let the Iraqis free decide over their country and there future, let them establish their on policital institutions and let the Iraqis decide over the price and conditions for which they sell their oil and would not demand reparation for their "liberation".

In this case, they would be good, I'd be surprised and lose money.

(Sidenote at Deepara: I read the paper today and learnt a new word: ontological argument. It was used to prove that god exits:

And is used by you:

Whatever we do makes others unhappy. Unhappiness is garanteed. So, we do as we please. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The message send sounds like this: We're american. We know. You don't. Shut up.

If you wan't to discuss this "america-bashin" any further, I suggest you start another thread. Because ontological arguments have the tendency to go around and around and around and around and around. )

[ April 23, 2003, 23:08: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

A little off topic but are we sure that democracy is best for Iraq? I am unfamiliar with the history of Iraq and therefore unsure if it had a democratic period in it history.

Russia would be an example. After decades of tsarist rule and decades of communist control, Russians may be so unfamiliar with a concept such as, for lack of a better word, self-rule that they are waiting to be told what to do. This may affect their economy, etc. Am I making sense?

 

For one thing, I'm not American!

However, my argument, as I state it, is still valid and is not circular as you believe. I guess my point is this: No one expects a country to always be moved by the whimes of other countries and populations. yet I believe that is what people expect the Americans to do, and to boot, they are supposed to make everyone happy. That is impossible. It isn't a case of rigfht wingers like me thinking we know more than everyone else, it's simply a case of "we've heard what everyone else has to say. Now, being rational, intelligent people, we will proceed to make our own decisions. You may disagree with them; that's fine, but you're beliefs do not put a straitjacket on our right to choose our course of action"

I get the feeling you feel personally attacked -- I'm sorry if I came across that way. If my argument sounded like "Unhappiness is garanteed, therefore whatever we do is right" I failed to make myself clear enough. might does not make right, but it does not make the mighty always wrong.

 

But Half !

Ok, I overreacted a little bit. Sorry.

 

Dapaara -- I am American and the problem is not that everyone is bashing America regardless of what it does in Iraq; the problem is that those on the right have been engaging in bashing our allies, Europe and the UN for years now. Now the media has begun to pick-up on this and it is becoming too wide-spread in this country.

I think that it is disgraceful that the right is attacking our friends in Europe for political gains and trying to get America to turn its back on alliances that have taken years to build because our allies will not go along with everything that we demand. Alliances must be two-way and all partners must have equal say in matters that affect all sides.

It takes a huge leap of logic to accuse the Europeans of not engaging in the war because of politics, when in fact, this is the most political war America has fought since Vietnam. The right has used the political capital from this war to push its agenda and to say anything less is simply wrong, if not dishonest. Don't believe me? Then what brought Newt back out of the woodwork all of a sudden?

 

I actually have no problem with the European nations choosing not to go in in the first place -- like America, they too are sovereign nations with the right to decide their own foreign policy -- just as the US is. Criticizing them is just political hot air, which both the Left and the Right does on a regular basis.

As for the political agenda of the right, they, like the left, will use whatever tools they have to further their aims -- that sort of opportunism is not only characteristic of the right. Every time I hear about the evil Right agenda, I hear Hillary complaining of the "vast right wing conspiracy!"

As for staying in Iraq, my former statement stands, and I defy anyone to circumnvent its logic. NOTHING the Bush administration does will satisfy everyone, so the best that they can do is use their best judgement, the same as anyone else. That isn't arrogance, IMHO, it's just common sense. Of course they'll screw up; no administration is free of folly. That includes Democratic ones! The military will stay until a) Iraq is no longer considered a threat, b) profits for American companies are either stabilized or no longer feasible. There is also the possibility of c) until there is lasting peace in the mideast -- translation, never leaving! Having obtained a foothold in the Mideast, the US is unlikely to completely abandon it.

 

Dapaara:

1. I am not a democrat, but a green, which is the REAL left.
2. Hillary was right.
3. America would not have the problem if it wasn't there in the first place.

 

Deparra, you're right. We're going to be there for a long time.

You're also correct (or at least, I agree with you ) as far as the political Catch-22.

Right now, there's a lot of little Saddam clerics running around the country. Everyone wants to be in power, because for the Arabs, it's a really big deal. You have to be world respected; everyone has to be envious of you. And then it's considered cool if you have patience and are generous to the lesser people.

I can understand this. I can totally sympathize with it, because 85% of the rest of the world works the same way.

I'll say this, independently, then I'm going to be quiet; I've put too many rants around here, I've got to be on a probation list somewhere.

It can be anything. It can be AIDS/HIV. It can be genocide. It can be killer whales and SARS. It can be tree huggers.

When there's a problem, the first move is to stop it from re-forming. From becoming self-perpetuating. Use fire when the troll is on the ground.

We need to get to the children of Iraq. I'm not saying stop teaching the Quran/Koran. I'm saying teach Asian history. Teach Quantum Physics and Biochemistry and Linear Alegbra and C++. I'm saying teach Buddahism and Hinduism and Scientology and Wicca. Teach them firearm safety and marksmanship. Send them for a weekend to Italy, and then bus them for a 3 day tour of Germany, and then on north to Denmark and Norway. Most have never seen snow, so break out the parkas. Around to Limeyland, through (although I'm loathe, it would be good for them) France and Spain, before heading back to Iraq. Then cut them loose and let them decide.

But there's a catch. You don't make the education system voluntary; you make it mandatory. There's two ways, by coersion and by force. Iraqis, right now, are in a real good position to accept coersion. They're used to the force, so it's really to be avoided; there's a point where you don't bother using the belt on your kid anymore.

Food stamps. Water rations. TV's and digital satellites in community centers. Cash money and orange juice. Cars and apartments and cd-players and Mario Kart. All things tangible.

If we do it right, Iraq is the key. Because it's in the heart of all the other Arab nations. All those other countries will hear the giant sucking sound, when their people and industries move to Iraq, because life is better. Because one Iraqi dinar is trading for $1.05 US dollars. The change comes as part of the society. The old relics of dictators and monarchies aren't overthrown; it's just that no one cares to listen to them anymore.

That's the key. That's the answer. When you change the society where no one wants to be a suicide terrorist anymore, because there's too many other interesting things.

Almost like Japan, except 10^2 instead of 10^5. Whatever the Yen is trading for now.

[ April 25, 2003, 07:25: Message edited by: ejsmith ]

 

Who is going to pay for these trips?

I think it would be a good start to protect and help the moderate iraqi shia leaders. They stand for a seperation of state and religion, but are in fear of irani shia infiltrators.
Those leaders are the key to a reasonable political reconstruction of iraq.

 

That's the problem. (trying not to come over as an smartass). That's an impossible goal to reach for the Americans, if they continue like they do. It's a plan based on wrong assumptions. Why the American administration is delibartely wrapping itself in ignorance, I don't know !!!!

But a lot of countries and voices said, the whole plan is crap. And Blair always stated his own, very different, goals loud and clear.

And to the education of the Iraqis: Till the early 80ies, Iraq used to have one of the finest educational systems of the world. Those who went through it, got a brilliant education. Their doctors, physics, chemics, computer engineers, clerics, engineers ... (I am quite sure of this fact, because we got a lot of exil-Iraqis and Iranians in are country and lot of them in the recent TV-interviews seemed to be very smart and eloquent, even if they usally don't speak English, but stutter it.)

In gerneral. A lot of Arabs and Persians are very, very, very bright. I repeat very very bright. Some of them may wear funny clothes and funny hats, but that does not mean, that their brain isn't alive and kicking. For example, the Ayatolahs in Iran: A lot of them got a first class education in London, Paris and in the USA.

Like Ghandi (and Nehru). Before he chose to wear funny clothes and look like a fakir, he was one of the most brilliant and best-educated Lawyers of the British Empire. Until he decided that he was not longer willing to take orders from persons who weren't as skilled and intelligent as he was.

[ April 25, 2003, 14:39: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Just had to pop in and highlight the use of the word coalition. This word is used on purpose to cloud reality.

I think - not quite sure about this, someone please confirm! - that only US, UK and Australia have had ground forces in Iraq this time. Would not US-led forces have been more representative of reality?

On this subject here is something about the Coalition of the "willing"...

Institute for Policy Studies, Feb 26 2003
Read more here:
http://www.ips-dc.org/coalition.htm

[ April 25, 2003, 15:26: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

 

This is turning into a great thread. Hee hee hee.

*Sits back satisfied, eagerly awaiting the next good post.*

 

To get to the topic i strongly believe that the coallition forces should leave and be replaced by UN forces. The flag makes a huge difference in these circumstances.
And furthermore the US should not even dare to think to appoint a governor of her own. This would really change the way we see the USA goverment. But it is just a dream isn't it;
And even if they stay for fifty years or if they leave tomorrow the civil war will break out in Iraq. As it did in Yugoslavia just as soon as Tito died.