What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- jesselee54, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I agree. Look at Vietnam. It's now a tourist destination for U.S. citizens. We did what we went in to do in Iraq, no WMD's and Saddam is behind bars. There is no disgrace in knowing when to get out.
- Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If the US gets out now, the bloodshed in Iraq will make the present bloodshed look like a re-run of Seventh Heaven.
Iraq is in civil war right now, yes, but the presence of US troops is at present all that's stopping Iraq from tearing itself in three and full blown ethnical cleansing, which IS what will happen the second the US pulls out. Do you guys remember Bosnia? This'll be worse, especially for the Sunnis (and the minority peoples, like the christians, will probably either have to flee, convert, or face extinction).
Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is misleading, because there isn't one single enemy in Iraq, there is at least a dozen warring factions spread over three main parties: the sunni, the shiites, and the kurds. The SECOND the US isn't there, each party will start killing members of the other peoples, while simultaneously warring factions within each party will kill eachother.
Also listening to what the Iraqis want is dangerous - a significant proportion of them WANT to start killing, raping, pillaging and ethnically cleansing their neighbors. Again, the events in Bosnia and Rwanda were done _by the people_.
Pulling out now solves the *US* problems. It only *creates* problems for Iraq.- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Do you guys remember Bosnia?"
Exactly. Except this time it will be even worse, because "America" will be blamed for failing the Iraqis. Invading that country will go down as the worst blunder the U.S. military ever executed -- and it's not even their fault. They were just following the broken policies of a dysfunctional administration. - newspigeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Azur2
I agree with much of what you say, which is why I am going to digg-up your comment. However, there is one line in particular that I disagree with. You said:
"Also listening to what the Iraqis want is dangerous - a significant proportion of them WANT to start killing, raping, pillaging and ethnically cleansing their neighbors."
This is actually an unfair statement about the Iraqis. They want what the rest of us want: peace; physical, political, and economic stability; and a good future for their children.
Before Saddam came into power, intermarriage was rampant in Iraq: Shi`ites, Sunni Arabs, and Sunni Kurds would intermarry very frequently.
The "tribal nationalism" and sectarianism began when Saddam divided the country into ethno-religious sectors, one of which formed his base of support.
To mask his hideous plans, and to hide how his choice of servants was by and large restricted to the Tikritis (and to a lesser extent some of the Sunni-Arab tribes, such as the Dulaymi tribe), he removed the tribal affiliation from Iraqi citizens' names.
Usually, the last part of an Arab, in traditional societies, refers to the tribe from which that person originated from. With that label removed, it became more difficult for people to see which tribes and locales are filling up the posts in Saddam's government.
In a sense, this was a schizophrenic policy. On the one hand, Saddam fueled the fans of sectarianism, and on the other he tried to hide the tribal and sectarian affiliations of his cohorts.
Saddam did have Christian Iraqis in his cadre; his foreign minister Tariq Aziz is Christian. By and large, Saddam left the Christians alone---at least to the extent I can gather.
The sectarianism we see today in Iraq is rooted not only in Saddam's decades-long policy of divide and conquer, but also in the contribution of Saudi money, mostly after the Iranian Revolution, to create divisions among Shi`ites and Sunnis (and also among Sunnis themselves, such as by flaying more esoteric, and one can say progressive, Sunni sects, such as the Sufis) by disseminating polemic literature and providing schooling for the young to foster Wahhabi beliefs.
The Saudi "investment" was doled out mostly in the Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan, Jordan, Palestine, and later on in Bosnia, where they tried to replace a very strong indigenous Sufi presence with their dry Wahhabi ideology.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Do you guys remember Bosnia?"
- newspigeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think a sudden withdrawal will be conducive to an improvement in Iraq.
A phased withdrawal according to a robust calendar---having set milestones AND sufficient flexibility to deal with exigencies---is probably wiser.
Engaging Iran and Syria is also crucial. An unstable Iraq is good for neither of its two neighbors; their motivation to promote this self-interest is sufficient reason, in and of itself, to include them in drafting a plan for the coming months and years.
Taking a less paranoid and more pragmatic approach toward Iran and Syria does not detract from that "manhood" of the machos who run the show in Washington. It would, in fact, show wisdom.
Are the movers and shakers in Washington capable of showing such wisdom? Their track record isn't so great in that department, but let's hope for an enlightened approach ahead.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is