Get in and Get out

Get in and get out ^ | Jan 20/06 | Ted Belman

[tedbel]

By Ted Belman

Let us accept the obvious.

What matters to the US is securing a stable oil supply. It could care less about whether people are killed, whether Iraq is democratic or stable, whether Israel is strong etc., except as these issues impact on its primary goal. I have no problem with any of that.

While the US may have decided to withdraw from Iraq regardless if civil war ensues, it has not at all, abandoned its primary objective.

It seems to me that US is wrong to suggest that it must train the Iraqi army to fight the insurgents and terrorists. This is nonsense. The US is the problem not the solution. If the US were to withdraw now, the Shiites would no how to deal with the problem in ways that “training” does not teach you.

Secondly, the US argues it must stay to enable a stable democratic Iraq to be created. There is no assurance that the democratic process will achieve this end or if it does, that Iraq will remain stable. So why is the US continuing to expend money and blood if it really intends to leave in a year.

Maybe we should focus on Iran. It is hell-bent to develop a nuclear bomb. So who is the greater threat to US interests, an unstable Iraq or a nuclear Iran. Furthermore, Iran is serving to destabilize Iraq and thus thwart US plans. It does this in two ways. It aids and abets the terrorists and insurgents to tie the US down while at the same time it is restraining and supporting the pro-Iranian, Shiite militias. So the Shiites, and by extension Iran, are consolidating their hold on Shiitestan.

[A CA Guy]

Thank god, I thought this could have been a Bill Clinton Oval Office thread you got started here with that title.

[gotribe]

This man obviously doesn't believe in God. There is more to our foreign policy than oil, even in the middle east.

[EagleUSA]

So who is the greater threat to US interests, an unstable Iraq or a nuclear Iran.
----
The author seems to forget that if we had not gone into Iraq, Saddam might even have a nuke today, and selling them to God knows who...but that type of thinking is a bit too critical for the media.

[Blueflag]

Your premise is faulty, so the rest of your article is just noise, Ted.

" ...Let us accept the obvious.

What matters to the US is securing a stable oil supply. "

I do not accept that as either factual or approaching the obvious. You fool,we had access to all of Iraq's oil in Gulf War 1. We didn;t take it then, we're not securing it now.

FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY mean something in this world, Ted.

We ARE in a war against EVIL and TERROR.

Deal with it.

Take your ill-founded premise elsewhere, please. I won't accept it.

(my 2 cents)

[Narcoleptic]

hey, this is my theoretical question.
this author is saying let the shiites go hog wild (hee hee hee, i am punny) on the sunnis, let there be a period of blood-letting, and the winner would probably stabilze the region.
its not a nice thing, but is this a realistic outcome?

[steel_resolve]

If the US were to withdraw now, the Shiites would no how to deal with the problem in ways that “training” does not teach you.

Beyond the crappy spelling, I have to laugh at this assumption. Like the SHiites would go into Anbar and put down a rebellion or something. NOT. Try civil war. Try an insurgency the like we haven't even begun to imagine. Try the various middle eastern states being pulled in. So ridiculous. The US is the thin line between a stable nation and anarchy.

[A CA Guy]

This hasn't been allowed in Israel yet either.

[A.A. Cunningham]

[trebb]

Maybe we should focus on Iran

I don't suppose that our presence in Iraq would give us any kind of a staging capability when we need to go into Iran...

Amazing how folks that want us out of Iraq and ready for Iran don't make the strategic connection. We are fimly based in the middle of the hornet's nest, why withdraw and have to go through the logistics of reestablishing?

[gotribe]

No, it's not realistic. We've gotten them to the table under a single constitutional framework. There may always be some bloodletting, but it'll be Sunni-Sunni and Shiite-Shiite based on tribal loyalties and it'll be over money. I don't think a civil war is likely. JMHO.