No, we cannot just leave Iraq in its present condition with no support, but, no, we don't seem to be making it any better.

If the U.S. can't bring peace to Iraq, perhaps that's because the U.S. is not trusted.  Iraq needs support from a power that is strong enough to control the chaos but that is clearly interested in benefiting the Iraqi people.

I don't know if the U.N. would be willing to step in.  They are probably in a better position than anyone else to take over.  If not, perhaps a group of nations could form a coalition to do the job.  The role of the US would be to indicate a willingness to support the plan -- that is, to get out once a responsible group has taken over responsibility for Iraq's security.

1. Announce US support, including financial and logistical expertise, for the formation of a group of between 750,000 and 1 million Muslim (multi-ethnic, multi-sect) "peace keepers." The "peace keepers" would have skills ranging from road building to civil government administration.

2. Request that the UN develop a legal contract between the "peace keepers" and the interim Iraqi government and serve as the authority that monitors the progress of the development of a stable social and governmental infrastructure in Iraq and a stable economic infrastructure.

3. The US sets a time-line for their withdrawal based on the acceptance of 1 and 2 by the Iraq interim government and the UN (as representative of the "peace keeper" multi-national contingent (not "force")). That time-line would include a firm specification that the world community, with proper assurances of financial and logistical support by the US, has 1 full year to implement the transition. The US could begin withdrawing forces sooner, but it would begin withdrawing no later than 1 year after making the formal offer to both the Iraqi government and the world community (via a letter from the President of the USA to the General Secretary of the UN).

4. Logistical support means the use of non-combat aircraft and seacraft and our extensive expertise to deliver materials and people to and from Iraq.

5. The US, as part of the agreement, would explicitly state that it has no preferential treatment regarding contracts with the government of Iraq for any form of goods and services.

One element of the problem that is clear. The strategy must include a means to get Iraqi citizens back to work, earning livelihoods and having a sense of purpose in building a nation. Right now, many recognize that their efforts would be to build a nation that would be the puppet or surrogate of the US. That is why the insurgents have such psychological leverage. When they say that those who participate in the current scheme are collaborators, they have more credibility than those who proclaim a "free" Iraq.

However, to achieve this objective requires training. Provisions must be made for training facilities by multinational groups in facilities hosted by other Muslim nations that are neighbors to Iraq. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar are possible locations for technical education centers. When fledgling African nations like Ghana and Nigeria gained independence, they called their university trained citizens in the US and other countries to come back home and contribute their expertise to the rebuilding and self governance effort. Iraq could do the same over time to recapture talent educated abroad.

But that's not an excuse for not beginning a serious discussion about how we extricate ourselves. At a minimum we have to develop an international coalition (NOT of the "willing" a la GWB), but a broad-based group including the UN (John Bolton is not going to be a help!) The involvement of other Muslim states will be key, but as Prince Abdullah of Jordan wisely said two years ago, the abutting states should not be included - ie Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria. Muslim involvement is important but difficult, because of the dearth of democratic governments and the Shi'a-Sunni divide, that has been exacerbated in Iraq because of the war.

The US should not be planning for even semi-permanent military bases. How many is DoD planning for 10? 14?. I can't remember figures I've heard. It was our bases in Saudi Arabia that provided a catalyst for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Why would US bases in Iraq be less provocative?

Now that there is some semblance of a government developing in Iraq we should let them take the lead. It's their country; it should be their plan.
Has Sistani made any statements?

Remove Halliburton, Bechtel etc etc etc. If the Iraqis want to invite these companies in let that be their choice.

Are the Americans the problem? What if we moved out, just back to Kuwait and see what happens. Let them run their own country. They would have to decide if democracy is for them or not.

We are not trustworthy in this case. Did you see the story that Saddam was not found in a hole at all but rather in a building, fighting fiercely.The hole thing was staged. Maybe its not true but if it is....

The US dollar is sinking from leadership that lacks rational thinking.  In time, domestic neglect and poverty will dry up dollars for the military in Iraq.  Cutting war funds will stop this adventure.  It will happen.  

Violence is a crime against God and humanity.  The occupants of the White House should be tried and convicted for war crimes.

Give the oil and money to the young and poor of Iraq.  According to the Imams oil is part of the commons and can not be in the possession of special interests.

To wring our hands and fret about the chaos that would ensue is complete hogwash. We delude ourselves by thinking that we are somehow responsible for the well being of Iraqis.  Long ago, we gave up that right (... or responsibility, or duty, or moral obligation, or whatever you want to call it).

Our care and concern for the Iraqis citizens was clearly shown when

•  we foisted Saddam into power.
  
•  we fostered the Iran-Iraq war.  ("I hope they all kill each other": Kissenger).  One million dead.
  
•  we sponsored the first Gulf War.  ("Saddam must go.") In that war, we killed a few hundred thousand Iraqis and then left Saddam in power.  
  
•  we imposed sanctions on Iraq which killed an estimated 1.5 Million. ("We think the price is worth it." Madeline Albright)
  
•  we began this war.

We have consistently committed crimes against these people. It is classic colonial power mentality to foster the enmity of rival factions within a country.  It is classic colonial power thinking to view all our own actions through the lense of moral righteousness.  We are killing them for their own good.  To save them from themselves.  Those poor sots.

In our absense, it is a fallacy to assume that the differences between the factions would lead to a conflagration any worse than they are facing now as a result of our presense.  

It is pathetic for us to sound like we are worried now about what MIGHT happen if we left?!  

As IF we represent peace, freedom, and democracy!
We are the problem.  We should go.

The only way out is to be replaced by multi-national peace keepers, armed and well equiped, like the UN.

The only way to get the UN to go along, 100%, and then some....which would include funding and reconstruction, is to:

1. Publically, officially, and cast in stone, give up all rights and demands for Iraqi oil, putting the business of Iraqi oil squarely in the hands of the world community, possibly even OPEC, or OPEC influenced.

2. Open reconstruction to bids by all other countries of the region, with an emphisis on Iraqi companies and laborers, even to the extent that new Iraq businesses would sprout up under the eye and supervision of the UN and other countries.

Sorry for the spelling.

How do we fix the system?  There are a number of bills in Congress already addressing at least some of the critical problems, such as electronic voting paper trails and publicly "monitorable" software used to count votes; we need to set up daily, or at least, weekly monitoring of the progress of these bills - if they are stuck in committee, or some other logjam, public pressure, by way of massive e-mails and regular mail, needs to be put on the people responsible for the logjam.

Unfortunately, the only reasonable solution is a nonpolitical, multinational intervention under UN authority.  I say unfortunately because we have just sent John Bolton, possibly the biggest enemy of the UN in the neocon ranks, to be our UN ambassador.  This is approximately the moral equivalent of naming John Wayne Gacey as the head of the Child Protective Services.

Dubya has first directly caused us to be snakebit, and then poured the only available antivenin down the drain.  This means that the ship of state has been steered into a narrow, rocky strait and the reverse gear ripped out and thrown overboard.  At this point we can either hunker down until this administration is over ~or~ move forward into Syria or Iran or both.  Of the two bad choices, I would favor hunkering down but I expect these power-mad belief-blinded neocons to move forward deeper into the maw of the monster.

This country is systematically destabilizing the entire Middle East, probably at the instigation of the Saudis, for control of the remaining oil. Venezula was right to issue a warning about trying to go there next. I think part of England's joining in is to protect their own oilfields offshore.

Should the Saudis (specifically the bin Laden's) try to control OPEC completely, the resultant chaos will be far more than any troops could control.

There have been numerous examples of blowing the pipelines and refineries in the past, and I believe that is what their fundamentalist right will order, making our presence there moot.

We cannot create democracy or a consumer-based society in that region. It flies into too many quagmires of religion and custom.

We cannot repair the damage we have done to them or to ourselves. We will just have to live with the consequences.

About the only moral avenue left to us is to turn to the UN and allow the nations of the world to step in without us, although given the nature of the new ambassador, I doubt this will be the case.

Demand is rising all over the world, particularly with the emerging economies of Asia, where India and China are very aggressivly pursuing access to energy anywhere they can find it. They make deals that do not make economic sense to a stockholder-owned Western oil company, because they are desperate to continue the expansion of their economies, at any cost. Their desperation comes from the desire to continue the creation of jobs, some 20 to 25 million per year in China. Without this job creation eventually the social unrest will call into question the legitimacy of the governments, leading to threats to the governments themselves.

In the face of this competition our American oil companies want to claim their right to the spoils in Iraq. This will all be done through contracts and will be on the up and up, but the Iraqis surely will realize they have an obligation to treat their liberators to a reasonable portion of their future oil production. The American oil companies wont, if they can avoid it,  operate in a lawless, terrorist dominated country, without some assurances i.e. protection. The push to make the Iraqi army a viable force will fall short of the oil company standards of competence. Ultimately, the US government will have to guarantee the American oil company security and that will require troops. Maybe not today's 150,000 troops, but a substantial contingent that will protect American oil company interests.

So, did we go to war in Iraq for the oil? No, probably not. I believe the Administration honestly was convinced they were eradicating a threat to American security. The oil resources in Iraq were a secondary, or probably even lower consideration. Only after we got stuck there did it become apparent that the supply of oil was of paramount importance, as the increased demand and competition for energy only became a concern within the past 18 months.

How do we get out of this situation in Iraq? It is really a question of how do we get out of this energy shortage situation? Reducing our dependence on imported oil is not going to happen in our lifetimes. It is too big, over 50% of our energy is imported, and our habit of wasting energy is too deeply ingrained in our culture and economy to be altered. Imagine a politician offering a platform that dictates small vehicles, mass transit, reduced furnace and air conditioning settings, and all the other individual freedom restricting moves that would need to be instituted to really attack the energy wastage problem. Such a platform will not get anyone elected.

Short of a major interruption in the supply of oil, such as an overthrow of the House of Saud and a diversion of their oil to another consuming country, (which in itself would probably cause another war) we aren't going to voluntarily change anything about the way we waste energy.

We will continue to pay two brutal taxes to maintian the status quo in energy wastage. Our young people will be counted on to fight and die in regular wars and our Treasury will be drawn upon to support these wars while we consumers pay exorbitant prices for energy.

So I suggest we quit worrying about Iraq. We won it fair and square, nobody is going to take it away from us, so we might as well exploit it. Put it another way: did 1500 GIs die so the French, Russian and Chinese oil companies can have access to Iraqi oil, while we Americans run short of energy?

He wrote:

President Bush promised the Iraqi people and the international community that our military victory would make Iraq a peaceful, democratic state, a model for its neighbors and a bastion against terrorism. If this was our war aim, our victory did not achieve it. The resistance movement has pinned down our soldiers and contractors as enemy occupiers. If our troops pull out, there will be civil war among a dozen rival factions. If our troops stay, in redoubled numbers to suppress the violence, their hulking presence will doom each future Iraqi government to illegitimacy and failure. So let us consider the alternatives to victory.

In the end a fractured Iraq can be held together only by a man wrapped, like George Washington or Ho Chi Minh, in the legitimacy that derives from successful armed struggle. We should note the ease with which a scruffy young cleric united Sunnis and Shiites against the US presence. A victorious Secretary Rumsfeld could not impose Ahmad Chalabi. However, a retreating US military can designate Iraq's liberator. We must select the competent Iraqi patriot to whom we yield ground while bleeding his competitors. There will be casualties and disorder, no matter how brilliantly we orchestrate our withdrawal. But the overwhelming majority of Iraqis will rally around any man who claims to drive us out, and elections would validate his relatively bloodless victory.

The man on a white horse can bring the UN back as invited guests rather than as our despised surrogates. His police will enforce the law, when ours cannot. His debts will be forgiven, when ours would not. America must swallow its resentment and keep a measure of control by doling out the money to keep the Iraqi state functional. Ten billion dollars a year will buy more counterterrorism cooperation than a military occupation that costs five times as much. And we will let the Iraqis do the work. The most virtuous Halliburton employee is ten times more expensive than the most corrupt Iraqi. Democracy and human rights may take a generation, but our defeat will convince a resentful and fatalistic Middle East that change is possible.

The Kurds, admittedly, will resist any weakness in their US ally. Our parting gift to them will be the southern border for an autonomous Kurdish entity. The price will be US cooperation with Turkey to extort a semblance of respect for the Iraqi central government and the rights of Arab and Turkmen minorities.

We were defeated once, in Vietnam, and the dominoes did not fall. We remained the leader of the free world, sadder but wiser. The ignorance and megalomania that brought us into Iraq are far more dangerous to US security and prosperity than would be the symbolic military defeat that gets us out.

1.  Set up a coalition (mini-U.N., if you will) immediately, consisting of a member of each Middle Eastern country and a member of each surrounding country, one member to represent the European Union, one member of the United Nations, one member from Amnesty International, and one member of the national Red Cross, etc.  Note that I do not include the United Kingdom or the United States in this coalition so they must not be chosen to represent the United Nations.

2.  The United States and the United Kingdom will fund the coalition with one-third the amount of money used to start and perpetuate the war so far. This money is to be used to support reconstruction of Iraq and the rebuilding of the lives of the Iraqi people.  Haliburton, Bechtel and any of their subsidiaries will be mandated to do the physical work needed to structurally rebuild Iraq, including materials and labor, out of their own pockets. Iraqis are to be given these jobs and paid according to the scales used for workers by the, afore-mentioned companies.  The companies will be supervised by the Coalition and answerable to that agency.  Hospitals, rehab centers, schools, libraries, water, electric, housing, all have top priority, followed by the construction of roads, environmental cleanup, freely accessible communication systems, etc.

3.  As soon as the coalition is in place (I'm going way over the top here and suggesting Malta as the hosting country...I always wanted to go to Malta), the United States and its "coalition of the willing", will unilaterally withdraw from Iraq.  United Nations peacekeeping forces, without the participation of the U.S. and U.K., if invited by the Iraqi people, will assist wherever they can, including observing the work of Haliburton, etc.  I don't trust those guys.  My thought is that, with so much money and jobs available to the population, it is to their best interests to try and stablize the internally divided factions.  It is the only way they will be given the money.

4.  Let the Iraqi prisoners out of the jails we've been keeping them in all over the world and escort them back to Iraq with recompense.  

5. Here's the clincher:  Within three years, all cars developed by the U.S. or allowed into the country must be hybrids.  Our government will subsidize the builders, when necessary, to meet these mandates, including those individuals who trade in their gas model for a hybrid.  Any individual who incorporates passive energy sources into their home will receive major tax breaks, depending on the project.  Wind-generated power plants will also be subsidized.  Meanwhile, Mexico is sitting on a ton of oil.  We need to cement our relationship with that country and negotiate for the necessary fuel to see us through the three-year transition.

6.  With the money saved from playing "war", border security, airport, plane, and other safeguards of this nature will be instituted in this country and a major revenue source will be provided for the improvement of education, healthcare, libraries, and the arts.  We must become an educated and enlightened population.  We must find our compassion.

7.  The United States will set up a fund to offer rewards for the return of historical items taken from the Museums and Libraries of Iraq.  It must become a law that no one in the U.S. be allowed to own this contraband material, including our museums.

5. We must rejoin the international court and let our "so-called" leaders stand accountable.  Talk about gaining back the respect of the world.  

As long as  the US military, mercenaries and other meddlers are tied up in Iraq they can't meddle in the same way, on the same scale elsewhere.  

The whole corrupt American Capitalistic/Militaristic system may collapse of its own weight.  The planet would be safer.

I apologize if I sound too dismal, but even in the event of the elections, I see nothing that will expedite our withdrawal.

Barb

The credibility of the United States is finished.  The only way to restore our leadership position is to apologize publicly and unequivocally for a naked war of aggression.  Follow this with the firing (not the hiring) of Bolton, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Feith, Abrams, etc., by the President and instituting criminal prosecution for those found to have misled the public or their superiors about the factual basis for invading Iraq or contravening the Geneva Convention.  The creation of a restitution fund for victims of U.S. aggression should also be created.  The President should go before the U.N. and propose the complete turn-over of Iraq to a Peacekeeping force and authority at our cost.  Our troops would begin withdrawl as they are replaced with UN member troops.

Anything less is an apology for empire.

Do not kid yourselves anymore.  This will not happen.  We are no longer living in the "American Century" or a functioning democratic republic.  We have to accept that our nation is no different than any other power in history and has begun the slide into dictatorship and/or theocracy that usually accompanies the collapse of a state from its dominant position.  We must each choose now how to resist the power structure's attempts to prop up its central, inequitable position in the world economic-political-military arena.  The question is no longer about Iraq, our broken electoral system, or its misguided domestic policies.

All governments exist by the consent of the governed.  This is not a political theory but a tested fact we have seen demonstrated before our very eyes.  We are faced with the necessity of a revolution in this country.  Our hope should be for one without bloodshed and conducted in such a manner as to preserve the best aspects of the system it seeks to overturn.  The rule of law comes to mind.  You want a better world, US out of the Middle East, a saner foreign policy, a government again responsive to the people, not fictitious corporations, then you must ask yourself this simple question every day about everything you do.

How can I resist today?

My hope is that you will find a thousand small and peaceful ways to withhold your support from the regime.  If peaceful methods are not found and practiced consistently, we may find ourselves in more desperate straights and sooner than we think.  We are on the edge of the abyss.  The Republicans have the ability to completely, legally and constitutionally alter the fundamental nature of our social compact. Are people around the world already looking at us and considering us to be "good Germans" who will follow the lawful authorities into the moral pit?

The Bush Administration and the neocon worldview are the great evil to be defeated by our generation.  Al-Qaida by itself cannot endanger life on this planet or throw its people into world war.  Bin-Laden and accomplices took their best shot on 9-11.  They have been on the run and the defensive ever since that moment revolted and united nearly the entire world. Through a consistent policy aiming at world domination, Bush and his accomplices have managed to turn nearly the entire world against us.  At what point will we cease to deny the evidence of our eyes, ears and minds, accepting that the limit has been reached?

I pray it is sooner.