House, 218 to 212, Votes to Set Date for Iraq Pullout

House, 218 to 212, Votes to Set Date for Iraq Pullout

“The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said in bringing an end to a charged debate on the House floor. “The American people see the reality of the war; the president does not.”

Well put. The time to be out of Iraq was before we ever went in...

[elSicomoro]

Am I the only person that a) Doesn't see our pullout as necessarily a failure? and b) Doesn't really care if we "lost" anyway, because we're bound to lose a few battles?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by sycamore

Am I the only person that a) Doesn't see our pullout as necessarily a failure? and b) Doesn't really care if we "lost" anyway, because we're bound to lose a few battles?

Let's see. We "lost" Vietnam. Currently, Vietnam is a trading partner of the United States.

We have 58,000 names on the Vietnam War memorial. 30 years after the war we are buying tea and fish from our former enemies, the ones who 'won' the war.

Could we have stopped at 10,20,30,40,000 and gotten the same results? How many more would it have taken for us to 'win'?

I still see people interviewed who think if we had been willing to sustain more losses we could have won Vietnam. Many of them are people who never served there.

SO, the question becomes how many more dead and wounded for a 'win' in Iraq? What constitutes a win?

[piercehawkeye45]

I am agnostic on pulling out. I extremely disagree with the reasons we went there for and think we should have never been there in the first place but we created a new mess that is even bigger than Vietnam. 50-500 thousand Iraqi civilians have died already and if we pull out, we will only make it worse for them.

If we do pull out, there is likely to be a very bloody civil war that will last a few years and then stablize (hopefully). If we don't, we can wait for it to stablize, which may never happen, or eventually just give up. Assuming Iraq will stabilize, we have to choose between a short war with many deaths or a long war with fewer deaths.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I am agnostic on pulling out. ...
If we do pull out, there is likely to be a very bloody civil war that will last a few years and then stablize (hopefully).

If we stay, that blooshed becomes inevitable. However, because the threat of an America pullout exists, suddenly there is massive talking and a massive interest in peaceful compromise.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by tw

If we stay, that blooshed becomes inevitable. However, because the threat of an America pullout exists, suddenly there is massive talking and a massive interest in peaceful compromise.

Great point. If it gets the silent majority to start speaking we will have accomplished something great.

[WabUfvot5]

Originally Posted by tw

If we stay, that blooshed becomes inevitable. However, because the threat of an America pullout exists, suddenly there is massive talking and a massive interest in peaceful compromise.

An Iraq vet I spoke to is pretty sure things will degrade once we leave. I'm not sure what will happen; only that our presence there is not healing the divide.

[bluesdave]

Going into Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. Pulling out now may cause a catastrophe, and with a potentially a cascading effect. The Iraqi army and police cannot manage on their own. They freely admit this, and US troops on the ground have no faith in the Iraqi army or police. If you do not believe me, take the time to listen to this - it goes for just over 6 minutes, but please listen to it.

The situation in Iraq is far worse than some elements of the media would have you believe. This is *not* a reason to pull out. It shows how desperate the Iraqi people are. Remember, "we" invaded them. "We" were supposed to make life better for them. It is now "our" responsibility to see this through to a peaceful end.

We "lose" more every day we leave our ladies and young men in there.

Then I guess it's time for the Iraqi people to get their shit together.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Then I guess it's time for the Iraqi people to get their shit together.

Believe it, or not, I agree with your sentiment, but "we" bombed their country into a dust bowl. You cannot expect them to spring up out the the dust, and emerge with bright, shiny armour - and as a unified country.

Iraq was an artificial country to start with. The disparate social groups would never have agreed to form a "unified country" in the first place. The West forced this upon them. Then we then invaded in 2003. This makes Iraq "our" problem.

Yes, I know I am not over there risking my life every day. I have the deepest respect and admiration for the Allied troops doing a nearly impossible job. Our politicians got us into this mess, but our troops are the ones who have to carry the weight. I fully understand this, and if I was a US soldier, I would want "out" too, just as most Allied troops wanted out of WW1 and WW2, but 99% of them stuck to it, and saved our world. You have to realise that pulling out prematurely could create a situation that makes the current one look like a piece of cake.

[TheMercenary]

The proposal in the House will never make it out of committee and if it does the president will veto it. Neither house has the votes to over ride a veto. This puts it squarely back in the lap of the Congress. They need to figure it out, or come up with a unified plan that all can agree on to over ride the veto, I doubt that will happen.

Everyone wants us out of Iraq, so do I. I never thought we should have gone in. To late. We bought the place with our blood and the blood of many others. So will you all except a genocide as an exceptable end to our desire to quit? I doubt it.

[piercehawkeye45]

I never get a good answer for this. Why wouldn't splitting up the country work? It would force some people to move but we can at least establish some peace, wouldn't it be worth it?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I never get a good answer for this. Why wouldn't splitting up the country work? It would force some people to move but we can at least establish some peace, wouldn't it be worth it?

That really is the best option. The two main problems are the allocation of oil reserves and the discomfort the Turks would have with the Kurds being independent right across the border from their large Kurdish minority.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I never get a good answer for this. Why wouldn't splitting up the country work? It would force some people to move but we can at least establish some peace, wouldn't it be worth it?

I agree with this plan and have proposed this very thing for a number of years. Partition is the only path to peace IMHO, with Bagdad becoming the only area shared by the three areas with the seat of government there.