Those of us who had been in favor of a continuing U.S. troop presence in Iraq had warned that these forces were a vital stabilizing force in Iraq’s turbulent politics. It gives me no pleasure to be proven right. For no sooner have U.S. troops been withdrawn (the final convoy crossed the Kuwait border yesterday), then Iraqi politics were plunged into a fresh crisis.
Sunni politicians are accusing the domineering Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, of sending his security forces to arrest their aides and target them. In protest, the Iraqiya coalition, the top vote getter in Iraq’s last election, has announced a boycott of parliament. As the Iraq analyst Reidar Vissar notes, rumors are rampant the crisis will escalate because of “unprecedented statements by people close to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that a move is afoot to withdraw confidence in Deputy Premier Salih al-Mutlak of Iraqiyya (on charges of incompetence) and to bring legal charges against Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, also of Iraqiyya, for alleged involvement in the recent terror attack against the Iraqi parliament.”
Meanwhile, the Sunni-dominated provincial council in Diyala province is demanding autonomy from Baghdad. Other provinces are threatening to follow suit–demands that have already resulted in clashes between police and Shiite demonstrators in Diyala and could well result in the use of deadly force.
American leaders including Ambassador Jim Jeffrey and Vice President Biden are reportedly making phone calls to try to mediate the conflict and avert a complete breakdown of politics. But the odds of a breakdown, and a reversion to civil war, are going up by the day–and all because of the premature and irresponsible withdrawal of American military forces.
Does anyone believe the present Iraqi government, patchwork, society, societies are an imminent or even foreseeable threat to the American homeland on the precipice of chaos or over its brink even into civil war? No. Are Sunni insurgents any more likely at this juncture to form opportunistic alliances with the Iranian would-be Shiite hegemon than the present government? Not provable. The United States cannot send troops to babysit every unstable regime in the Levant to prevent their eventual descent into tribal or sectarian nastiness. And what would GIs do? Send in the MPs? Shouldn't American troops be based precisely in host nations sufficiently stable to enjoy the American force deterrent as a force multiplier? And, please, no good money after bad arguments. Could be Joe Biden's much derided notion of partition as the least bad of available options won't seem like such a dumb proposal down the road.
And you lot want to destabilize Bashar's rule in Damascus. Fools.
Bashar's rule is already pretty much destabilized and the Arab League is already considering deposing him. But the Grumpy Old Men want to blame the jooz. n nCabbageheads.
It would be nice if folks, grumpy or otherwise, who come to websites just to condemn the "lot" whose guiding philosophy and beliefs and culture is anathema to them in the first place consider flocking to you-lots of their own feather.
Iraq is starting to unravel again, with the various factions at one another's throats. n nIf Bashar falls, there is every reason to think the same sort of thing will happen in Syria and Lebanon, with dire results for the minorities there, among other things. You won't like whatever Alpha Dog comes to power after all the bloodshed and refugees. This is folly for the democratists, the Wilsonian interventionists, and even the Zionists. Assad may have aided Hezbollah, but he kept the Syrian frontier with Israel quiet. n nAs long as the neocons and ZIonists are trying to drag my country into useless and aggressive wars, I will challenge them where I can.
Truman withdrew then propelled back US troops in South Korea. Korea could be a good case study for Iraq (or what it could have been): Korea was not a direct threat to the US. It was taken for granted the South would become dominated by the North. After the war, South Korea was destabilized for years. It went through upheavals – internal and North Korea-inspired – at times until the late 1980s. The 1960s were a particular hot time for US forces in Korea and the South Korean authorities. We poured a lot of aid into the South for decades before it became economically viable and even thrived. n nWas all that blood and money wasted? Has it made little difference to East Asian and global history that the South didn't become like it's northern neighbor? n nI know liberals hate the hear talk like this, but the region where Iraq sits is far more vital to the health of the United States and the world than South Korea in the 1950s. n nWhatever your opinion about how the war in Iraq began, leaving there when Iraq had a chance to join the community of nations as a stable, economically viable member and a democracy in a troubled region was wrong. n nGermany, Italy, Japan, and Korea were not cushy places to be after WWII, but back then, the US had the stamina to aid in accomplishing great things…..No more…..(Whether Democrat or Republican)…