What to do in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Fighting Madd]

The USA and its allies are in Iraq and (including Canada) Afghanistan, like it or not. What should be done now? Should the USA simply withdraw tomorrow from Iraq and Afghanistan? Perhaps they could invite the UN to takeover, but what if they refuse?

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

Well, withdrawl isn't an option at all, unless one wanted the Mid-east to become even more of a basket case. The UN should rightfully NOT take the leading role in this case, since you just knew it will end up badly for them and create an excuse for the US to lay blame (it isn't us who messed things up).

The only way out I see it is to rebuild the economies of the respective countries such that extremism would be denied by the majority of the populace. So that means putting more resources in, not taking it out (hint hint, Haliburton et al.)

GB

 

[Fighting Madd]

My thoughts exactly. Any protests or marches demanding immediate withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan are illfounded. The reasons the USA and allies went in were suspect, but we're there now so we must clean up the mess.

I still think going into Iraq and Afghanistan was a good idea, but not for the oil, Bush-revenge, etc. For me, the USA and allies have done a good thing, thrown out Sadam and the Taliban, giving both countries more hope of freedom than ever before. If this is an unintended result of Bush's policies so be it.

 

[afransen TO]

It will probably take a generation of outside support before Iraq and Afghanistan calm down. I guess the important thing is making sure the populace knows that you aren't a domineering occupier and rather a facilitator of local self-governance. I don't think this is something the US has really accomplished.

 

[Mislav]

My thoughts exactly. Any protests or marches demanding immediate withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan are illfounded.

Indeed they are. I actually tried talking to some of these protestors and they seem to ignore the fact that withdrawal means giving the country away to a doctrine far worse than that of Saddam Hussein. The protestor will often give a simple argument such as "If the Americans stay there, people will keep dying". But my question to them is that if they leave, what guarantee is there that these terrorists won't start killing people who don't satisfy their demands?

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

Fighting Madd:

My thoughts exactly. Any protests or marches demanding immediate withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan are illfounded. The reasons the USA and allies went in were suspect, but we're there now so we must clean up the mess.

The marches should have been about demanding GWB's head for f'ing things up so badly and misleading the public.

I still think going into Iraq and Afghanistan was a good idea, but not for the oil, Bush-revenge, etc. For me, the USA and allies have done a good thing, thrown out Sadam and the Taliban, giving both countries more hope of freedom than ever before. If this is an unintended result of Bush's policies so be it.

I don't think going into Iraq is a good thing even without those dubious reasons. It'd be far more productive to groom the populace via covert means (if possible) such that an internal uprising is an option; plus making sure that the infrastructure for proper governance exists when the day do come. Too late now.

As to Afghanistan, I have absolutely no problem with the allies going in, though they should have known better than reducing it into a "getting rid of the Taliban" misson, instead of a proper nation-building exercise.

GB

 

[EnviroTO]

Full withdrawl without their being some form of peace in those countries and an ability of the governments of those countries to keep a handle on things would be a worse decision than the (in my opinion) very bad decision to go to Iraq in the first place. I do think the US needs to change roles though if things are going to improve... the UN and other middle east nations need to be more involved in rebuilding and securing Iraq if what the US is doing is going to look legitimate to many of the people in the region. How can Iraq-Haliburton and the America-Iraq Oil Corp. not look suspicious to the people of Iraq and its neighbours?

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

Enviro:

The concern I have with involving other Mideast countries is that many have rather nasty agendas of their own, completely contrary to the goal of stablity and prosperity for Iraq.

GB

 

[EnviroTO]

I agree that those middle eastern countries cannot have complete control for that reason but if instead of using truck drivers from the US and companies from the US to rebuild Iraq, companies and drivers from within Iraq and other peaceful middle east countries not involved in allowing western hate to go rampany in their country were involved such as Jordan, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. I think it would look better in the eyes of Iraqi citizens. There should be much less American rebuilding jobs, and many more Iraqi jobs. Companies owned buy Iraqi's need to be fostered so that the country created doesn't rely on America Inc.

 

[adma]

Re that thread title, I'm almost tempted to respond in a "Lonely Planet" kind of way;-)

 

[EnviroTO]

^ I thought the same thing when I first read it.

 

[Fighting Madd]

I imagine if the USA offered full US citizenship and relocation to the US to the people of Iraq, 99% of them would up and leave. My point? The anti-American feeling we see presented on the news is IMO likely exaggerated for the cameras.

 

[EnviroTO]

I doubt that would be true if Iraq was peaceful. Most people that leave do so not because their are enamoured by their destination but because on economic and safety concerns. Safety concerns will have increased since the US arrived and not the other way around. Hopefully that will change so Iraqi citizens can go back to a more normal lifestyle. Never in the history of Iraq has something as basic as driving to the airport been so dangerous as it has been since the US arrived on the scene.

 

[1Voltaire1]

Anti-American sentiment that manifests itself violently does not need to be widespread to have severe effects. Unfortunately for the Americans, there is a percentage of the Iraqi population (largely Sunni) that is unlikely to ever accept any American political solution for the country - regardless of however many Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds endorse proposed political solutions.

The U.S. finds itself in a real bind. They need economic development in the country to give insurgents an incentive to lay down their weapons, yet the economic situation is contingent to a large extent on security, they're interdependent. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which substantive reconstruction and economic development can occur given current realities. The country has been through three decades of tyrannical rule, three conventional wars, about a decades worth of economic sanctions, and is currently in the throes of an unconventional war.

Unfortunately for Iraq its problems are much greater than the events of the last three decades. The abitrary redrawing of the map is a significant contributing factor to its current problems. The divisions within Islam, if you don't want to lay a degree of blame on European colonialism, is also a substantial problem.

 

[Mislav]

They need economic development in the country to give insurgents an incentive to lay down their weapons

My, how the world has changed. 60-70 years ago, we would have kept on fighting them till they gave up.