home

Exit From Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 09:21:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

George Hunsinger, professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, and coordinator of Church Folks for a Better America (and frequent reader and commenter at TalkLeft) has a letter to the editor in today's New York Times:

Bob Herbert is right ("No End in Sight in Iraq," column, Aug. 11). We need a serious national conversation about exiting from Iraq.

First, we need to face reality: no good options exist. The American-led occupation is the main cause of the insurgency, not the cure. Yet an abrupt pullout could lead to even more chaos. The last best hope lies in "internationalizing" the peacekeeping forces until Iraq can take over on its own.

Those who object to this path as unrealistic need to explain how we can better extricate ourselves from the biggest American policy disaster since Vietnam.

< Roberts and the Democrats' Dilemma | Taft Convicted >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Exit From Iraq | 31 comments (31 topical)
    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    A: I question the premise that the "occupation is the main cause of the insurgency" because the insurgents mostly attack Iraqis, not Americans. The insurgents want the American occupation to end, but they mainly want power over their neighbors. B: How will "internationalizing the peace keeping forces" be helpful, except by distributing the casualties? Which is nice for us, but not very persuasive to our allies.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#2)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Which "peace keeping forces" is he talking about? The character of the occupation regime would not change by "internationalizing" it.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Just leave and give Iraq one trillion in reparations. That should quiet things down all over.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    "George Hunsinger, professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, and coordinator of Church Folks for a Better America (and frequent reader and commenter at TalkLeft)" Interesting, a professor of theology frequently comments on a blog where many other commenters like to bash religion and religious folks. JM, what is George's "handle" when he comments?

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    ...unless of course, he, understandably, wants to post anonymously...

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Interesting, a professor of theology frequently comments on a blog where many other commenters like to bash religion and religious folks.
    I'm a newcomer here, but from what I have seen on this blog, religious beliefs and religious people only get "bashed" when it appears that their statements fly in the face of commen sense and/or appear to be hypocrtical. I suspect George Hunsinger is smart enough to be able to seperate the wheat from the chafe.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    I recommend 400 days and out: A strategy for resolving the Iraq impasse as the best summary I've seen so far. The ideas are logical but its not clear anything will work in the present climate. Its clear that a cival war has started although its not full blown yet. Its also not clear whether the 3 major factions are capable of making enough compromises to bring some form of unity. Its not necessary as a first step to stop the insurgency, any step that would help unify the country as opposed to making the splits more formal, would be a start in the right direction. The only way to stop any insurgency begins with trying to isolate them politicaly. A major factor in the discontent in Iraq is the absence of basic services and a complete lack of safety. I think the whole thing is FUBAR. Bush opened the gates of hell with the grossly incompetent plan to occupy the country. They were warned before hand by military planners who were ignored. But I think it has become clear by now that Bush doesn't care about Iraq and its people, with the exception of establishing bases and controlling the oil. Having failed to install a government that is in line with US desires and long term goals it seems likely that victory will be declared and some troops brought home before our 2006 elections.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Dr. Hunsinger responds: "The idea of "internationalizing" the peacekeeping forces is, by the say, supported by Juan Cole, who has defended it against sophisticated critics at his website, Informed Comment. He realizes, of course, as anyone must, that this path would face formidable difficulties. But then we must go on to ask, Compared to what? Internationalization is no panacea. It would need to be part of a larger package, such as the one suggested by Dreyfuss. It presupposes, however, that although the occupation is the main cause of the insurgency, it is by no means the only one. How To Get Out Of Iraq First, take a look at the Paris peace talks in the 1970s. By Robert Dreyfuss
    ... there is indeed a way out of Iraq. An international conference on the war in Iraq, convened in Amman, Jordan, under the auspices of the United Nations, with the support of Russia and China, could bring together the United States, the current interim government of Iraq, and representatives of nearly a dozen Iraqi resistance groups to hammer out an agreement on a cease-fire and a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq within a year.
    See also, T.E. Lawrence And the Mind of An Insurgent . JAMES J. SCHNEIDER, Ph.D., is a professor of military theory at the School of Advanced Military Studies, U.S. Command and Gen. Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kan."

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Yes, Lab, you are new here and your comment reflects your opinion which you are certainly entitled to. Others may, reasonably, not share it. I certainly wasn't looking to start this type of converstation nor was it my intent to attack anyone, if you took my words that way, but only to be able to put comments by George in their proper context by understanding who he is and where he comes from when he posts. He's certainly free to remain anonymous, as most of us choose to do, if he so wishes - for me, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and there is no judgment of him if he chooses to do so or not. My appologies if my words indicated some other meaning.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#10)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Dr. Hunsinger writes that the development in Iraq is the "the biggest American policy disaster since Vietnam". In one sense this obviously is true. But it is necessary to keep in mind that the real objectives of the war never had anything to do with the stated objectives. This war was and is about oil and world domination. To suggest - as Robert Dreyfuss does - that an "international conference" would change or modify those objectives has no basis in reality. Even Mr. Dreyfuss seems to acknowledge this to some extent. One also must stress that the Bush administration is currently prepairing another war: on Iran. No "international conference" with the participation of US imperialism will stop that. What is urgently needed is a political mass movement which links the struggle against the war with the struggle against social inequality.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Posted by roy: "the insurgents mostly attack Iraqis, not Americans." We don't know if that's true. We don't know that 'insurgents' are blowing up those Iraqis. We don't know if so-called 'suicide bombers' are actually that instead of electronic bombs set off by cellphone. Why don't we know? Because the liars who have foisted this policy on us have also hired tens of thousands of MERCENARIES who will do whatever for whomever. The CIA also has its own army, an army which we KNOW bombed the Russian ambassador's convoy during the invasion (totally illegal). We don't know who blew up the UN building in Basra. We don't know who burned down the Koran-Torah Repository (a Navy Seal readily admitted to me that it was the CIA). We don't know who is doing quite a bit of the damage, because CENTCOM is a conspiracy, not a legitimate US military operation.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    "Interesting, a professor of theology frequently comments on a blog where many other commenters like to bash religion and religious folks." I resent that on behalf of TL. I've been reading this blog for a good long time, and I've never seen the dead albatross you're trying to pass under the radar. YOU LOT are the ones attacking religion. Mostly you attack Islam, but YOU spend quite a bit of time attacking Christians as well -- in defense of pseudo-christian rightwing liars. There are a few commenters who get carried away and take their atheism to an extreme, when pushed by obvious rightist attempts to establish a theocracy or sell science down the River of Stupidity that your entire clan lives on.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Oy vey. Sorry JM, it truly wasn't my intent to try to disrail this thread.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#14)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    "Internationalizing" the occupation of Iraq is not possible without giving the candidate countries something in return in proportion to their contribution. And the occupiers are not in a position to be able to offer anything. So it's not going to happen. The occupation of Iraq has been a failure. The occupiers overran the country in a few weeks, but the enemy disappeared totally into the woodwork, with an estimated 250,000 tons of explosives that the occupiers failed to secure, and the enemy knows how to use them. The result is that the occupiers do not effectively control anything worth much. Failure exacts a price. Wishful thinking about handing over the mess to others is futile.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#15)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    What I find interesting about the discussion is the lack of comments from those true believers who have faithfully followed Bush's party line on Iraq in the past. Where are the people who believe that no change in the status quo is necessary because Bush's policies in Iraq are working and we are winning? The debate seems to be one between those liberals like Hunsinger and Cole who echo Kerry's view that the situation in Iraq can be redeemed through more competent leadership and a more rational strategy and those on the left who favor immediate withdrawal. While I agree with Hunsinger and Cole that an international peacekeeping force is an improvement over the present Bush policy, I am still in later camp. The majority of Sunnis who support the insurgency do so because they object to being occupied. This will not change if Americans who are occupying their country fly the flag of the international peacekeeping force instead of the US. Let us not forget that since our invasion of Iraq was unjustified, it was also illegal. Since the invasion was illegal, so is the occupation. Before we talk about what "we" should do in Iraq, lets ask ourselves, what do the Iraqis want? If they don't want an occupying army in their country, whether it be the US or an international peacekeeping force, I say so be it. After all, it is their country, not ours. Even if you agree with Hunsinger, lets not forget that it is Bush that is in charge here and for the forseeable future it is Bush's policies that will be implemented. With each day of the status quo the situation only gets worse, which means that the chance of success for what Hunsinger and Cole advocate decrease. He believes that there is still hope. However, if you agree with me that the situation in Iraq is beyond hope, then continuing the occupation, even under a peacekeeping force, will only result in more unnecessary American casualties.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    The idea of "internationalizing" the peacekeeping forces is, by the say, supported by Juan Cole, who has defended it against sophisticated critics at his website, Informed Comment S**T I WAS SAYING THIS MORE THAN A YEAR AGO!!

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#17)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    What does religion have to do with politics and crime anyway?

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    I suppose a church Christian would say: ask the Romans. But the policy in Iraq is still civil war. It has been from the onset, since the plans were hatched back in 1991. Genocide as necessary to build and keep 15 airbases in a formerly-sovereign country. So any 'internationalization' runs right up against the (newsflash) rightwing coup that has taken over the US gov't. We need to 'internationalize' George, Dick, Donald, and the rest of those merry traitors and war criminals. Because the finger on the button is the bottom line of their threats and refusal to listen to kindly moderation. We're being held hostage.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Cool, I love to watch ya'll talking to each other. Kinda reminds me of free play at my son's school. But without the joy. -C PS - Yes, that was a troll. :-)

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#20)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    et al - Anything Juan Cole says is automatical rejected by my "nuance" filter. BTW - Anybody care to guess how many millions will be killed if we cut and run? Oh, I know that means nothing as compared to bringing down Bush, but have you at least asked for water to wash your hands?

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    et al - Anything Juan Cole says is automatical rejected by my "nuance" filter.
    Expertise and knowledge interfers with PPJs "reality"
    Anybody care to guess how many millions will be killed if we cut and run?
    We are doing practically nothing to protect the average Iraqi so it probably wont matter much. Most troops are either support or hunkered down on their bases. Over 1100 bodies were brought to the Baghdad morgue in July alone, so that doesn't include the ones buried by relatives or the rest of the country. The US cant even secure the road to the airport. Bush doesn't care. The ideal outcome would be for the Iraqis to kill each other off and leave the oil to Bush. Hey PPJ how about those State Dept memos?

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST
    Chris Mathews on Hardball
    What I keep doing here is asking people on and off camera who come on this program, high-ranking officers, enlisted, former officers. I get sometimes, not all the time, two different versions, the version they give me on the air and the version they give me the minute when we‘re off the air. The version they give me when we‘re on the air is gung-ho, we‘re doing the right thing, everything is moving along. The version they give me off the air is, Rumsfeld is crazy. There aren‘t enough troops over there. We‘re not taking this seriously enough, or, we shouldn‘t be there, sometimes.


    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#23)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    SD writes:
    We are doing practically nothing to protect the average Iraqi so it probably wont matter much.
    So you are now jusifying the millions dead if we withdraw. Nice. Very Nice. Only this time it won't work. The Left is well defined as demanding withdrawal. So if we do, the results are yours, baby.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    'Internationalizing' means admitting we screwed up and asking the UN and appealing to moderate ME nations for help and turning over control to them. OTOH, declaring victory and leaving would have had the same effect on the eventual outcome in Vietnam, maybe it would work here. Cliff, I didn't feel your comment was trolling, just unneccessary. Jim was trolling with his 'millions die' comments. Jeez, ya know, that 'mushroom cloud' crap was based on a lie and all the admin players who said it recanted it. After they GOT CAUGHT telling the lie! Sheesh.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    PPJ- you love to yap about things that you have no knowledge about. Juan Cole is by far no liberal. He is Professor of History at the University of Michigan. As an and academic and Conservative the post on his site actually has the potential of conveying information to you regarding current and historical context of the Iraq war. it is a bit more in depth that the NY Post, so perhaps a bit over your head. Oh, I forgot you already have all the informaton you need to be a troll.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    The Left is well defined as demanding withdrawal. So if we do, the results are yours, baby.
    And if you don't you'll blame us anyway. Ho hum.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#27)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Squeaky - I know some conservatives and Juan Cole is no conservative. What he is, is an anti-war, anti-administration commentator. And you don't have to be as brilliant as you are to know that. Sailor - The Left has painted Iraq as Vietnam since day one. The end in Vietnam was that millions died. That's just historical fact. And if we pull out now, it will happen again. Ernie - You do the deed to yourselves with the know nothing claims that all we have to do is leave. Your latest heroine says:
    "You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.
    Squeaky? Think she reads the Post or Juan Cole?

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Jim: "The end in Vietnam was that millions died." The middle was when millions died. You know, when they were being CARPET BOMBED BACK INTO THE STONE AGE. Millions did not die after reunification, except in Cambodia, where Kissinger's genocide by air destabilized the government and gave the country to Pol Pot. You lot have lied about Vietnam nonstop, start to finish, and since. And left to you, you would rewrite the history books. You're medievalists -- superstition mongers -- hate merchants.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    And, btw, Sheehan denies she made that statement, Jim.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    PPJ...wow Cindy is such a radical. But let's compare fanaticism shall we? Aren't you one of those Republicans that thought the creation of Bin Laden's army by the CIA was a stroke of genius? As well as our policy of arming Saddam Hussein to kill lots of Iranians? Please take a step back and see who advocates policies that result in a lot of dead people, both ours and theirs, and then perhaps you will realize who the real fanatics are.

    Re: Exit From Iraq (none / 0) (#31)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    The Hunsinger/Cole strategy suffers from some of the same problems that Bush's occupation of Iraq. The main reason for an international peacekeeping force is his belief that if we withdraw something worse will happen. First of all, the civil war that Hunsinger fears has already begun. The something worse that he fears is happening everyday in Iraq. Preventing genocide is, in my opinion, a justified use of military force. Taking sides in a civil war isn't. Also, we know from Hunsinger and Bush what we are fighting against. What are we supposed to be fighting for? What are we asking our men and women to put their lives on the line for? A Bush administration official recently admitted that what is happening in Iraq is "we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic." The Shiites who the Bush administration supports are closer to Iran than to the US. I don't think that an international peacekeeping force will have any more popular support than the "Coallition of the Willing" (which is becoming less of a coalition and more countries opt out). The American public will not support the present rate of casualties no matter whose flag Americans fight under. There is a cost/benefit to any military action. Does the benefit of continuing our occupation of Iraq justify the cost? I understand worrying about the interests of others, but sometimes you need to look after your own interests. Finally, what countries are going to send troops into Iraq, other than the ones that already do?

    Exit From Iraq | 31 comments (31 topical)