3 Apr 2005
Richard Nordland
Yes, Charles I can see the delima we are in and we just can't pull up stakes and go. It seems to me that it would be cheaper to actually buy off the aledged insurgents and stop destroying Babylon as Haliburton engineers are doing, the total distruction of the acient historical sites is what they are working for, seems almost like a sick religious vendeta with those acts by Haliburton. We first need to get Haliburton out of Iraq and let the Iraqi's rebuild their own country as they see fit, we must pay them to do so, would be cheaper than what Haliburton is charging. We must also have the Oil controled by their government, the funds gained can go to making their infrastructure even better than it was under Saddam, and give all Iraqi's a means of income and a sence of purpose vs what they have now. Does that sound like a plan or what? thanks Charles,,

2 Apr 2005
Gwendolyn P. Dhesi
Dear Charles - In your response to one of the e-mails you received you set out a very reasonable position that makes a great deal of sense. We cannot pull out of Iraq immediately. We must first make sure the country has stabilized to the degree that it can function on a daily basis without need for US troops. Yes, the initial entrance into Iraq was very wrong but now that US troops are there this country has a moral oblitgation to help protect Iraq from the insurgents and help the country secure its form of democracy.

1 Apr 2005
Paul Schryba
The best alternative would be to turn peacekeeping to a multi-national force and the UN. Since our current arrogant administration told all other nations we did not need them and totally ignored opposition to the Iraq war, it is not certain that other nations will support this. I suggest meditation and prayer. Either to go or stay are both bad options.

31 Mar 2005
Dave Berkshire
I fully agree with the VCS position on leaving Iraq. Pulling out immediately would be as irresponsible as Bush was in starting the war.

24 Mar 2005
Shellie G. West, M.S.
Please consider making use of our academicians on the issue of how best to "spread democracy and freedom." They are, unfortunately, an under-utilized resource. Fortunately, most of them have several advantages: 1. They usually know what they don't know and are, therefore, willing to call in other experts in those areas where they need additional briefing or consulting. 2. They usually are familiar with debate as a genuine learning tool, and are willing to learn from others' expertise. 3. They usually know history, particularly with regard to their own areas of specialization. This is particularly helpful in that they can learn from history what works and what doesn't work. In other words, they do not have to rely on the laborious method of trial and error learning in the here and now. Instead, they can learn from others' past mistakes already made historically. I hope you will consider using this resource for developing a workable strategy for the Middle East and for the goals of "spreading democracy and freedom." I would recommend that you consult with Samantha Power, as well as any other academicians recommended by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and any other reputable human rights and social justice groups. Please let me know if I can help in any way with this endeavor. Sincerely, Shellie G. West, M.S. Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist Santa Barbara, California

23 Mar 2005
Duane
The sum of the matter in my eyes is this, CORPORATE CONTROL, i.e. Neocolonialism at its finest. We are the last nation on this planet who has colonies with a military presence, and the presence is safeguarding "American Interests" such as multimillion-dollar corporations. The ability to disengage from Iraq is very simple, we need to use political means with the Arab Counsel to have their support, we did not do that from the beginning, even before we invaded, and we just went in simply put. Were we to seek support for a full withdrawal from Iraq, we would have the moral responsibility to keep a force of WILLING participants in the region to help maintain the law and order for the people, that force would be organized and constructed by both the United Nations, and the League of Arab Nations counsel. I wonder how many others have thought about this as well.

22 Mar 2005
Norma
News reporting from Iraq over the past two years has clearly revealed to us that the level of violence and insecurity throughout the country is gradually growing, spreading and escalating, not abating. We’re not even maintaining the status quo, we’re losing ground. From this we can see that our continued military and corporate presence in Iraq is not only not working but is counter productive; we have created so much bad will and distrust that our continued presence is actually a destabilizing force in the country, and it will continue to be until we finally leave. No matter what changes we make in our approach, our very presence is exacerbating the problem of terrorist insurgency, and the longer we stay, it will only continue to get worse. Although many Iraqis may say they want the continued presence of troops in their country to prevent collapse into total civil war, those troops don’t have to be U.S. troops. It is only by leaving, and replacing our distrusted military and corporate presence with the neutral and respected presence of the U.N. and other regional alliances and development agencies working with the interim Iraqi government, that we can ever hope to fulfill our “moral responsibility to the Iraqi people” to bring stability, self-government and independence to their country. You have suggested a number of positive changes we should make in our current Iraq policy, such as restructuring the flow of reconstruction money, shifting our military operations to the protection of civilians, and encouraging dialog between all Iraqi parties, and you seem to think that by making these policy changes we may be able to achieve stability to the country. These are laudable suggestions, but why do you think the U.S. is the only body who can implement them? Frankly, at this point the U.S. has lost the trust and moral standing to be able to achieve the necessary healing in Iraq no matter what changes we make in our approach. We do remain responsible, however, to support financially the international institutions and agencies which can effectively implement those policy changes. When you refer to the idea of U.S. withdrawal, you use either/or terms such as, “just pack up and leave…” “withdraw all troops immediately…” “abandoning Iraqis dramatically.” I think that is misleading; by framing it in those terms you effectively discredit the idea as something that is pie-in-the-sky extremist, not to be taken seriously, could never work and would only lead to disaster. Actually I don’t think anyone is suggesting (at this point) a sudden evacuation such as what we were finally forced to do in Vietnam. Obviously our withdrawal would have to be phased, with gradual replacement by international peacekeeping forces and agencies and Iraqi forces. I urge everyone in this group to go to www.house.gov and take a serious look at Representative Lynn Woolsey's (D-CA) House Resolution (H.Con.Res.35) which calls for the President to: (1) develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq; (2) develop and implement a plan for reconstructing Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure; (3) convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership, Iraq's neighbors, the United Nations, and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq with Iraqi police and Iraqi National Guard forces; and (4) provide the Iraqi people the opportunity to completely control their internal affairs. If anyone wishes to see the passage of this congressional resolution for Iraq withdrawal, I urge you to go to www.house.gov , look up you representative, and send them an email or phone call asking them to co-sponsor this bill (H.Con.Res.35). It is currently languishing in the House Committee on Int’l Relations (you can also contact the committee members) where it will probably expire, never coming up for a vote, unless it gets broad based co-sponsorship from many representative across the U.S. (not just from the current 28 co-sponsors who are mostly from “blue” states). I leave you with these comments from a couple of conservative military analysts: "Our large, direct presence has fueled the Iraq insurgency as much as it has suppressed it," said Michael Vickers, longtime senior Central Intelligence Agency official.[5] "The end of the foreign occupation will seriously undermine the terrorists' claims that their acts of violence against Iraqis are somehow serving the interests of Iraq," according to the article "Exiting Iraq," which was published by the conservative Cato Institute. Moreover, "The occupation is counterproductive in the fight against radical Islamic terrorists and actually increases support for Osama bin Laden in Muslim communities not previously disposed to support his radical interpretation of Islam... Staying on the current course, looking at the trends, is not going to work." "We have failed. The issue is how high a price we're going to pay... Less, by getting out sooner, or more, by getting out later," said retired army lieutenant general and former director of the National Security Agency William E. Odom.

22 Mar 2005
Sheridan (Pete) Peterson
You are much too idealistic. You imagine that the Bush administration is earnest about setting up a democracy and stabalizing the country. That's the cover story. The real story is that they want a puppet like The Shah of Iran who will rule Iraq with an iron hand and follow orders from Washington. Iraq is was sovereign nation. They did not ask us to invade their country. They don't want us there any more than the Vietnamese wanted us. The the violence will only escalate. Thousands of innocent Iraqis will be killed. Look at Falluja. We totally destroyed that ancient city. Our Marines shooting women and children (I know the Marine mentality. I'm an ex-Marine.) It's wanton murder. The Iraqis hate us and that hate will escalate. Get out, I say. Get out now. The war is all about big corportations profit. pete

22 Mar 2005
Ed Sternbach
Obviously, there is no simple answer to this dilemma. The course you recommend, together with the conditions you set, is as futile as any other. To assume such changes will occur is naive. This president and his team are unlikely to ever do what is necessary or right. Remember, they have yet to admit to a single mistake. We are occupiers plain and simple. Occupiers don't make for good guests. Iraq has no Jeffersons or Madisons. Why for heaven's sake, we don't have any such statesmen any more. Iraq will have its civil war ... and, perhaps they must. In the final analysis the question is "how many American and innocent civilian lives is this misadventure worth? This is not about the size of our manly organs or the nature of our face. This is about human lives ... lost or broken. Good intentions will now not make up for failed policy. We wound up taking the scenic route out of Vietnam to achieve "Peace with honor." We achieved neither and we wasted thousands more lives in places like Cambodia in the process. Any sane person worth his/her salt would agree that the best thing to do when you make a mistake is to admit it, correct it and move on. The only way to try to bring stability to Iraq is to turn it over the U.N. and get the heck out of there ASAP. That may not work either but, at least, the American antagonists will be gone.

22 Mar 2005
Larry Freedman
Charles, I agree that it would be nice to stabilize Iraq. You state that the Iraquis want us to stay and thereby avoid a civil war. What's the evidence for this. We're there now and there's a civil war. Let the UN run a survey of the Iraq people asking them if they want us to stay. Furhermore, you state that we're there on a mandate from the UN. I don't see any substantial support coming from the UN member nations.

22 Mar 2005
Mark
I question whether a military under the direction of this administration can stabilize anything other than oil profits. If we can agree the war was a mistake, has nothing to do with liberating the Iraqis, is a step toward complete control of the middle east by the US, then how can continued US presence serve any good purpose? Avoiding a bloodbath? We ARE the bloodbath!

22 Mar 2005
E. Victor Mereski
Anyone who does not see that this war is all about oil has had the wool pulled over their eyes. Go to www.tvnewslies.org and find the article "9/11 is an expression of a deep and abiding crisis in the capitalist world -- Link" If you hit on the link, you will need Quicktime player, and you can see & listen to an on line video of about 25 mins. Ralph Schoenman gives the most comprehensive analysis of what is currently known -- but denied by all involved -- with good reason -- they should all be shot as traitors & murderers. Wake up and open your eyes.

22 Mar 2005
Charles
It's worth taking a look at the polling data posted at EPIC from Brookings Institution: http://www.epic-usa.org/Portals/1/PollResults_Brookings.pdf The piece I thought most interesting about this was the "right direction/wrong direction" question addressed on pg 2 of the poll results: A whopping majority of those who said Iraq is headed in the right direction cited three factors: Emerging democracy (23.6%) Getting rid of the past regime (20.1%) Formation of Iraqi led government (13%) Those who think the country is headed in the wrong direction cited the lack of security first (57%) and presence of occupation forces a far second (15.5%). It's consistent with people I've talked to who've done extensive interviews in the country. The attitude is yes, they want Americans to leave. Just not today. There were major protests in Baghdad this week for instance, but they weren't against the interim government or U.S. forces, they were against Zarqawi and Jordan. Everything I've read and everyone I've talked who has been there indicates that it'sa small minority that are fighting: the majority want to be able to live their lives in peace and move on with the country. In short, it seems to me that abandoning those people is a genuine betrayal -- however much I disagreed with and questioned the original justification for the war.

22 Mar 2005
BJ
Iraq has no future as a county independent or otherwise as long as it has to deal with the machinations of the Bush Administration. We should leave and let a country we have destroyed, heal and make decisions for themselves, if for no other reason than the iraqi people overwhelmingly want us to go home.

22 Mar 2005
Cristi
Americans need to take responsibility for what they did. It's like a guy offering to remodel your house when the only credentials he has is the certainty that he was meant to do construction work. He makes a terrible mess of your house. It's leaking, it's a fire hazard, it's sagging, it's coming apart. What is the honorable thing for him to do? Slink away under cover of darkness, muttering to himself, "Man, I guess I shouldn't have done that"? Or make good the damage? This is the moral (and legal) responsibility that I see. We have to fix what was done. Sure, you and I didn't agree with the war, and we were certainly given no chance to stop it, but the ones who started it need to clean up the mess. There's a problem with this, though. The neocons weren't looking to defend America or liberate anyone when they started this war, and they aren't merely hoping for "stability." They have a game-plan that shows the entire Middle East under the control of people who love America and will give them all the oil they want no matter what. They know that Muslim theocracies and dictatorships stand in the way of this. But Iraqis could very well decide that they want a Muslim theocracy--or civil war could ensure that one takes control whether the majority wants it or not. This, frankly, would be far worse that an aging, self-aggrandizing Saddam Hussein. Therefore, if we allow the neocons to stay and clean up their mess (using patriotic young Americans as their tools), they will not stay until "stability" is achieved. They will stay until an America-friendly government is achieved, or drag America through hell trying to get there. In this respect, I see Vietnam on the horizon--because they will only be howling into the wind. Worse, the longer America plays the Crusader, with evangelist ravings about its role in the world and beating up on Muslims, the more riled up and full of hatred fundamentalist Muslims--who see Christians and Jews as Satanic--get. Bush is well on his way to starting an old-fashioned Holy War. If we escape it, we'll be lucky. So there has to be a balance struck. We still need to train Iraqis, still need to get other nations involved, still need to get the UN involved, still need to actually SPEND the money on reconstruction that we promised, and we need to get serious about stepping up funding for these activities. But this day-by-day guerilla warfare absolutely has to end. It will lead to disaster in Iraq--and it will demolish our armed forces. What if someone else attacked us? Today? Could we defend ourselves?

22 Mar 2005
susan noel
When the US pulled out of Vietnam, things got better for the Vietnamese. In fact, one can now take a tour of Vietnam with tour companies. It is arrogance & greed that lead people to believe Iraq will not be able to "make it" on their own. The area is the "cradle of civilization" after all. I say "get the US out of Iraq immediately."

22 Mar 2005
Tom Laney
Why is it always so easy to get in but not out? Clinton murdered 1.5 million innocent Iraqis and the Bushs have done in maybe a quarter of a million including nearly 2000 of our own troops. What makes you think this government is interested in helping anyone but the militarist profiteers? 40 million Americans now live in poverty as millions of our jobs are exported under the smoke of this war. VFP should initiate a call for every American still working to slow down until our troops and their jobs come home.

22 Mar 2005
Phil Dynan
Perhaps Charles, like the 50% who don't want to leave Iraq ARE just idealistic. Maybe they haven't studied history. At any rate, I do respect their opinions. But I see it as ignorance of other cultures, greed for oil, and overwhelming arrogance for the US to stay in Iraq. For those who feel "guilty" or imagine we have any kind of moral responsibility, why not try just sending money - your money, not mine. Sending our children is insane.

22 Mar 2005
Brooke
I must agree with Sheridan Peterson. How can we really export democracy? Our own "democracy" is not a democracy. At best it is a kind of corporate oligarchy. At worst, it is a slick kind of neo-fascism that has no need of secret police: media manipulation does this policing very well, with minimal blood shed at home, perhaps more abroad, a la smear campaigns such as the release of the name of the wife of the whistle-blowing American agent. I see that the Newsweek article casually salutes the 'modernization' of Iraq and other Middle East lands. For what purpose? Who really benefits , and who loses? Perhaps it is time to see that the "better" is the enemy of the "good". Or , is it now Utopian to think in any other way than "the given"?

22 Mar 2005
M. Vincent Turner
Dear Fellow Members at VCS: My take on the Iraq War has changed dramatically after recently reading Dr. George Friedman's book, "America's Secret War". I recommend it to anyone/everyone to read. I did not support George W. Bush or his administration when the US initiated this war. I believed the Bush administration was blatantly lying to the people of our nation. They were! However, not exactly for the reasons I believed. Friedman's book gave me a whole new world view, detailing exactly why it was necessary to engage a war against Iraq. The scenario is extremely complex, which is all the more reason to read the book. As to withdrawing from Iraq, we simply cannot do that until Iraq has become a fully stabilized nation. I did not hold that view, again, until I read Friedman's book. We cannot make a quick and easy exit. There is far too much at stake. Given the facts written in "America's Secret War", we could not have afforded not to go to war in Iraq. Best regards, M. Vince Turner Boston MA

22 Mar 2005
Bill Dickinson
Charles, I understand your point about creating a void if troops were to be pulled out, but, I believe that's the best way to support our troops - they shouldn't be there in the first place; Dick Cheney, George Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the administration who created this situation deserve to fill the void in person. This is about oil, not about WMD. The lost lives, the maimed, injured, both civilian and military, are the result of a greedy, arrogant world view created by the Bush administration. It is quite disturbing to see the lack of leadership in our congress to counter the executive branch's flawed policies. I say get the troups out, now, and let the Iraqis recover. It's time. And it's time to build, rather than destroy. Regards, Bill Dickinson

22 Mar 2005
Robert
I agree with the position that we should help Iraq become stabilized before withdrawing. At the same time, I feel our resources could be put at the disposal of the people of Iraq. We should do more to assist them in their drive for independence and freedom, and not cynically engage in self-serving activities. We promised to rebuild their infrastructure – so let’s get at it! Thanks.