Getting out of Iraq is easy...

[JackRiddler]

... well, it might be. No plan is without risks.

Apologize for the lies. Apologize for the invasion and resultant death and destruction. Apologize to the soldiers and their families. Expose everything about the decision-making process that led to the invasion of Iraq. Everyone involved at the policy level resigns and faces a criminal investigation.

Admit that there is nothing for the occupation to "fix." The soldiers are not the criminals here, but they are the tools, whether unwilling or not, of a criminal policy - a policy of theft and arson. Thieves and arsonists are not generally asked to "fix" the house in which they have stolen, burned and killed. The house MIGHT be made safe, but only once they have left.

Every day the occupation stays in place only makes things worse for the Iraqis, and makes a civil war MORE likely after the invasion is reversed, not less likely. The best time to have averted the danger of an Iraqi civil war was obviously before the invasion, not now. Now the result may well be chaos in Iraq, but that is a result of the invasion, not its failure. Nothing about American policy is working to stabilize Iraqi conditions. The intent of that policy is in subjugating Iraq to the interests of a tiny elite that isn't even fully American, but transnational.

Pledge to have all US military personnel out, without exception, in three months. Invite an international force of peacekeepers.

Call an international convention to cancel all Iraqi foreign debts.Pledge to pay $80 billion in reparations (the cost of a single year's worth of the war) to a freely elected, democratic government of a unified Iraq - with the country being divided into many regional electoral districts so that all regions are represented, not like the farce of an election just held in which there was only one district for the whole country. The money is paid once such a government has been in power under peaceful conditions for six months. After that, no strings. The elected government of the Iraqi people decides.

If that pledge had been made BEFORE the invasion, odds are high that by now Saddam would have been removed and a genuine election held. This would have cost taxpayers a quarter of what has already been spent in destroying Iraq.

We can only hope such a plan works, and that Iraq does not descend into an even worse bloodbath. The first step is to stop creating the conditions for bloodbath and getting the fuck out of their country.

Pretending that continuing the invasion against the wishes of the Iraqi majority in the hope of "fixing" things will NOT work. It is an illusion. Better to give them a chance to come to peace with each other than to continue to stir things up with our bombs, corporate plunder schemes, death squads (yes, they have been activated), local cronies, military bases and checkpoints.

American forces can be withdrawn now, with a chance for peace, stability, healing and forgiveness.

Or we can wait to see how well-fixed things are on the day when many of the Iraqis fooled into supporting US policy crowd around the last US helicopter out of the Green Zone, as the latest Ayatollah created by US policy blowback comes to power.

Discuss.

[paula777]

1. Sociopaths aren't big on apologizing n/t

[JackRiddler]

2. that's not really my point

I am directing this to those well-meaning Americans (and DUers) who may have opposed the invasion but have now fallen into the trap of "gee, golly, now we're there," (note: the WE is the trap), "so we gotta live up to the responsibility and stay there until it's all fixed."

A Democrat could come to power and use that logic to stay in Iraq. Democrats and Republicans alike used that logic for the 20 years of the US intervention and invasion of Indochina.

[paula777]

3. Oh I agree with what your saying ....

many have fallen for the 'we broke it now we have to fix it'. There most likely will be a civil war in Iraq and we will be blamed if we leave now (or in 3 / 6 months) - HOWEVER I think there will be a civil war there anyway -us being there is just delaying the inevitable.

[ladjf]

4. How about just packing up and leaving? What's wrong with

that?

[JackRiddler]

5. Nothing

That's what I'm suggesting, and describing it in a way that has the best chance of actually improving the situation in Iraq, and in the United States.

[ContraBass Black]

6. You can't be serious.

Do you honestly think that any of this might happen?

[JackRiddler]

7. that's not the point either

What should those who oppose the policy be fighting for?

Withdrawal, and the principle that US forces should be for defending the US, not shaping the world?

Or a kinder, gentler, more competent occupation?

Against the former, many have fallen into the trap of believing the US forces can and should "fix" anything in Iraq, and so end up supporting the occupation.

And yes, I do think it's possible. It starts by insisting on the point that the invasion was predicated on lies and that the liars must be exposed.

[ContraBass Black]

8. It also requires a concession from the liars.

That, we're not going to have.

[JackRiddler]

9. that, we might potentially force...

I don't think things are hopeless.

Dollar crisis & continuing disaster in Iraq & RW "Christian" over-reach

create opening for rather dramatic stumbles and revelations about war crimes, lies... above all 9/11.

This can shift the whole paradigm and have these all-powerful twits on the run.

Or what do you suggest?