Home > Iraq News > Or Maybe It Wouldn’t Explode

Or Maybe It Wouldn’t Explode

November 17th, 2007

You know, all of us are assuming that Iraq would explode in violence were we to completely pull out. The main difference is that conservatives cling to the belief that should we stay, maybe after 5 or 10 years, we could stabilize the nation enough that it would become a democratic stronghold, and we could have bases there, cheaper oil, etc. etc., while liberals believe that Iraq will explode whether we stay there one more month or one more decade, and our staying there will only have the effect of getting our soldiers killed without much hope of any positive outcome.

But are we missing the target again? After all, before 9/11, we all believed that Saddam had at least some WMD; it’s just that conservatives thought Iraq was brimming with ’em, and would have nukes soon, while liberals believed that Hussein just had some chemical and bio weapons stashed somewhere, left over from a while back, but not enough to be a threat, nothing he would share with terrorists, and Hussein could be contained like he had been for a decade before.

But almost all of us missed the mark: Hussein had zip, nothing.

What if we were wrong about Iraq exploding in violence? This from a British general:

Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday.

The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad’s Green Zone.

“We thought, ‘If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?’” Binns said.

What if we go further, and think beyond just attacks on our troops? What if the U.S. pulling out were enough to bring some stability? What if the violence subsides between the now-segregated communities, and the different groups work out a plan for dividing the country’s wealth and find a way to create an uneasy truce?

The only thing for certain is that whatever happens, however it happens, to Bush’s 25% core base, and to much of the media (which tends to follow his base’s lead), everything positive that comes out of the conflict will be a credit to Bush, and everything negative will be the fault of the Democrats. After all, their thinking is that the economic boom of the 90’s was more Reagan’s & Bush 41’s than Clinton’s, and virtually everything bad that happened on Bush’s watch, up until and including today, is Clinton’s fault. Hell, just today, Fox Noise blamed Nancy Pelosi for high oil prices, as if she and not Bush had everything to do with it. Rather astounding, the level to which it goes. So, if a Democrat wins the election and is able to pull out the troops, the right wing will assault the move as “cutting and running” by the “Defeatocrats”; if Iraq falls apart, that will be the Democrats’ fault, but if Iraq instead stabilizes because of our withdrawal, it will be all due to Bush’s genius.

That part is easy to predict with 100% certainty.

Categories: Iraq News Tags: by
  1. November 17th, 2007 at 20:09 | #1

    I think you have something there, although the conflict in Iraq might continue if the Western powers pulled out, with the Saudis supporting the Sunnis and Iran backing the Shiites. But they are already doing that now, so there would be little difference except Westerners would be in the middle.

  2. November 17th, 2007 at 20:10 | #2

    make that: “NO Westerners would be in the middle.”

Comments are closed.