holmes writes:
We can't simply pull out and hope there will be a replacement, or with the promise that one will be coming when we leave.
The problem is that there is no interest at the UN for a massive UN peacekeeping force to replace caolition forces, and perhaps rightfully so. Members are worried that such a move would put a UN sanction on the war since they are doing nothing to punish the US and taking over duties would relieve us of our legal burden.
After all the US could easily leave stating the UN is taking over and then pull the plug on assistance to that effort. We are already screwing the UN on debts and lambasting their independence from US control... which is another reason the UN is unlikely to be fielding a replacement team anytime soon.
That's a fair point, but easily alleviated if the Coalition were required to pay for peacekeeping upfront as part of the reparations.
holmes writes:
Nice try, but that won't work on me. The WMD claim was bizarre and stretched at best. The idea that there are violent groups and sectarian opposition which could result in more chaos and perhaps civil war is not.
I have never argued that the US and UK are the only ones in the world who could ever do the job until an Iraqi force is in place. My argument has been that it is our legal duty, and we are the only force in the region capable of doing the job.
If this is not the case, then please present evidence.
I disagree. The coalition have killed more civilians than the resistance and in fact lead the way when it comes to direct cause of civilian death. Second, I believe, are the (mainly foreign) Jihadis who go for the spectacular suicide bombings, with the anti-coalition resistance coming in third. The incidences of suicide attacks will likely dry up after the occupation, according to a study (see here for interview with author
http://amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html).
It seems bizarre to me that you think the best way of avoiding the violence in Iraq is by maintaining its principal cause.
I'm not saying that all will be peachy creamy post pullout, but many of the most violent areas of Iraq have shown a tendency to self-govern. Plus, at present, many people are scared of working in Governmental positions because of the fear they might be seen as collaborators.
And yes, this Iraqis are too violent to govern themselves crapola is very much like the WMD fiasco. Maybe more insidious, less overt, but a carefully fostered and deliberate falsehood by those who want the world to turn a blind eye to the permanent bases that are being built.
I didn't post much in the way of (linky) evidence because I don't think its in dispute. If any of it is, let me know.
PE
™ Version 4.2