That's a fair point, but easily alleviated if the Coalition were required to pay for peacekeeping upfront as part of the reparations.
I agree that could be done, but it is unlikely to happen. We can't get accurate assessments right now of how much the total cost will be, so how would that be calculated? And the total sum would be enormous. How would we be able to pay for it in one lump sum?
But barring those practical issues, if we had that arranged and UN troops in place I would totally be for the immediate withdrawal of US troops.
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.
I'm not sure if that is true if you exclude casualties of the war. From what I understood at this point Iraqis are being killed less by "us" than "them". If you have figures I am open to seeing them.
It seems bizarre to me that you think the best way of avoiding the violence in Iraq is by maintaining its principal cause.
It is bizarre to me that you view violence in Iraq as being caused by the presence of the coalition. You are aware that Iraq has been fighting wars and insurgencies for well over twenty years, right?
While I agree that Islamic fundies like AQ have dimensions of regional autonomy (aka remove US presence), that is hardly going to be the sole generator of violence and instability within Iraq. If you believe that when we leave the violence will start decreasing, you seem to be turning your back on the history of Iraq as well as current issues facing the different groups.
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.
First, I agree that permanent bases should not be established there, so we can put that to rest now. Our continued presence until a new gov't is securely in place does not demand that, and indeed would be a very bad sign if our troops stayed there after security is achieved.
Second, I am not arguing that Iraqis are too violent to govern themselves. That's like saying that all the violence and Chaos in NO after Katrina proves Americans are too violent to govern themselves.
What I am arguing is they are presently in a condition of a power vacuum, compounded with great poverty and lack of infrastructure to deal with security concerns. And unlike the US, they do have greater internal divisions (those that would like independce from Iraq) as well as foreign elements interested in keeping Iraq destabilized who are able to infiltrate almost at will.
That means anyone who can do anything to help them keep things relatively stable until an Iraqi gov't can secure the nation for Iraqis, should be helping.
If I believed they were too violent to rule themselves I wouldn't agree to an eventual end to our occupation.
So please let's end that line of argument as well.
Stick to the facts. Is Iraq in a crisis situation regarding infrastructure and security forces? If so, who is best placed to help with those issues until Iraqi resources are in place? And who has the moral and legal duty to do so? If coalition troops leave will violence end and a new Iraqi gov't come into power faster and easier, than if troops stayed?
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2