Iraq's winning vote

[run_to_win]

In the Washington Post...

Iraq's Winning Vote
Elections strengthen secular moderates who seek to curb Iran's influence. Will President Obama support them?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009; A16


IRAQ'S FIRST postwar election four years ago was mostly a procedural victory: Iraqis sent a message to the world by turning out en masse despite intimidation from al-Qaeda and the pervasive threat of violence. Last weekend's vote, which occurred during one of the calmest periods Iraq has experienced since the U.S. invasion, was a political triumph. Though results are still preliminary, they show that voters strongly rewarded Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his forceful action against extremist militias and his secular nationalist agenda -- and punished religious parties perceived as too sectarian or too close to Iran. The nonsectarian alliance of former prime minister Ayad Allawi also appears to have done well, and nationalist Sunnis gained influence in areas where they had lacked it because of previous election boycotts. In short, Iraq appears to have taken a step toward becoming the moderate Arab democracy that the Bush administration long hoped for.

Read the rest...

Iraq appears to be becoming just what was intended.  President Obama wants most troops out within a year ..... so then what? 

You know that as soon as we pull out, whenever that may be - all hell is going to break loose. Thugocracies cannot compete against freedom and prosperity of the masses.  They need oppression, poverty and fear.

Are we close enough to the goal, a stable and self-sustainable Iraq, that it's worth more time? 

Should we pull out in a year and allow Iraq to sink or swim on their own?

Do we take a middle path and keep enough troops behind to help quell any uprising? 

[Tenshot13]

Can't we just bomb them and forget about it?

[Dave Gray]

You know that as soon as we pull out, whenever that may be - all hell is going to break loose.

I agree.  Even if we're there for 100 years, it won't be fixed.

Are we close enough to the goal, a stable and self-sustainable Iraq, that it's worth more time? 

No.

Should we pull out in a year and allow Iraq to sink or swim on their own?

Probably yes. 

Do we take a middle path and keep enough troops behind to help quell any uprising? 

Probably you do the minimum.  You don't want your allies to raped and slaughtered on day one, but you have to set your goal to remove total interest from the area.


I feel about this how I feel about the homeless situation.  Staying and helping is the equivalent of "giving them a dollar".  It keeps them from hitting rock bottom.   ...or Iraq bottom, if you will.