Hi Gang:

Let's suppose that Congress passes enough resolutions and takes enough actual action to force Bush to get us out of Iraq...

what then???

Do we actually leave Iraq???

Do we only withdraw to the outskirts of Iraq???

Do we withdraw to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia???

Do we actually bring all of our troops home???

Do we actually have a plan to do any of the above ideas???

Once the spit hits the fan ,
when we get out,
what happens to our access to Middle East Oil???

I don't hear anyone out there with any answers to any of these questions.

Do you???

hippolips

Why ask if "anyone" has answers? The consequences of the invasion, for Iraq and for US oil supplies, should have been thought through by those who ordered it. They didn't bother; they were carried away by lunatic neo-con dreams of "liberation".

'AMY GOODMAN: And the argument that they will just descend into civil war and that the sectarian violence will increase, and the U.S. went in and now has a responsibility not the leave a mess?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, I mean, the Germans could have given the same argument in occupied Europe, the Russians in the satellites, the Japanese in Asia, and so on. Yeah, they could have all given the same argument: well, we went in, and now we have a responsibility to ensure that terrible things don't happen, and so on. And the argument had some validity. So, when the Germans were driven out of France, let's say, there were thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people killed by -- as collaborators, and in Asia, even more so. But is that an argument for them? No. It’s none of their business.

We don't know what will happen, and it’s not our decision to make. It’s the decision of the victims to make, not our decision. Occupying armies have no right to make the decision. We could have an academic seminar about it, in which we could discuss the likely consequences. But the point is it’s not for us to say. Well, until that enters into the discussion, and the critical issues of the war, like what right do we have to invade in the first place, enter into the discussion, the media and the journalism and so on are simply part of the government propaganda system, as I say, like a high school newspaper or like Pravda during the Afghanistan war.' www.democracynow.org

And, anyway, many are discussing the consequences of withdrawal. They're also discussing the possibly disastrous consequences of staying or "surging" - Sen. Obama: Iraq withdrawal should begin in 2007. It's a quagmire. Bush & Co. have created such a mess, that any action, or non-action, will have dire consequences.

The dangers you list are already in motion. Things have been getting steadily worse since the day we invaded. The risk to our future is increasing daily as it is. bush has unleashed a tragedy beyond words, for which there is no good solution. But many people knowledgeable in the area believe that only when the US begins withdrawing will the parties in the region actually face the potiential for conflagration and realize they can't afford to let it happen. As long as the US is spending its blood and dollars there, why should they? In fact, the weaker it makes us, the happier they are. (which is why the argument that leaving emboldens our enemies is so weak: this war is the best thing that ever happened as far as al Queda is concerned. The longer we stay, the happier they are: the better it is for them.) And as we devote all our resources to this incredibly destructive mistake, we are less able actually to respond to the world-wide threat of terrorism. And we should continue it because of oil???

If the US withdraws from Iraq there will be millions of Iraqi refugees inside Iraq and also outside it destabilising neighbouring countries, law and order will break down, the infrastructure will lie unrepared, there will be scores of deaths every week, US personnel will die pointlessly, the US will be hated or mistrusted by the people of the big oil-producing countries...

Oh, wait. No, that's what's happening with the US not withdrawing. If the US withdraws, things could be much the same - but, particularly if the architects of the invasion are dumped from power, the US might have a shot at redeeming its good name, and thus, maybe, ensuring supplies of what oil is left in the Middle East for the next decade or so.

One way to improve the situation in Iraq would be to encourage the self-interest its neighbours have in calming things there. I gather this can't be done because Dick Cheney has said 'no'.

(Going back to the first post, I think most people suggest the troops withdrawing to Kuwait. They can't be stationed in Saudi because Osama Bin Laden demanded that they not be, and the Bush family does whatever the Bin Laden family wants... oh, wait [again]. I'm beginning to sound like kathaksung.)

Just a quote in passing. (Don't you wish more people were aware of Dr Johnson and thought like him when events like Iraq are in the offing?):

" Among the calamities of war may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages " The Idler no. 30, 11th November 1758

All of those questions assume that Iraq was a war worth fighting in the first place. If we get out of Iraq, it should be a complete and total withdrawal. If there's any cleanup work left to be done it should be by other nations, and we should completely pay the bill! Our punishment for electing the wrong president I guess...

"I don't hear anyone out there with any answers to any of these questions."

Because you're assuming that it was our war to start, so we must be able to end it. It's impossible for the U.S. to finish this war.