No question about it. You started it, and you have managed to provoke and exacerbate the violence every step of the way. (By “you”, of course I mean the collective you.)

“…what if the slaughter does get worse without the US there?”

It will surprise nearly everyone in the U.S. to learn that the single greatest cause of Iraqi deaths are the foreign fighters of the United States military. That is what the authors of both of the Johns Hopkins/Al Mustansiriya mortality studies (aka “Lancet study”) found. In the second study they found that around one third of the 655,000 excess Iraqi deaths were caused directly by the United States military. And that was a conservative figure since they did not include a death in that count if there was any doubt at all on the part of the reporting family as to the cause (for example, if the death took place during a firefight between the U.S. and resistance fighters, they were sometimes not certain whether it was the U.S. or the resistance that actually killed the person, and in that case it would not be put in the category of caused directly by the U.S.).

A large proportion of Iraqi deaths are caused during firefights or battles by those who are fighting against the U.S. These deaths, while not directly caused by the U.S. ARE directly attributable to the U.S. presence, and would not happen if the U.S. were not there. (This is called “collateral damage” when the U.S. is the killer. When the resistance is the killer, it is called terrorism and/or murder.)

Another major cause of Iraqi death that can be attributed directly to the U.S. presence is strikes by the resistance in which the target is the occupation (either occupation forces, or proxies, agents, and collaborators) in which Iraqis are killed. Ditto as to my earlier collateral damage vs terrorism/murder remark.

Deaths directly attributable to the U.S. presence almost certainly constitute significantly more than 50% of all deaths.

The U.S. military is directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of the destruction. This is not surprising, of course, considering their capacity for destructive force, not to mention their willingness to use it on just about any pretext (including, by the way, collective punishment for all kinds of things, including not giving them information they are just sure you have about “insurgents”).

According to the study released last month by Global Policy Forum, the United States military has flattened or rendered uninhabitable major portions of twelve Iraqi cities, Falluja, a city about the size of Cincinnati being the best known. That also makes the U.S. military directly responsible for at least one million Iraqis who are permanently displaced because they have no more homes to go back to.

Therefore, in order to justify the notion that the violence will increase without the U.S there, you have to assume that if the U.S. leaves those who are left there would be capable of more violence than the U.S. military and the legitimate resistance – that is, those who are directly targeting the occupation – combined.

As you think about this bear in mind that the people who are expected to commit more violence than that caused directly by the U.S. military and by those who are resisting the occupation – that is, more than 50% of the current violence – do not have even a tiny fraction of the death-and-destruction-dealing equipment, technology, and firepower that the U.S. military possesses, and has used. For starters, they do not have tanks, they do not have the kinds of weapons that are typically found on tanks, they do not have humvees and apc’s with mounted large-caliber automatic weapons, they do not have missiles, they do not have attack helicopters, they do not have bombers, they do not have any kind of aerial firepower at all. Therefore, the capability simply is not there to replace the amount and magnitude of violence the U.S. is directly responsible for. Add to that the violence not directly caused by the U.S., but directly attributable to U.S. presence, and you can see how unlikely this doomsday scenario is, just from a practical point of view.

In addition, the belief that the violence would increase if the U.S. were not there requires the clearly very questionable assumption that the U.S. is doing anything to quell the violence. The evidence points quite clearly in the opposite direction. In fact, polls have consistently shown that Iraqis understand very well that the U.S. does far more to cause violence and death than it does to prevent it., and that the overwhelming majority believe that the violence would lessen, not increase, if the U.S. leaves.

Add to that the fact that it really is in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis to go back to what they have done successfully for millennia – living together with at least a reasonable degree of normalcy. The fact that, in this atmosphere of ethnic (or rather sectarian) cleansing, Sunni and Shi`a families facing ethnic cleansing have managed to devise a system whereby they can exchange homes (and furniture, and all the accoutrements of a household) temporarily in order to live, for the time being, in the “right” neighbourhood, speaks volumes about the true nature of Iraqi society as well as its future if left to its own devices.

Certainly, Iraq would not suddenly turn into Shangri-la, or become the Switzerland of the Middle East as soon as the Americans left. However, there is absolutely no chance of any improvement as long as the U.S. is there. In fact, as the past four plus years have shown clearly, as long as the U.S. is there, the violence will continue to escalate, and the overall situation will continue to deteriorate.

Give Iraq a chance. Get out now, and get out completely. Iraqis will invite you back as their guests once you learn how to behave.

It is clear that everyone seems to be of one ‘relative’ mind on where things are at. The debate is on why things have happened and where things will go.

Jerome’s criticism of the two party system is well placed. Unfortunately limited liberty is lack of liberty so the Libertarian Party hasn’t found the answer, but I guess its baby steps!

Shirin again has kindly highlighted that the Democrats are no closer to pulling out of Iraq than the Republicans, this is because both are in place to “secure Americas interests” and pulling out of Iraq would desimate America’s interests.

Wethornet talked of an escalation to martial law. I personally believe that Dems were in on every move the Reps have made. Hitler went through due process to elect himself dictator. I think there are enough Bush clones to guaratee everlasting synergy, so dictatorship is not necessary in America. Oprah Winfrey has been spending a lot of time demonstrating all men are rapists and women are vulnerable (and brave at the same time) and continually bashed. Bill Clinton was shaping up to engage moral blitzkreig until he was unfortunately caught with his pants down in the Whitehouse. Hillary (one of questionable moral character) will continue the campaign with a vengeance.

America is about to be at war with herself if she is not careful.

You know, I don’t buy the Bushie hype that Iraq will go to hell in a handbasket if we pull out. Because our presence is fueling the violence. But, what if the slaughter does get worse without the US there? I’m not arguing for staying. But the US created this mess. Reparations may not be enough if the slaughter continues.

Well – sigh! – I was sort of hoping for something that would forestall the need to use the embassy roof as an escape point! You know, like getting the hell completely out before the POI’s kick you out. Guess THAT was a pipe dream.

If we pull out all the troops, then there won’t be any post-surge strategy. The Dems and Bushies need something to bargain with. [sarcasm mine]

There’s a reason voting isn’t enough. It just doesn’t add up to 100% Really! Want proof?
It’s simple arithmetic.

Just assign a number to each letter of the alphabet starting with a=1, b=2 etc. and ending with z=26 By this simple formula, V-O-T-I-N-G only adds up to a pathetic also-ran of only 87%. As Wilson Pickett said, “99 and a half, just won’t do”. 87 of course, isn’t even that good.

T-A-L-K-I-N-G is even less, at a C-minus grade of only 74%. While this may get you through Yale, and on to be the president, the missing 26% will surely lead to disaster. Do I need to provide examples? My apologies to anyone named Shirley.

Maybe it’s time to take action. How about killing? Wrong! K-I-L-L-I-N-G, still at 74% is no improvement at all over talking. A more positive form of action is hard work. Unfortunately, H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K all by itself is still just a little short at 98%.

Something’s missing.

The answer, of course, is KICKING ASS !!!
K-I-C-K-I-N-G-A-S-S not only gets you there, it puts you above and over the top with a comfortable margin at 103% !!!

So the solution is obvious; contact your senators and representatives often, and let them know in no uncertain terms that they need to be KICKING ASS !!!

“(a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.–The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

- This clearly refers to the commencement, not completion of the reduction within 120 days.

- It does not specify or imply that it is combat troops that are to be reduced.

- It does not specify the size of the reduction.

“(c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.–After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:”

Limited presence of an unspecified number of troops is, unfortunately, not a full withdrawal.

And this puts the power to decide how many troops to “deploy or maintain” right back into the hands of the Administration. There is also nothing here to prevent the Administration from having another lovely “surge” as long as they manage to technically stay with the prescribed “missions”.

“(1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure.”

That means protecting the Regional Imperial Command and Control Center – aka “mega embassy” in Baghdad. It also means the permanent military bases that were one of the main goals of the invasion from the beginning. In other words, it means continuing the agenda of establishing a permanent, and controlling presence in Iraq.

Protecting United States personnel and infrastructure could also include something that looks, walks, and quacks an awfully lot like combat.

“2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces.”

Logistic support certainly does not close the door to a combat role.

“3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations.”

What is that, if not combat? Same old “house to house”, same old checkpoints, same old patrols, same old aerial attacks, just with an unspecified reduced number of forces. And same old mass detentions, same old “enhanced interrogation techniques”, aka torture.

And same old pissed off Iraqis struggling to expel the occupier, aka “insurgents”.

“(d) Completion of Transition.–The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) by April 30, 2008.”

This is obviously not a complete withdrawal. It is, in fact, an unspecified reduction. Technically, it could be no more than a minuscule, symbolic reduction.

Leslie, I really was hoping that my understanding was wrong. Unfortunately, it was not. This Amendment may have some significance for domestic politics, but it does very little for the troops, and even less for Iraq and Iraqis.

I am disappointed. I was hoping you had it right.