Or the refugees could just go to Mexico, then walk across our border like everyone else.
Stephen | Homepage | 06.29.07 - 10:47 pm | #

"Let the Iraqis kill each other, but let the occupying power get out, because they are not killing each other because they are Sunni or Shiite, but because they are with the Americans or against the Americans," said Chaldean Catholic Bishop Ibrahim N. Ibrahim.

If they are killing each other because of the Americans, would they stop killing each other when the Americans left? He says to let them kill each other, but wouldn't they stop if the only reason were the Americans? He knows the situation better than I ever could, but I don't know if the Americans leaving is going to solve anything.
Jason | 06.29.07 - 11:18 pm | #

Jason: The problem of the Americans being an impetus and rallying-banner for various factions would go away, and I think that's the point.

American troops are doing NOTHING to stop the violence. Period. Iraq is ripping itself apart, and the only thing the presence of American troops does is provide more targets for the violence, and one more inspiration for anger. I think our Bishop is saying that we need to take the gasoline off of the fire; the flames may still burn, but they won't have so much fuel to feed from.

The plain fact is that the very life of a Catholic Church, the ancient Chaldean Church, depends on the fire burning itself out. The Bishop knows this better than anyone.

Peace and God bless!
Ghosty | 06.30.07 - 1:44 am | #

scroll down to "Interesting insight into the workings of the Bush's mind" and remember what Bob Novak wrote about The Decider...

As he nears the end of a troubled presidency, Bush as a man of faith places the plight of the religious in unfree countries at the top of his agenda.

...and then try to explain to yourself how that assertion matches-up with reality.

The reality is Bush doesn't give a whit (and by whit I mean something else) about a tiny religious minority, Christians, in Iraq.

He doesn't ever speak about them. He doesn't try and protect them.

You'd think Bush could post a few pregnant private Patty's outside Catholic Churches to protect the ones who have not fled Iraq, but, nope. He stands idly by and lets them be slaughtered.

Two-thirds of Christian Catholics have fled Iraq since we invaded and made the place safe for Sharia Law.

Talk about creative destruction.
I'm not Spartacus | 06.30.07 - 7:08 am | #

Once again we see another example of how the US Government solves problems. It makes things worse. Reagans adage, the most feared words in the English language are " We're from the Federal Government and we're to help you " also applies to the rest of the world. God save us from the messiahs of secular power!
Anonymous | 06.30.07 - 10:16 am | #

Re: Jason

He knows the situation better than I ever could, but I don't know if the Americans leaving is going to solve anything.

I can assure you it won't. There may be some truth to the perception that they are "naturally" allied to us, yet without our protection, may be the pretext for the persecution. But it's exactly that; a pretext.

If we leave, they'll still be the small group that the Islamo-fascists can claim to be allied with the west, with no protection. At that point, even a jizya will be of no protection; they will remain a group that it is "O.K." to kill in Iraq and through the Middle East, and the Islamist gov't that takes over there if we leave will do so with gusto.
Steven Cornett | 06.30.07 - 12:12 pm | #

"But Bishop Ibrahim said he does not believe the Muslims killing and threatening Christians are from either of Iraq's two Muslim groupings – Shiites or Sunnis – but rather al-Qaida terrorists from outside Iraq."

It sounds to me like the real problem for the Iraqi Christians is the al-Qaida terrorists. I wonder how they plan to get rid of them if the US leaves?
Judith M. | 06.30.07 - 1:45 pm | #

" I wonder how they plan to get rid of them if the US leaves?"

That's the big question and one that is unanswered by some of our political leaders and presidential wannabees who are calling for a withdrawl (some are calling for an immediate withdaw) of US troops from Iraq.

I would like to know their plan for al Qaeda in Iraq if our troops withdraw. Do our leaders think al Qaeda will quietly go away once our troops are out.

We know too clearly what happens when such things are not planned out ahead of time...take the current situation in Iraq following our invasion.
dpt | 06.30.07 - 1:57 pm | #

"I wonder how they plan to get rid of them if the US leaves?"

Are you kidding? Surrender is the plan, of course, not only in Iraq but worldwide. That's the Democrat plan for us overseas, and anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something.
Steven Cornett | 06.30.07 - 2:03 pm | #

Lets all remember there was no al Qaeda problem in Iraq when Saddam was in power. Saddam allowed Christian and Jewish religious practice and kept the Osama types out. The presence of US troops is the magnet that attracts al Qaeda according to our own government. We're supposed to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, remember? What an act of charity! Make another country a war zone for Islamic terrorism and then claim that the intention is to help those same people! Isn't war wonderful!!!! If the USA gets out, the Iraqis will get rid of al Qaeda themselves.
Anonymous | 06.30.07 - 3:52 pm | #

That's utter nonsense. There is absolutely no guarantee that Iraq will end up with another strong secular dictatorship hostile to Al Qaeda (except when it served their purposes) that will kick them out to consolidate their own power. Much more likely Iraq will either a) devolve into a state of permanent chaos and civil war in which Al Qaeda will thrive (much like Afghanistan was, and still is to some extent) or b) set up a theocratic government which at the very least will have common purpose with Al Qaeda.

Thinking we can restore the status quo ante just by leaving is delusional. When a vase is shattered, does it magically reassemble itself if the person who breaks it walks away? Hardly.
Anonymous | 06.30.07 - 4:39 pm | #

This, incidentally, is the biggest problem with the anti-war left: they might as well be camped out on Pluto when it comes to understanding the consequences of pulling out. That isn't necessarily to say that we shouldn't pull out, but if should it is because it is the less bad of two horrific options, not because it will bring peace and stability to the region. It won't. It will bring more bloodshed and instability, perhaps even a region-wide war. The only reason we should go is if that is inevitable and/or our being there will only aggravate things in the long run.
Anonymous | 06.30.07 - 4:43 pm | #

Who said anything about restoring the status quo? The idiots who brought the war to the Iraqi people are hardly the ones to trust about building Iraqs future. It may be hell on earth there for decades to come, but that is for the people of Iraq to sort out not the US government. This is what the Bishop seems to be saying.
Anonymous | 06.30.07 - 4:52 pm | #

The big problem with the pro-war right is that they seem to be camped out on Pluto when it comes to starting wars and predicting the consequences. Have any of their predictions come true? Is the Vatican part of the anti-war left?
Anonymous | 06.30.07 - 4:57 pm | #

Re: Anonymous

I know you are, but that's the only thing I do know about you. I'm not camped out on Pluto when predicting the consequences of cut and run, which seems to be what you are advocating.

I can tell you exactly what it will be, from look at my history book on the end of Vietnam and the my "telescope on Earth." I can tell you it will involve many dead people, a dictatorship that will oppress many, and terrorism brought home to this country.

The solution is victory, or at least stability.
Steven Cornett | 06.30.07 - 5:03 pm | #

Anonymous appears to have a split personality, both ardently pro and anti war.

Perhaps Anonymous might care to use a handle.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 06.30.07 - 5:26 pm | #

Steven C
I am not anti-war left, I'm in favor of war when it is justified. You fear many dead people if the USA withdraws. Did you fear the same when we went in? If you were part of the pro-war right I doubt that mattered at all. The concern on the part of the war mongers is not fear for lives lost, but for a humiliating strategic defeat. The disaster of Vietnam should have taught us that Iraq would follow a similar pattern, but our present day leaders avoided duty in Vietnam and live in the United States of Alzheimers.
Dave K | 06.30.07 - 7:37 pm | #

Re: Dave

If you mean that traitorous politicians, Hollyweird types, and fellow travelers in the MSM would try to spin us to defeat if the war lasted sufficiently long enough, then yes, it certainly does follow the pattern of Vietnam, doesn't it. Cindy Sheehan certainly doesn't have the sex-kitten quality of Hanoi Jane, but she was served the cause well enough.

As for our leaders, the ones in Congress may well be senile, since they are trying to relive their 70's glory which they purchased through the blood of millions when they defunded aid to Vietnam and sold them down the river.
They would love nothing better than to do it to Iraq if they could, and make no mistake, if they succeed Afganistan will be next.
Steven Cornett | 06.30.07 - 9:25 pm | #

"... they purchased through the blood of millions when they defunded aid to Vietnam and sold them down the river."

Perhaps add Nixon and Kissinger to that list. Their deal with Mao included selling Vietnam down the river. Or so I've read. And under whose administration did Vietnam finally go under?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.01.07 - 2:42 am | #

I've got to drink a bit of soda water, because comic book versions of history can result in a bit of heartburn.

A Viennnese aphorist named Karl Kraus wrote that wars start when diplomats tell lies to journalists, and then believe what they read.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.01.07 - 2:45 am | #

"... fellow travelers in the MSM "

Pray every day for the conversion of the Politburo.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.01.07 - 2:52 am | #

http://features.us.reuters.com/d...52.html? src=cms

Try staying here, above:
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.01.07 - 2:57 am | #

"Perhaps add Nixon and Kissinger to that list. Their deal with Mao included selling Vietnam down the river. Or so I've read. And under whose administration did Vietnam finally go under?"

This is tragically true. And when the boat people were fleeing, thousands and thousands imprisoned, and the killing fields in Cambodia flowing with blood, we witnessed the fall of a couple "dominos" yet the ardent peace movement in the US was silent.
dpt | 07.01.07 - 12:52 pm | #

And under whose administration did Vietnam finally go under?

Functionally, Carl Albert's. Had the House permitted Ford to execute the policy that he had, The RVN could be around today.
Ed the Roman | 07.01.07 - 9:03 pm | #

"Functionally, Carl Albert's. Had the House permitted Ford to execute the policy that he had, The RVN could be around today."

If you say so, Ed. I wasn't there myself, nor do I know anything about Ford's policy, but it seems to me that August 1974 and following was a bit late in the game, eh?

The US never loses wars or comes to a stalemate for lack of military potential, but we have our political weaknesses. If the government fails to mobilize the populace, fails to demonstrate that it has a survival interest in the outcome, we have problems.

*Never* tell the people that they're engaged in a war for civilization, and then tell them to go out and shop. I mention this as an example of a wider, deeper problem.

The concept of sacrifice seems mostly confined to the military these days, with some civilian sectors as exceptions. I am in awe of people who rush into burning buildings. There are some others.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.02.07 - 12:59 pm | #

Pavel, it was late in the game from a calendar standpoint, but until the House of Representatives banned giving the RVN even a cup of coffee, the ARVN was doing better and better.

The Congressional majority at the time comprised people who wanted us to be entirely finished with the war no matter what happened, people who wanted the war to be over as fast as possible no matter who won, and people who thought that the SRV was better than the RVN. They each got what they wanted, although the last group might want to ask themselves why people didn't risk pirates and sharks to flee the RVN, or why more Vietnamese were killed during the ten years after the war than were killed during the war.
Ed the Roman | 07.02.07 - 2:29 pm | #

"Pavel, it was late in the game from a calendar standpoint, but until the House of Representatives banned giving the RVN even a cup of coffee, the ARVN was doing better and better."

From what I've been told there were some ARVN units that gave good accounts of themselves, but they were not enough to be decisive.

To complain of lack of political back-up is useless. It's not guaranteed - you have to earn it. FDR did. Johnson and Nixon did not. I'm not even sure that Nixon wanted it more than he wanted out of Vietnam.

Any politician who submits the country to war without calling for national sacrifice is kidding himself and his constituents - and they know it.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.02.07 - 3:23 pm | #

Ed, what you write about Vietnam is probably right. The problem with Iraq, though, is that Pentagon and White House planners have to take into account the fact that Americans do not have the patience to fight in a long and drawn out conflict in an exotic country. Actually, I'm quite sure that the folks most responsible for the planning of the Iraq invasion and occupation took that into account, but in their poor planning they simply never expected that there would be over 100,000 US troops in Iraq four years after the invasion. Remember that after the fall of Saddam Hussein the Pentagon was talking about having less than 40,000 troops in Iraq by the end of 2003. Now we are stuck. I don't know what's the best course of action, but any serious plan should take into account American society as it is, not as we wish it to be.
Phil | 07.02.07 - 3:37 pm | #

I don't know what's the best course of action, but any serious plan should take into account American society as it is, not as we wish it to be.

Phil. Until 30 years ago, Americans knew -and cared - as much about Iraq and Iran as they did about Quemoy and Matsu.

Back in the day Ike was threatening to nuke China over Quemoy and Matsu and today we have pubbie candidates threatening to nuke Iran.

Our leaders are frequently insane but that is no reason we should be.

FWIW,after Bush's speech identifying Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the axis of evil, Rumsfeld's plan for rational war was upset when Bush made an alphabetical error and we invaded Iraq first.
I'm not Spartacus | 07.03.07 - 8:56 am | #

To complain of lack of political back-up is useless. It's not guaranteed - you have to earn it. FDR did. Johnson and Nixon did not.

I blame Nixon more than LBJ on this score. He'd have been in a lot stronger position to back up his promises of aid to the South Vietnamese government if he had not (1) deliberately aimed at the biggest electoral victory in history in 1972, even at the cost of Republican seats in Congress, and (2) hired underlings who wiretapped the DNC, then obstructed the investigation into their wrongdoing, causing him to lose all credibility, and the Republicans to lose even more seats in 1974.

Shortly after the debacle, someone said this was no time for recriminations about the fall of Vietnam, to which First Monday (then published by the Republican National Committee) issued a "Special Recriminations Issue," which pointed fingers and named names. I remember deriving great satisfaction at the time.

Of course, the big difference between Vietnam in 1975 and Iraq today is that by 1975 there was no longer any insurgency in South Vietnam; the Viet Cong had shot its wad during the Tet Offensive seven years earlier, so that the war had become a conventional one between the NVA and ARVN.
Seamus | 07.03.07 - 4:23 pm | #

"I blame Nixon more than LBJ on this score."

LBJ by all accounts was obsessed with the war and did his best to win it given the political and strategic constraints. Again, here is an example of a national leader prosecuting a war who did not politically and socially mobilize the citizenry (or at least enough of them), and paid for it.

Let's face it - if you can't prove to the people's satisfaction that they're fighting a war of national survival, it's difficult if not impossible to mobilze them for any length of time. If the optional war is not over quickly you've got big problems.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.03.07 - 5:04 pm | #

"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."

--Pope Benedict XVI
anon | 07.05.07 - 11:26 pm | #