There are basically two arguments related to Iraq.

The first is that the US imposed government is not supported by the People of Iraq and the second is that the Iraqi People support their new government.

I happen to be a believer in the first but that is basically irrelevant. What is important is that in either case the US should leave. My arguments are simple.

If the People of Iraq do support the current government then there is no reason for the US to remain in Iraq. The country will not devolve into civil war if the Iraqi People truly support their goverment. Even the insurgency in Iraq does not present a threat to a government that is truly supported by the People. The insurgency, by the estmates of the US military, only represents about 40K-50K militia members and the Iraqi security forces are above 300K today.

On the other hand if the Iraqi People do not support the current government then the US is wrong to be imposing it upon them by military force of arms. We should never force a government upon a people that they do not want. If the Iraqi People do not support the government then regardless of what the US does eventually Iraq will desolve into a civil war to oust a government that they do not support.

So regardless of your views the simple fact is that the US presence in Iraq really cannot be supported.

Your argument is based on the illusionary idea of an Iraqi govt that represents Iraqis. 1. The sunnis are not represented, and if kept from sharing power will be able to wreak havoc on Iraq. 2. The Kurds pay little attention to the govt., and could go from autonomous to independent in a fllash. 3. The shia are in a factional power struggle over who will control the govt.

The main point of the US presence is to keep the factions from killing each other or dividing up and apply pressure to the various sides so they can be brought together to form a viable govt., with a shared and united military responsibility, and with a friendly attitude to the west....a very tall order. Abandoning this process at this stage, even if it is fraught with probability of failure would be irresponsible.

the US has been unable to accomplish that, furthermore the US refuses to let the Iraqi govt do its job and make decisions independently

I actually presented both sides. Either the Iraqi government represents the Iraqi People and the People support it, in which case it is secure and does not require US support, OR it does not represent the Iraqi People and they don't support it, in which case the US should get out so that the Iraqis can develop their own government which they would support.

Either way there is no reason for the US to stay any longer.

The US can't leave Iraq now. It would most certainly cause Iraq to collapse on itself. With all the different sides competing for power or independency, and with somewhat hostile nabours like Iran, a civil war will be unavoidable. The current government won't be cappable of dealing with the vacuum that the American forces will leave behind.

__________________
Enig og tro til Dovre faller.

So all you are really saying is the the Iraqi People DO NOT support the US imposed government.

If that is the case then the US should get the hell out so that the Iraqi People can establish their own government. They certainly won't be able to do that as long as the US is forcing a government upon them that they do not accept.

The facts remain unchanged. If the Iraqi People support their government it will succeed regardless of what the US does. If the Iraqi People do NOT support the government it will FAIL regardless of what the US does.

What part of that do people fail to understand?


I

You may have presented both (simplistic) sides but you continually miss the point that despite the people supporting the Government the Government is not strong enough to resist the many internal and external forces ranged against it. Having the support of the people is not enough the country needs time to establish itself we caused the mess we stay till they are capable of functioning as an independent democratic nation.

__________________
"One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement towards union of the European states. Monetary union is a federative project that needs to be accompanied and followed by other steps." — Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt

There is a primary factor that you seem to miss as well. Overwhelmingly the violence in Iraq is related to the insurgency which is opposed to the US presence in Iraq. When the US leaves the insurgency against the US presence comes to an end. Attacks against the Iraqi police forces and politicians, which are predicated upon their collaboration with the US will also end. Overall violence would be greatly reduced and easily manageable by the over 300,000 Iraqi Security forces that are already trained and deployed.

People like to worry about al Qaeda in Iraq but realize that in five years they have managed less than 1000 attacks. While that is a lot numerically it is only a small fraction of the violence in Iraq. It is the US presence that overwhelmingly creates the violence in Iraq and our continued presence is the problem and not the solution. The Iraqis can and will easily eject al Qaeda in Iraq once the US is gone.

The insurgency i think you will agree is made up of many factions and causes they may have a common enemy now if the enemy (us) simply leaves will they all live happily ever after ? A good example of what happens if US forces withdraw has taken place in Basra . The Brits are bunkered down at the Airport waiting to leave, they left Basra the Militias took over they started fighting each other Basra is a no go area crime and disorder is rife. Now the Iraqi Army are fighting to regain control , they can just about manage (maybe) in one city one region but could they keep the lid on internal security in the whole country ?
I would say no... the country would descend in to chaos -civil war the Government needs more time a very gradual withdrawal over many years is the most likely scenario to succeed.

__________________
"One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement towards union of the European states. Monetary union is a federative project that needs to be accompanied and followed by other steps." — Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt

We're back to square one again then. Apparently those in Basra do NOT support the US installed Iraqi government and plan on working out a government of their own choosing.