Centerfield

I agree. It's not going to heal itself if we leave.
On the other hand, will it heal itself if stay?
If anyone can come up with option #3, your noble peace prize is waiting for you.

Defensetech.org has an interesting post on the subject. He went to Iraq and asked the soldiers what they though.

This article was also fascinating to me, though in a slightly different way. I used it in my most recent post, entitled, Polarization. What struck me is that we have our own ethnic and religious polarization hurting our nation, as well.

As does Europe.

Thanks for linking to that Samuelson column on polariztion in your post, Carol. I think that one should be required reading for everyone who wants to seriously discuss substantive politics (as compared to partisan political demonology).

Dang Samuelson link screwed up: it should be here if I didn't mess it up again.

By "putting this in motion" we interrupted the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Hussein regime. If there are Iraqis denying sectarian divides then they're in deep denial indeed. Rick's fear is a very well-founded one. Lost in much of the political chatter about the insurgency and the war itself is that basic fact. The Ba'athists have very good reason to fear being a repressed minority, having been the repressing minority for so long. The Sunnis, by association, are in the same trap. Yet the majority of them are probably innocent of anything.

If we withdrew quickly, that civil war is more likely to occur. It may (smaller chance) happen no matter what we do. One of my greatest grouches about the political flame war is that what is lost in the shouting is the fate of the Iraqi people. They (including most of the Ba'athists/Sunnis) suffered many long years of as brutal a dictatorship as there can be. There's a lot of very justifiable anger built up there. It's going to go somewhere. How to redirect it, even make constructive use of it?

The upcoming trial of Saddam, following on the heels of the election, is as naked a piece of "social engineering" as I've ever seen. The idea being to give everyone their common scapegoat, and use that scapegoat to discharge that built-up anger while otherwise making a fresh start. Heavy psyops agitprop, nothing to be proud of. But given the alternatives I can't say it doesn't fit into the "lesser evil" category at worst--and I hope it works. If you're going to toss a scapegoat on the altar, pick a worthy one and get the most mileage out of it.

"What struck me is that we have our own ethnic and religious polarization hurting our nation, as well."

What polarization is that? What you are talking about doesn't even compare to that. I don't see ethnic groups going out and trying to eliminate the others even if they don't like each other. For the most part, I think we are doing a pretty good job of not having polarization. What you seem to be talking about is the divide between religious fundamentalists and secularists but I would hardly put that in the same category as ethnic cleansing. If you are talking about the divide between blacks and whites, rich and poor, pro-choice and pro-life, that certainly exists, but they are more political and social divides rather than actual ethnic divides.

Now, there used to be true ethnic divides in this country during the 20s and 30s, Poles and Jews, Italians and Irish, etc. They hated each other. For the most part, that doesn't exist anymore.

The only nations that don't have some polarization are ethnically homogenous. So they invent other reasons to polarize....

We handle it better than almost anywhere else.

The whole world is festering
With unhappy souls.
The French hate the Germans,
The Germans hate the Poles;
Italians hate Yugoslavs,
South Africans hate the Dutch,
And I don't like anybody very much!

The Kingston Trio's "Merry Minuet".