Rumsfeld: Leaving Iraq now is like handing Germany back to Nazis

Reuters via Haaretz ^ | 19/03/2006

[Hannah Senesh]

Leaving Iraq now would be like handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a column published on Sunday, the third anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.

"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," he wrote in an essay in The Washington Post.

Rumsfeld said "the terrorists" were trying to fuel sectarian tensions to spark a civil war, but they must be "watching with fear" the progress in the country over the past three years.

In London, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said on Sunday that Iraq is in a civil war and is nearing the point of no return when the sectarian violence will spill over throughout the Middle East.

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," he told BBC television.

Rumsfeld's view was that the Iraqi insurgency was failing. "The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case," he wrote.

[starbase]

Hmm. This sounds like it might be an unfortunate comparison. To apply responsibility to us for a centuries old blood, soaked legacy, and compare it to the permanent termination of a regime that had existed for no more than 30 years?

I don't think that comparison is wise or appropriate.

[Terpfen]

The Baathists drew much of their ideology, organization, and methods of "governance" from the Nazis. Given the nature of the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Rumsfeld's analogy is accurate.

[ARCADIA]

"Rumsfeld: Leaving Iraq now is like handing Germany back to Nazis"

No, it would be more like handing Germany over to the Russians. Saddam and his thugs are gone, but the neighbors make for an equally inhumane alternative.

[hershey]

This is not going to happen.

[Hannah Senesh]

I agree.

[street_lawyer]

"I don't think that comparison is wise or appropriate."

I agree, but the simple fact is that if we can not win in Iraq, we can not win anywhere, at anytime, and we concede victory to terrorism, not only now but in all future attempts to remove brutal and dangerous regimes from the world.

Some of course believe that is not our responsibility, but they may prefer to live under the threat of such violence or be a part of it.

[Waco]

Don't give the DNC any ideas.

[starbase]

Given the nature of the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Rumsfeld's analogy is accurate.

But what about the length of time that murderous tendencies have been the preferred strategy in Islam and between Islamic groups (Shiite vs Sunni), as opposed to the anomaly such systematic, genocidal murder was among Europeans?

Don't you think engaging in that activity for centuries shows it is a permanent part of the culture, which would require many decades of occupation to eradicate? They've been at this for 1400 years.

[street_lawyer]

"it would be more like handing Germany over to the Russians."

You mean like FDR did at Yalta?

There was agreement that the priority was the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. After the war, the country would be split into four occupied zones, with a quadripartite occupation of Berlin as well. Stalin agreed to let France get the fourth occupation zone in Germany and Austria, carved out from the British and American zones. France would also be granted a seat in the Allied Control Council.

Poland which the Nazis invaded and which started the war was handed over by FDR to Stalin:The status of Poland was discussed but was complicated by the fact that Poland by this time was under the control of the Red Army. It was agreed to reorganize the Provisionary Polish Government that had been set up by the Red Army through the inclusion of other groups as the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity to be followed by democratic elections. (This effectively excluded the exile Polish government that had formed in London).

 

 

[ARCADIA]

We cannot win a PC war, and you cannot win a war where your enemies are allowed safe harbour. But, more to the point, we cannot fight a faceless enemy; it is hard to prove intent until after the man has acted.

[Steel Wolf]

I agree, but the simple fact is that if we can not win in Iraq, we can not win anywhere, at anytime, and we concede victory to terrorism, not only now but in all future attempts to remove brutal and dangerous regimes from the world.

Frankly, that's why a lot of people are pulling for us to lose. Not that they like the dangerous regimes, per se, but that they see us as the biggest threat to world peace.

Of course, they define 'world peace' as far as 'what I see America doing on the news'. The world is stacked to the roof with conflict, suffering, and violence, but so long as we're not involved in trying to stop it, liberals really don't care.

[marvlus]

I can see Iran jumping into the fray and taking over if we were to pull out now. Iran's government is the new "Nazi" equivalent. So, Rumsfeld's analogy is correct.

[the invisib1e hand]

no problems here. the objections to the "Nazi Germany" remark must be based on some historical distinction that dogs like me aren't aware of.

I'm glad as all get-out that he wrote that. wonder how much it cost to get it printed in the WP.

[ARCADIA]

You mean like FDR did at Yalta?

Yup, it would be the same mistake all over again.

Our best move would be to immediately destroy Iran's oil port infrastructure. Thereby cutting its government off from both negotiable currency and political leverage. After that the world would be on our backs to get it done, and kill them all; so long as we restore its crack oil supply immediately.

[montag813]

Perhaps if Colin Powell had managed to actually visit Turkey at least once in 2003 while demanding to launch ground troops from their territory, we could have had a much easier time, both with additional troops to capture domestic rebels, and to defend the region where much of the foreign "insurgents" were able to enter. In 1990, James Baker visited Turkey 3 times and Bush called the P.M. several times as well, to insure their cooperation through mutual respect. My Turkish friend showed me cartoons in their papers of Turkey as a lapdog for Bush that appeared before the invasion. Powell's failure to visit Turkey was a cause of great anger. The fact that we were offering them $30 billion meant nothing to them. They were furious at the lack of respect. He said Turks would rather lose the $30b rather than be treated like sh*t. Powell was an incompetant SoS, and our job in Iraq was made unneccessarily difficult because of the Turkish fiasco.

[Terpfen]

What government, civilization, or other form of controlling authority has not resorted to violence at some point in its existence? Murder and explosions are not Muslim-exclusive.

Leaving Iraq now would be to return it to the Baath Party. The Baath Party are essentially Arab Nazis. Rumsfeld's analogy is accurate.

[starbase]

What government, civilization, or other form of controlling authority has not resorted to violence at some point in its existence? Murder and explosions are not Muslim-exclusive.

You understate the argument. Islam's sole purpose is conquest of the world through violence, and they have ruled that area for 14 centuries, making them synonymous with the culture there. Like an onion, there's nothing but more onion under each peel. I might go so far as to claim that not only are the Baath party the equivalent of Nazis, but Muslims are the equivalent of Nazis.

But I am interested in your opinion, what will happen if we wait long enough? And I'm not arguing that we should leave now, only that I don't think the culture will change no matter how long we stay there, unlike the 30 year regime in Germany which had a chance of being reversed through an adequate duration of occupation.

[bkepley]

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," he told BBC television.

He doesn't know civil war.

[montag813]

I agree, but the simple fact is that if we can not win in Iraq, we can not win anywhere, at anytime, and we concede victory to terrorism, not only now but in all future attempts to remove brutal and dangerous regimes from the world.

We did win in Iraq, within a few days. But a lack of will to be sufficiently brutal has kept us there much longer than needed. And of course we are just a pathetic at securing the Iraqi borders as we are our own. So the Saudis and Chechens have streamed in through Syria, and IED parts have streamed in through Iran. All in all, stupidity from the top, unworthy of our fine fighting men.