American deaths in Iraq are approaching 2,000, the seriously wounded are over 7,000, and the psychologically scarred are uncountable. Iraqi deaths have been estimated to be from 30,000 to 100,000. The dollar cost of the war and occupation is now over $200 billion. Meanwhile, the justification for the invasion and occupation has continued to shift from WMDs (non existent), to a Saddam connection to al Qaeda and 9/11 (there wasn't any), to promotion of democracy in Iraq and the Middle East (vital signs are very weak). No American strategic purpose has been achieved or advanced - quite the reverse. At the same time, most non Kurd Iraqis want us to leave.

What Iraqis Think

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?

Is there another option?

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?
No. I believe this was discussed in detail earlier on the Foreign Policy section of AD.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?
It doesn't necessarily require a continued US presence in-country. See above. But the reality is that there are terrorist elements that have effectively used Iraq as a training ground, and we will be facing that threat for years after we do withdraw; much as the experience and training of the Afghan muj proliferated throughout the worldwide threat spectrum post-Soviet withdrawal.

Is there another option?
Yup. In a remarkable coincidence, this paper was just published by the US Army War College a few days before you posted this topic: Precedents, Variables, and Options in Planning a U.S. Military Disengagement Strategy from Iraq

For those not willing to read the entire thing, this is from the Conclusion:

Digest and discuss.

1.) The job will be done when the job will be done, to attach a specific date to it is playing a prophet and when last I looked: America was void of many reliable prophets.

2.) I think so. In fact, last night I was watching Bill Maher's "Real Time" and the start-of-show parody struck close to home when it said "Bush/Cheney, we don't make the problems of the world... we make them worse," or something to that effect. I thought that oddly true in todays world, and I do not blame Bush for causing further terrorism, but our presence does indeed do just that. Our continued presence has both pros and cons, but in the end we are keeping a tighter grip on terror before it reaches America than we would from here at home.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?

No timetables for withdrawal, anywhere, ever. It's bad strategy because it tells the enemy they can win by being patient and outwaiting us. The lessons of history are clear on this: anytime we've set a timetable, we've lost or at best achieved a stalemate. That doesn't mean we shouldn't withdraw, but it does mean we shouldn't do it according to a set timetable.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?

Yes, and intentionally so, though I'd describe it as a bug light rather than as an incubator. As Bush has repeatedly said, better to fight them over there than over here. And according to the letter from Zawahiri, the terrorists are doing exactly that, deliberately making a stand in Iraq. A small US presence may be necessary for some years in the role of a strike force, but not to maintain order; that role should be assumed by the Iraqi government as soon as they're able.

Is there another option?

We should withdraw according to the Army War College plan Mustang cited.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?

No. Bad idea. Terrible. Though, lest we forget, Dick Cheney has done just that.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?

I would agree with pretty much everyone else who has posted that, yes, Iraq is decidedly an incubator for terrorism, thanks to the Bush administration. I would see a big difference, though - huge - between an "incubator" and a "bug light". A bug light implies that the bugs already existed and that Iraq is merely attracting them. An incubator creates new terrorists where there were none before. I can't agree with Izdaari that creating new terrorists and increasing the threat against the US was the intention of the Bush administration (though it is within the realm of the possible - for war profiteers, the more war, the better), but every authority on global terrorism has determined that our invasion of Iraq has, indeed, inspired and encouraged an increase in terrorists and terrorism.

Is there another option?

The best one I can think of is devising a time machine, going back to about 1945 and sterilizing Barbara Bush. That way, we'd either have a President Gore or a President McCain, Iraq would never have been invaded, and increasingly more terror would not have been incited. Hell, with a competent administration in office, the September 11 attack would probably never have happened in the first place.

Short of science fiction, though, I see little alternative to committing troops to Iraq for the next twenty to forty years, if not longer. That's what "quagmire" means. Either that or we abandon the country to its own devices: civil war resulting in two or three separate theocracies, each of which will hate the US for different reasons, where previously there had been a single, contained, secular country. That will probably be the ultimate outcome anyway, but, hey - why not sacrifice several thousand more American troops and tens of thousands more Iraqis to the "democracy in the Middle East" fantasy? It's not like we, as a nation, care about human life or we would never have re-elected George W Bush.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?
I think so. That would send a message to the Iraqis that they are going to be taking matters into their own hands. It seems consistent with what Iraqi officials have expressed. I think two years was kind of a consensus as I recall. If there is a will to defend the elected government and the constitution and resist the Jihadists then I think it should be effectively manifested in 2 years. If not, 10 years won't make any difference. Remember the Iraqis themselves minus the Kurds want us to withdraw and the Kurds basically want an independent country. Constitutional federalism is just a stepping stone. The less direct involvement we have the more legitimacy the Iraqi government gains. It loses its "puppet" status.

Even if this constitutional democracy doesn't work out, most of the forces, both internally and externally, would be anti-Jihadist. So they split. Why shouldn't they balkanize into separate nations if that is the gravity of events? One way or another things will start getting sorted out when we leave.

I would hold out the possibility of our maintaining a small continuing military presence there if it were part of a broad international peace keeping coalition with UN sanction.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?
Yeah, we're the "Crusader-Zionist" magnet that attracts (And creates) the terrorists. And I have no doubt that much of the billions that are being pilfered from us and from Iraqi oil revenue is ending up in the hands of Muslim militants - think Vietnam. I mean if they are engaging on an average of 145 unique attacks a day something is keeping them afloat.

To answer the question, we certainly need to confront the terrorists, but must do so while we are slowly backing out the door so we stop being the honey that keeps attracting the Jihadist attack bees and encourage some anti-bodies among the 25 million Iraqis.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?

Not until a permanent Iraqi stable government is able to maintain security for the country, any other option's should be left off the table.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?

Why do human's become terrorist's? What is a terrorist? Do "terrorists" become "terrorists" because a country is attacked? This is a question that can only be answered by perception that will never logically come to a conclusion either way.

I believe that the war in Iraq has not created many "new" terrorist's, most of the insurgent's that are attacking our presence there are Iraqi's resisting the new government that has been setup by the alliance and other Iraqi's, primarily from the government that was in place before the alliance removed it from promidant power. So are these "new" terrorist's, I don't believe so. What normally sane person would go into the country because the "evil" American's toppled the GREAT Saddam, let em die and they will rest in their place in history's unmarked grave's of lost causes.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?
Of course they should. This entire "they'll simply outwait us" argument is absurd. Do you really think we're fighting morons that live in a vacuum? They know this war is unpopular here at home and our perpetual presence there is not an option. Everyone knows we'll eventually leave, so the insurgents could already be playing that waiting game.

But they're not.

Instead, they're not really trying to do anything other than split the country. They can't possibly defeat any organized force - Iraqi or American - using traditional methods. So, their attacks are more political driven than tactical. With that, it doesn't matter if we're there or not. That horse has already left the barn.

If all Iraqis collectively attempt to stop the insurgency, they can do it. But as long as the country remains occupied by us, there is no "high ground" for anyone. Supporting the occupation force would seem as bad as supporting terrorist factions. So, each side would seem to have a legitimate beef.

Set the date and implement it. If the country were to fall to civil war, there's nothing we could do to stop it anyhow. Unless we're willing to institute a draft and increase our presence 5 fold, our presence will only make whatever happens worse. Alternately, if Bush's grand social experiment works, we wouldn't be needed anyhow.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?
Why are these two points mutually inclusive? Obviously, our presence is a factor, but terrorism didn't start with our invasion. Terrorists will always have a reason. Remember, we are fighting an enemy that on September 11, 2001, was not our enemy.

The United States of America has continually screwed over the Iraqi people for the last few decades. When we first began to edorse Saddam and supply him with resources to wage his war on Iran, this was also at the expense of the Iraqi people. We then invaded in 1990 and told the people to "rise up." Well the people rose up and we already had our backs turned running as fast as we could. Now we invade them kill 10's of thousands of innocent civilians, shatter their economy, destroy homes, and take away any element of stability that they ever had, hope to have, or will have. Leaving would be another unjust, disgusting blow to the Iraqi people. If they hadn't lost their faith in us by now, they will when we leave. The Iraqi military doesn't even have uniforms for Christ's sake. Our entire support structure would collapse and we would leave them not with a democracy or a better life, but a civil war. Leaving would be the last thing someone with any shred of decency would do. America jumped the gun and rushed into this war without an exit-plan, and the America is going to have to pay for it. America will have to pay for it in the blood of her boys, in her dollars, and with her dignity.

Should the U.S set a timetable for withdraw from Iraq?


Well, I think if it was put to popular vote here in the U.S the vote would indicate that most would like the U.S troops currently in Iraq out of there. So to say the pressure in on for politicians and related people in charge certainly exists. I think more of the entire Vietnam effect, terrorism replacing communism as the great evil to the U.S. When we left Vietnam, many of those that supported us fell victim to the “enemy” if you will. I feel that same will happen in Iraq, but on a higher level of conflict, like civil war. The sad part of it all, is Iraqis are already victims of this war on a daily basis basically. I still do not know how making democratic Iraq will solve this issue either, but some that call the shots obviously must think its of great importance, or they simply are to impotent mentally to admit a grave mistake.

I never supported the Iraq war in the first place, for reasons that I share with most that don’t agree with the war in Iraq. I in the chaos of this conflict do not see peaceful resolve period in it, I personally do not think people anywhere are smart enough to resolve this war peacefully, the U.S, the Iraqis, or any single person in the world…

So with that point, I don’t know how the U.S can really leave, with some sort of feeling that it’s a job done. What I mean about that is a stable Iraq that is not in constant civil strife that seems to have been born from this war, to simply leave right at this moment I feel would not stop any of the problems in Iraq, and moreover many middle east leaders feel it is creating havoc in the Muslim community regardless of local, to much cheer of terrorists, or those in Islam that would like to see death to many other people for various reasons.

I feel the worst that any next elected president will have the issue to deal with basically, and that a pullout will most likely occur, and not be peaceful, and that this is truly far more then it ever was in the start now, and will continue to be so.

Basically I agree with you about our treatment of Iraq in the past. However, it is not clear that American forces are improving the situation in Iraq by staying. At least 2/3rd of the Shiia and almost all of the Sunni want us to withdraw. Only the Kurds are comfortable with our presence. There are reports that Sistani may sponsor peaceful demonstration to get American forces to withdraw after the December elections. Isn't the contention that we have to stay to prevent civil war just the latest in a long line of misinformation to justify our invasion and continued presents? Why should we stay if we are not wanted?

I waited too long to edit my last post on this subject but I did want to share this article that summarizes the view of many past leaders of the national security apparatus that support setting a time table. It is rich in links to other sources. The article quotes the WSJ as saying,

See Complete Antiwar.com Article .

I do not share your opinion. If I may point out: America's presence in many places is not welcomed... yet we stay. American interests in foreign countries does not end simply because people want us to leave... heck, many people wish Hillary Clinton would leave... and yet she stays!

We stay, regardless of want, to keep the peace. I cannot believe you are so narrow-viewed in this topic to believe that we are not improving the situation. Any life our soldiers safe, any wife that returns home on her way home from the market, any child who can play in the streets... is that not improving things by keeping them all safe? We cannot go in and destroy the country without helping it out of the cradle. For a country the likes of which Iraq to have the problems it has, we, as America and the country that threw it somewhat into flux, have a responsibility to aide that country.

No matter the reason, we are there. No matter the reason, the people of Iraq are free. World War Two was six decades ago, yet we have troops in Berlin, in Japan, in Italy... why are we not up in arms over bringing those troops home from a war long gone?

I am not arguing that there are not individual acts of human kindness by American troops nor that there aren't many military units that have done constructive things. However, overall our military presence in Iraq has been overwhelmingly destructive to Iraqi civilians and our continued presence with no set time to withdraw remains one of the principal causes of the insurgency. (See Civilian Deaths). If you read the article I linked in the previous post you should be aware that an increasing number of high ranking military officers and high level national security officials from previous administrations agree with me.

I am continually amazed at the ability of the bunch of liars that run our government to repeatedly sell a new story about the need for our presence and have it swallowed. We never invaded Iraq for the good of the Iraqis and we don't remain in Iraq for their welfare! Nor does leaving Iraq mean abandoning our responsibility to the Iraqi people for what we have done. Clearly, we should support stabilizing efforts by the UN and third parties and support Iraqi reconstruction if a stable government or governments are ever established. Certainly their will continue to be violence in Iraq for some time once we leave but it will be violence by others.

1) No timetable, though I would suggest that we lower the troop level and get our people positioned to better control/monitor the borders with Iran and Syria. Leave the Iraqis, both official government and local militias, to bear primary responsibility for the "interior".

2) Incubator for terrorism? Well, when some here are proclaiming that this is all about oil, what does one expect? That speech fits right into the "Crusader" mentality of more than a few. As a counter to that, I think that we ought to have some of our Muslim troops, and if Iraqi Muslim so much the better, doing public service type ads addressing our reasons for being there. While that would not eliminate the "Crusader" recruiting propaganda [they will just label our Muslim troops "sellouts"], it will nevertheless put a dent in the recruiting [you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time, so there's hope]. And while I "hate" to use atrocity as propaganda, we might to do a better job of showing each dead child killed by the "insurgency." Al-Jazeera does it with respect to those we kill, so we might as well do the same. The only consolation here is that just like the Crusades, when the whole thing is over, the anti-Crusader terrorist will simply go home to family and friends. So in the long term, those are not the ones who pose the danger to yours and mine. Sorry, we might also do a much better job of publicizing all of the things that we want to do for Iraq, but cannot do because of the insurgency, i.e., we build a sewage treatment plan and the insurgents blow it up, and we show some Iraqis griping about inadequate sewage. Ditto with our repair and upgrade of schools, the new Iraqi government paying its employees much more than Saddam, etc. Pity that Mr. Rove isn't either playing this propaganda game or else can't seem to get the grasp of it. Lastly, we might otherwise try repeating what we said in Korea, to wit, we are not in this country as conquerors, we are here as friends...and that could be tied in with the sewage treatment plant[s], schools, etc.

3) The real problem here is there is no Muslim government that is "loved" by its people. If there was, then I would suggest putting their people in alongside ours. If we do that now, all we'll hear is the same that has been said here, i.e., our partnering with such troops only shows our support for the not so benevolent and enlightened regimes of such troops. The whole affair can otherwise go a long way in being solved if we and our Iraqi friends can just solve the Sunni problem [as it were]. Someone needs to come up with some "reconciliation act" that more or less guarantees that the Sunni won't collectively be punished because of their prior enjoyment of the top rung on the ladder. And we would need to find someone trustworthy to be the guarantors of that reconciliation. We also need to make sure that the Iraqi government shares the wealth with the Sunnis. They say that they will, so what we need now is some concrete proof of the same. That would go a long way in solving the Sunni problem, and if we can separate a majority of the Sunni population from the insurgents, like fish out of water, the insurgency will die. Help may be on the way, as it appears that the Arab League will holding some conference designed to get the Sunnis to participate in the government. And the L.A. Times is otherwise reporting that some insurgents want to make a deal. And, ironically enough, the proposed deal is contingent on a timetable for US withdrawal, more specifically, an end to US military operations and a withdrawal from population centers. The insurgents in question appear to be some of those connected to the Ba'athists [maybe they've come to learn that as bad as we are, we are better than the Islamic state wanted by our al-Qaeda friends and the foreign jihadis]. Let me leave you with:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...00.html?cnn=yes

Finally, the ice seems to be breaking in the Congress. Representative John P. Murtha, considered a Democratic hawk and strong supporter of the military, has just issued a call to begin withdrawal from Iraq. See his statement here.

His plan calls for:

This is the same Hawk that said in May of 2004 that the war was unwinnable. I give the Dems props for getting news out of this guy. The press seems ready and able to prop up any PR stunt by the Dems.

Speaking of PR stunts.

Hopefully the Democrats will finally find a backbone, and vote to side with Murtha.

I love the speech that Murtha gave, especially the part about Cheney.

Well, my hero of the week has to be Congressman John Murtha. This guy isn't some liberal weenie the Bushies can easily slime (though that won't stop them from trying). If the White House were as effective at waging war as they are in character assassination our troops would already be back home.

Naturally the prez and his crew didn't waste anytime blowing off Murtha, but he's not exactly a guy who can be easily ignored. Despite the howls of the right-wing attack dogs, Murtha has got a bit of gravitas. The dude is the personification of the term, "blue collar."

Born: June 17,1932,West Martinsville, West Virginia
Home: Johnstown, Pennsylvania
University: University of Pittsburgh
Religion: Catholic
Marital status: Married
Business: Owner of Johnstown Minute Car Wash, Johnstown, Pennsylvania
Military: Marine colonel with a bronze star and two purple hearts, combat in Vietnam. Retired from Marine Corps Reserves in 1990 after 37 years of service
House of Representatives: First Vietnam veteran elected to the House, in 1974.
Second most powerful Democrat on House Defense Appropriations Committee, one of the most important positions in Congress because it votes military spending up or down.
Recent election results: Was unopposed in 2004; won 73 percent-27 percent in 2002
Constituency: Mostly Democratic steel heartland of Pennsylvania
Congressional success: Spearheading drive to have Nancy Pelosi elected House Democratic majority leader.
National politics: Supported Howard Dean for National Democratic Party chairman

http://villagevoice.com/news/0547,ridgeway,70197,2.html

Murtha ain't exactly a wild-eyed "Michael Moore" liberal. If he was would he be hanging out with THESE guys?
http://www.house.gov/murtha/photo_1980.shtml
http://www.house.gov/murtha/photo_2000.shtml

As a decorated soldier and patriot, whether you agree or disagree with Rep. Murtha, you have to hand it to him for standing up and speaking his mind. Many of his fellow Democrats won't back him and some Republicans have practically called him a coward and a traitor giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I think he's got the right stuff. It's just too bad courage is in such short supply in Washington.

I think this issue is yet another of which the Republican Party won the battle of words. Not necessarily winning the issue, because in the long term the war is becoming a tough issue for the Republicans.

What I am talking about is the difference between an exit strategy and a timetable for withdrawal.

An exit strategy is something we expect our leaders to have so that we don't get begged down in an endless and possibly fruitless struggle.

A timetable for withdrawal is something that can get put in place so that we can pull out whether or not we have won and whether or not we have left the people that we had supported protected from reprisals, overthrow, revolution, chaos, etc. A timetable is also something that an enemy (insurgency, what have you) can get inspired by because there is a firm date set for the stages of withdrawal. If they can make it to the deadlines then they win. It sounds like giving those who oppose us the playbook before the big game.

The democrats are not going to win a debate about a timetable for withdrawal. You can modify all you want and say the the deadlines are flexible, but the term is loaded against being popular in public opinion.

Now pushing for an exit strategy and saying it should have been in place before we ever placed our troops in harm's way is another issue. Exit strategies have targets. They are like action plans by which you can measure whether or not the campaign is progressing or not. They allow for reevaluation and reassessment based on the reality on the ground.

The Bush administration should be pushed for an exit strategy. A better plan and more clearly defined goals with target dates and a system for turning the sovereignty over to local or regional forces would likely help our national interests out and help our serveicemen and women be relieved of this dangerous duty as soon as possible. And when and if the exit strategy is revealed to be failing by missing multiple goals and shifting every target date, then a reassessment is in order.

I am not sure that the GOP wins by forcing a vote. It is a good PR strategy and likely the fastest action on a Democratic legislative proposal in 12 years. But the GOp has a good chance of being the lesser of two weevils when it is boxing the Democrats into a call for a fast timetable for withdrawal(read surrender) or an immediate withdrawal (read surrender and abandoning the people of Iraq to a period or prolonged chaos and violence.)

Ultimately this debate is just posturing for the inevitable withdrawal of troops coming in the next year. The Iraqi army is growing and eventually they’ll be able to do more and more of the work. Democrats trying to shield themselves from this eventual positive news for Republicans want to create the perception that it is “American sentiment” that causes the withdrawal.

For whatever reason I can get links to work in my browser. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/...tion=cnn_latest

Except it wasn't a Democratic proposal. The Murtha resolution never even made it to the floor. It was the Republican Hunter resolution that was voted down - probably the biggest defeat of a Republican proposal since they gained the majority.

But you're right: they may well have won the battle of words. It was the cheapest possible political trick - rewriting a proposal in words that virtually no one could support then spinning it as a loss for Murtha. Last night's debate and vote was partisan politics at its most shameless, exploiting the lost lives of American soldiers to score political points. And it looks like they succeeded. Should house Democrats raise the issue of withdrawal after the break, I'm sure the Republicans will crow, "But you already voted against withdrawing troops! We've had the debate on Iraq!" Or, better still, should any House Democrat mention witdrawal at all, it will be characterized as "flip-flopping".

The Republican Party is in a bit of a tough situation. It is clear that the Iraqi mission is a failure on many levels. It is clear that Iraq is, indeed, a quagmire. It is clear that the Iraqis don't want us there and it is clear the a majority of Americans don't want us there. The only people who do want us there are members of the Bush administration and their cronies who are profiting from the adventure. Yet the only position that Congressional Republicans have ever had is "Support the President". It is becoming increasingly difficult for them to support an administration that clearly has no strategy, no clear goals, no... clue. And little public support.

As nemov says, a large scale withdrawal before the 2006 election is inevitable. The only question is how the Republicans can effect that withdrawal and make it look like a) a victory and b) their idea. The first part should be relatively easy. Since there has never been a clearly defined objective (or since the original objectives, like destroying the WMD that didn't exsist, have been abandoned) the White House can declare "victory" at virtually any time. "Look - an election! Freedom! Freedom! Freedom! We've won!"

With public sentiment and Democratic initiatives being well ahead of the Republicans' support-Bush-at-all-costs stance, the second part is a bit of a challenge. The White House itself declaring yet another "Mission Accomplished" will help, if it happens soon enough. Defeating the Hunter resolution and making it look like a defeat of the Murtha resolution was certainly a good start. The next time withdrawal is mentioned, you can be sure the Republicans will take full credit. One thing is certain: before they start bringing troops back from a war that should never have been started, we are bound to see politics even more shameless than what went on last night. If that's possible.

Well, not exactly. As noted in the article, no one in the administration has yet to sign off on this "plan".

I agree that we should not set a timetable, but what about a set of measurable goals or benchmarks. Realistic benchmarks. And here is where I find your General's plan to be somewhat lacking. Some of it's goals are rather ambiguous, to say the least, and not rooted in reality as far as beginning to leave next year. Let's look at a few of those milestones, and the realities attached to them, shall we?

The country's political process must be strong.
The biggest problem with this one is that it may be years, if ever, before Iraq is politically stable. There are analysts right now, that say Iraq will be extremely lucky indeed if they don't degenerate into civil war withing the next year or so. Is that something we really want to be stuck in the middle of, again? Things may not be a "quagmire" now, but being an occupying power, in the middle of a civil war, halfway around the world would certainly qualify in my book.

Reconstruction and economic conditions must show signs of stability.
Well, this isn't exactly going as advertised before the war, either. We've still only spent about half of the reconstruction funds we should have, if that. And what kind of progress have we gotten? Not much. Oil production half of what was expected by now. Water and electricity still below pre-war levels. As Jack Murtha noted in his speech the other day, Iraqi unemployment levels are between 40 and 60 percent. This is hardly a roaring success, now is it?

Iraqi troops must demonstrate that they can handle security without U.S. help.
Ah, the biggest problem of all. Why? Because, like with everything else in Iraq right now, and despite all the supposed "good news" on this front by the administration, the reality is far different. Here's part of a recent article from Inside Washington:


The other problem is that trained security forces in Iraq are only at levels about half of what they were predicted to be by this time. And that's with training far less for Iraqi troops than what we give to our own. The average training time for an Iraqi security troop, or for an Iraqi police officer is said to be only 3 to 4 weeks, instead of the months we spend training US forces. Yet the number of troops on the street, after almost two years is only about 80,000 instead of the 185,000 expected., and as noted in the quote above, they only fight effectively if we are alongside, and sometimes not even then.

So, I think that by General Casey's own benchmarks, If this administratiojn looks at them, is going to be unwilling to even start leaving in six or eight months.

But that doesn't mean I agree with staying. Far from it. I think that Jack Murtha is absolutely correct. We've done about as much good as we're going to do, by remaining very much longer.

We made sure Iraq had no WMD. We made sure Saddam was no longer a threat to us (not that he ever really was) by removing him from power. We allowed the Iraqi people to get a provisional government set up, with our help. Also, with our help, they now have a Constitution (however tenuous), and elections for a permanent government take place in a month.

But how much more "help" can we afford to give them, realistically, without Iraqi resentment? As noted above, most of the infrastructure work is being done by us, while Iraqi unemployment is around 50%. The politics are threatening to come apart, along tribal lines. Our training of troops has been insufficient to eliminate tribal factions, even inside the troops, and when we aren't around, they seem unwilling to fight for their own country.

I think the biggest part of the problem with the Iraqi situation, is a variant of what conservatives believe to be the problem with "welfare" in this country. We have "given" them "democracy", and we continue to give them fighting support, rather than beginning to draw down our troops.

President Bush's motto has been, "we will stand down, when the Iraqi people are ready to stand up". But will they ever be ready to "stand up", as long as we are coddling them? We seem to be doing all the real work for them and all the real fighting for them, and not making them responsible for the physical and economic security of their own people.

And, I believe, that if we continue to do this, as Murtha points out, we are no longer the heros. We become the enemy. We become the very people that the Iraqi's are fighting against. Whether we like it or not, we've done about all we can do.

It's up to the Iraqi people to to take the opportunity we've given them, and to do something with it. Freedom is not something that can be "given" to someone, because someone else can always come along and take it away again. It must be taken, and fought for, and as long as we continue to do it all for them, some are going to resent it, and fight back at us. Insurgents, anyone? The rest are going to just let us spend our blood and treasure, and be content to let us fight their battles for them. We cannot continue down this path.

Wertz you can spin this all you want, but this was just like a poker game.
The Dems have been bluffing by saying we want to pull out we want to do this... the reason the Republicans put this to a vote is to call the Dems bluff and you know what happened last night... the democrats folded. Cause they don't have what it takes. Plain and simple.

As Oscar Wilde once said, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple." Contrary to your assertion, I know of no Democrats who are advocting pulling out of Iraq immediately - with no preparation, no contingency plans. Perhaps you can direct me to the text of one of these "bluffing" resolutions. The "plain and simple" truth is that Murtha's resolution (which many Democrats didn't support anyway) reads as follows:

The Hunter resolution read, in full:
In case you can't spot the differences, allow me to elaborate them:

Murtha's resolution called for removing troops from Iraq as soon as practicable. The Hunter resolution called for pulling all troops out now, period.

Murtha's resolution called for the establishment of a quick-reaction force. The Hunter resolution called for pulling all troops out now, period.

Murtha's resolution called for an over-the-horizon presence of Marines (possibly in Kuwait) to be deployed within a day or two as needed. The Hunter resolution called for pulling all troops out now, period.

Murtha's resolution called for the pursuit of security and stability in Iraq through diplomatic means. The Hunter resolution called for pulling all troops out now, period.

No one in their right mind would vote for an absolute withdrawal of all troops immediately with no back-up or contingency forces - and the Republicans knew that. It was a deliberate bastardization of Murtha's proposal that was put forward solely and exclusively to be defeated. You are quite right that it was a game - a game the House Republicans played with the lives of our troops and the security of our nation. I, for one, don't find such games much fun.

And that, Sleeper, is not spin. It is fact.

H. CON. RES 35 submitted by Congresswoman Woolsey on 26Jan2005 states in part the following......



The following members of Congress co-sponsored this resolution.....

Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 6/9/2005
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 1/26/2005
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 2/17/2005
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/26/2005
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 1/26/2005
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 4/28/2005
Rep Evans, Lane [IL-17] - 1/26/2005
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 1/26/2005
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 4/28/2005
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 1/26/2005
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 1/26/2005
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 2/2/2005
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/26/2005
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] - 2/2/2005
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 1/26/2005
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 1/26/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 1/26/2005
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/26/2005
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/26/2005
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 6/9/2005
Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. [GA-4] - 1/26/2005
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 4/28/2005
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 1/26/2005
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 1/26/2005
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 4/6/2005
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] - 1/26/2005
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 1/26/2005
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 2/2/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 1/26/2005
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 1/26/2005
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 1/26/2005
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/26/2005
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 1/26/2005
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 1/26/2005

Aquila, perhaps you should quote the entire resolution. As you represent it, it clearly refutes Wertz's statement. Being the clever person that you are though, you know that the resolution in its entirety does not. Lets take a look at what Wertz said again:



Now lets look at what that resolution actually calls for:



Now, I'm not sure how you could honestly be suggesting that a resolution that specifically calls for a plan for the withdrawal of troops somehow calls for the unplanned withdrawal of those troops; perhaps you can enlighten me? Or perhaps you were just hoping we wouldn't read the whole thing.

Regardless, the fact is that the best "refutation" you've found for Wertz's argument is a resolution which actually supports it demonstrates the utter lack of integrity in your position.

I don't think Aquilla demonstrates any less integrity than the House Republicans. After all, both my question and the resolution he cites use the word "immediate" - or a variant thereof. Similarly, both the Murtha and Hunter resolutions use the word "withdrawal". See? They're identical, right?

And look at all those sponsors to HR 35! How like a Democrat - voting for withdrawal before they vote against it.

No, the only people who ever proposed an immediate withdrawal with no sort of plan or contingency whatsoever are the Republicans - in the form of the Hunter resolution. And they did so purely as a political game, wasting Congress' time and our money at the expense of our troops. Of course, this shouldn't really be a surprise. After all, it was a Republican White House with the support of a Republican Congress that got us into a war with no plan and no contingency. At least they're "staying the course". Why interrupt a series of bad decisions with a good one?

I don't see how you can make the claim that the Hunter resolution calls for an unplanned withdrawl. According to Wertz, and I'm sure you're not questioning his integrity.......



Nothing in there at all about "unplanned". It just calls for an "immediate withdrawl".




Once again, nothing in the Hunter resolution says anything about "no planning". It just says "immediate", same as the Woolsey resolution says. So, one must wonder why the cut and run liberals in Congress would call for a plan for immediate withdrawl if they didn't really want an immediate withdrawl to take place. Was it a "political stunt" perhaps?

And by the way, UJ and Wertz. Before you question my integrity again you best consider that I did post the link to the entire resolution. Name-calling doesn't add to the debate here.

For the record, I referred to "pulling out of Iraq immediately - with no preparation, no contingency plans" and "withdrawal of all troops immediately with no back-up or contingency forces" and "immediate withdrawal with no sort of plan or contingency whatsoever". That is what was meant by "no planning" - i.e., no plans for the future of Iraq apart from abandonment, which is all Hunter was proposing. And it was a proposition no one in their right mind could have supported. It was a sham, a hoodwink, flimflam - a sick, sick joke at the expense of the taxpayer and our sons and daughters in Iraq. I am ashamed of every Democrat in the House for not simply walking out in protest at such a fraud and for even countenancing Hunter's con job with civil debate.

Surely you can recognize the difference between a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of forces combined with a plan for reconstructing Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure and the creation of an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and the replacement of US military with Iraqi police and Iraqi National Guard forces and providing the Iraqi people with the opportunity to control their internal affairs - as proposed by Woolsey - and the simple cut and run proposed by Hunter.

I'm just as certain you can tell the difference between the redeployment of forces at the earliest practicable date combined with a quick-reaction US military force and an over-the-horizon presence of Marines in the region and the pursuit of security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy - as proposed by Murtha - and the simple cut and run proposed by Hunter.

The Woolsey and Murtha proposals, whether you support them or not, were thoughtful, viable, and potentially successful alternatives to keeping 160,000 servicemen and women in Iraq indefinitely at the whim of the Bush White House for the greater glory of the PNAC. Hunter's reduction of the Murtha resolution to a simple cut and run was nothing more than a political stunt - and an unmitigatedly shameless one at that. If you can't spot such a blatant scam when you see one, I'd love to invite you to a game of three card monte.



Again for the record, I said that you had integrity - indeed, as much integrity as a House Republican. I would have thought you'd have taken that as a high compliment.

Wertz, the majority of Americans are sure to recognize this as a blatant scam.

The only ones not to recognize this are the hard core Republicans that will never change their minds, regardless of the evidence and facts.

It is similar to the polls showing Bushs approval rating. Most vary anywhere from 34% to 38% which really only leaves the hard core Republicans.

Bush has lost the majority of the independents(which both parties are courting), which were open minded to the facts.

In essence these last 34-38% will never listen nor are they open minded.

But look on the bright side, sales of kool-aid will hit the roof. In fact I will buy some of the stock.

I am not so sure, this is the same population that polled a strong correlation between Iraq and Al Qaeda (before it actually existed)

Tim Russert interviewed Murtha this morning and grilled him on the consequences of immediate withdrawal. (They were fair questions with fair time allowed for his perspective) But the story is either timetable for withdrawal or the consequences of immediate withdrawal.

The odd thing about Murtha is he seems not to mention that his plan is much more complex than it is being presented. It was not until a few minutes of answering questions that Murtha explained that this was not a wholesale abandonment of Iraq.

Since this is a complicated proposal it will be misunderstood because we want to sum things up in a title. So while it is described as an immediate withdrawal or a demand for a timetable for withdrawal it will sound like a call to retreat and get negative responses.

I wonder who that might be.....

Bunch of dumb Republicans perhaps, or....

Could it be the Clinton Justice Department?

From the US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN , 06Nov1998.....

Guess that answers Eyeore's musing. The terrorist organization operating within Iraq considered Saddam to be "outside Islamic law." There's nothing unique about al Qaeda cooperating with terrorist organizations around the world to hurt the Great Satan. This alone isn't indicative, however, of a correlation between Iraq/Saddam and the terrorist organizations trying to overthrow the Iraqi government operating above the no-fly zone.

By all means continue flaying at Strawman Clinton when the argument is more nuanced than a talking point.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?

There is no need for a timetable; withdrawl should be forthwith.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a disaster in almost every respect, not only this one. And this was not only entirely foreseeable, but was predicted by war opponents even before the outset of the war. But continued American presence in Iraq only magifies these ill consequences.

You really have to have a sort of football fan's uncritical enthusiasm for the actions of the United States in Iraq to be unable to see their harmful consequences not only for that nation, but for this one. The real score board, as opposed to the imaginary one, is ringing up terrible costs.

Is there another option?
Well, depending on how patient the American people are with its government's pursuit of a very costly policy which has benefits only in a world of fantasy, it might be possible to prolong the stalemate in Iraq for a few more years. But this will not produce a better outcome, and may very well produce a worse one.

Actually, I think it is quite possible and reasonable to advocate essentially immediate withdrawal from Iraq, with none of the preparations that you mention. It would only be necessary to inform the United Nations that we were leaving; it would be up to them whether they would like to interpose "peace keepers" between the warring Iraqi factions. I doubt that they would.

The notion that the United States is somehow the parent of Iraq, with ultimate responsibility for what happens there after the withdrawal of its forces, is the same sort of white man's burden rationale that helped to justify the invasion in the first place, not to mention countless other imperialist adventures, by this power or that, since before Clive went to India. If the people of Iraq themselves accepted this line of reasoning, there would be no problem with the occupation; it is because they don't accept the role that the U.S. has appointed for itself in their country that the war is being fought. You can enunciate whatever moderated, limited form of U.S. determination of the future of Iraq that you like, whether it be from bases in Kuwait or bases on the Moon, and it can only be brought about by force of arms -- which is to say, given the current state of politics in this country and in the world, it cannot be brought about at all. America's attempt to dictate the future of Iraq by military means is destined for defeat; it is merely a question of when. It may be that some vestiges of U.S. influence will remain there if the "right" side wins the Iraqi civil war -- which has been in progress for some time -- but whether that happens will be a matter of luck.

Only in the American popular imagination, infected as it is with unquestioned assumptions of American decency and goodness piped out by the ideological apparatus here, does the United States have a mission civilisiatrice in Iraq. In the rest of the world, even, for example, in Britain, it is very widely perceived that the United States went into Iraq to set up a government friendly to American capital investment and trade -- however democratic or undemocratic such a government might actually be; to establish American military bases with a view toward expanded regional military power; and to control the critical supply of oil. These objectives were entirely imperialist in character, and notions of supplying "democracy" in Iraq or anywhere else, or of defending the United States from imaginary threats, whether nuclear or merely highly explosive, were hypocritical fig-leaves.

And I very much doubt, after U.S. power has been thwarted in its latest imperialist escapade, that anyone here will appreciate why it happened. To confront the actual reasons for world and Iraqi opposition to our military adventure there, we would first have to come to grips with an entirely different appreciation for the historical role of the United States in the world (and in the particular context of the Middle East, Israel's role). But rather than abandon our cherished notion of ourselves as chocolate-dispensing liberators and champions of fair elections (to say nothing of our notions of Israel as a shining beacon of Western goodness), we will say that our effort was noble but that it was tragically misunderstood by those that it was intended to help. And after a few years, the crushingly obvious infeasibility of military victory (obvious except to football lunatics, that is) will be replaced by the fanciful notion that victory would have been forthcoming if only the politicians had not kept interfering with the generals.

Vladimir, you are awfully cynical but I essentially agree with the thrust of your comments. However, it seems clear now that even the Bush Administration has concluded that it is politically essential to begin to draw down forces in Iraq. I am amazed at the sudden changes in the administration's media message in the face of the public's disillusionment with the war. (See CNN/USA Poll). One moment they are vehemently attacking their Democratic critics and, when that doesn't sell, in the following moment shifting to soft pedalling and praising Representative Murtha. (See WP Article). There are still a lot of administration sycophants that follow and echo every change in the "party line." One would think that even those who initially enthusiastically support this war would now be turned off by the incredible errors made during the occupation. Unfortunately, the possibility remains open that the "Cabal" controlling our policies may shift again and gamble on reviving popular support by attacking Iran or Syria.

I agree that we need to go much beyond withdrawing from Iraq in accessing responsibility for this disaster and in examining the basis of our relationship with the rest of the world. Even some ex-Reagan officials want to hold our officials criminally accountable. (See Paul Craig Roberts). I concede, however, that your view is the more likely outcome.

Edited to add link to article that elaborates on my "Wag the Dog" scenario. (See Klare Article).

It is not cynicism; it is merely a particular analysis of the nature of power, and its attendant ideology, in the United States. But thanks for your interesting thoughts.

Vladimir: Trust me, I have no illusions about the reasons the US is in Iraq. I absolutely accept that we went into Iraq to set up a government friendly to American business and to establish permanent military bases in order to extend and secure the American hegemon. I also recognize that those objectives are entirely imperialist in character and that they were from the outset. I never had any illusions about the Bush administration being seriously interested in "democracy" - hell, they're not even interested in democracy in the US.

The only reason I believe that we should not simply cut and run as Rep. Hunter was proposing is that I feel we have a certain ethical responsibility to repair the damage we've done. I do not necessarily agree with Murtha's resolution, especially regarding standing forces in the area. But I do believe that since it was the US that destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure, it is up to us to see that it is restored - at least financially, if not in terms of manpower, etc. As we are also responsible for whatever influx of outside insurgents there may be due to our illegal invasion, we might also have some responsibility for, say, arming the Iraqis to defend themselves from such terror as we have inspired.

Beyond that, ever since Hussein was overthrown, Iraq has been destined for civil war - the only resoultion to which will be the partitioning of the country. I have argued this from the day we set foot on Iraqi soil - and still believe it is true. Iraq will fall into chaos when we leave, whether we leave tomorrow or in twenty years. The result will be civil war and the only possible resolution will be creating two or three separate countries from the artificial boundaries of "Iraq". By staying there, we are doing nothing more than prolonging the inevitable - and the cost, especially in lives, is simply not worth it.

At the same time, though, having precipitated the chaos, I don't feel we should just abandon the hapless Iraqis with their utilites, water supplies, transport systems, government infrastructure, and so on in a shambles. We can't create a stable government, but we can at least fix what we broke - or, at a minimum, pay for the damage.

I am happy to see that we are so much in agreement. But such terror as we have inspired, that is, terror distinct from the intra-Iraqi terror that constitutes the ongoing Iraqi civil war, would seem to equate to the particular acts of terror directed against our own forces. That much terror, at any rate, could speedily be eliminated by our withdrawal. It is my understanding that even Representative Murtha expressed the view that the presence of our forces was increasing, not diminishing, terrorism in Iraq.

Further, it should be borne well in mind that terrorism, though it bears an "ism," is not a political movement but a method of waging war, analogous to aerial bombardment or mechanized maneuvers. Moreover, it is the only method of waging war open to those who do not command conventional forces. Not everyone who commits an act of terror, even in Iraq, is necessarily a proponent of militant Islamism. I imagine that you understand this, but so many who argue for continued U.S. occupation of Iraq seem not to.

The huffing and puffing that one so much encounters on the supposed immorality of terror always causes me to roll my eyes; as if one method of waging war were morally superior to another.



I fully agree with everything you just said, except that I think that a divided Iraq is not the only possible solution.



I agree that "we," having killed so many of Iraq's people and caused so much destruction there, have a profound moral responsibility to Iraq -- though I very much doubt that it will actually be discharged. The simplest and best way to meet this obligation would be to pay significant reparations for some period of time. There would be no point in paying reparations during a civil war, so as a practical matter, payments would have to wait the resolution of the ongoing conflict. But at least this might provide an incentive for the warring factions to reach some kind of compromise.

If only it were possible to make the boneheads who supported this war pay exclusively and personally for its evil consequences. Since it isn't, one is placed in the position of advocating payments, indirectly costly to onesself, to make up for a policy that one resolutely opposed from the outset.

In view of our very limited achievements so far, I don't think it's realistic to suppose that much rebuilding can done while our forces are in Iraq -- or before the resolution of the civil war.

One of the reasons why it has become increasing difficult to discuss Iraq with ideologues is that the conversation is not based in reality. There isn’t a Civil War in Iraq right now. It is impossible to discuss this rationally with someone that believes (as Wertz does) that…


How much more pessimistic and cynical can an opinion get? With this ideological perspective, there is absolutely no good outcome in Iraq. Every time I hear “unmitigated disaster,” and “catastrophe” associated with Iraq I wonder what conflict have we ever been involved in that would be considered a success given these standards. Was it Korea where we shot innocent civilians and left the war unfinished or WW2 where the West left Eastern Europe to the Soviets?

Even the wording of the original question is filled with hyperbole.



I won’t go into detail about those bogus numbers. I wonder however, do people need high numbers to fuel their moral outrage? If so, there are plenty of true statistics in this country worthy of outrage. Al Qaeda’s model for success is clear. It is based on our actions in Somalia. They believe Americans are soft, and that the 24/7 coverage of every single causality weakens our resolve and eventually we'll cut and run. I would say by looking at the American Left in this country that they have us pegged correctly.


Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?

This assumes there isn’t a timetable. I believe the military has one of their own, and one that does not need to be broadcast to the entire world.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?

Many of the suicide bombers in Iraq (90% I read at one time) are not from Iraq. These are not homegrown terrorists. Many of the Iraqi insurgents are former Hussein loyalists who are fighting a losing battle. No, once the US presence gradually decreases the number of foreign born terrorists will decrease.

Is there another option?

Wave the white flag and hope appeasement works.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?
I don't think we have a choice. We put a government in place and they want us to set a timetable for withdrawal. I think if we don't do this, we're going to lose even more support from the Iraqi people and those that didn't see us as occupying forces, now will.
I think we have to treat this request seriously. If we ignore the wishes of their government, it will not bode well for future Iraq/US relations.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?
Yes, I believe it is an incubator of terrorism but I don't believe that we need a continued American presence to confront it. That will only make matters worse.

Is there another option?
I think we all made this clear a long long time ago.

At the onset of this war, we still had troops in the Balkans. There was a lot more help with that one of course, but the underlying point is that establishing a secure environment and stable new government takes time. The Balkans haven't been abandoned yet either...there are still multinational security forces in that area. For that matter, I'm sure we'd welcome all of the help we could get. Unfortunately the only nations which would likely contribute a lot of 'blue helmet' forces to police Iraq are the Iranians and Pakistanis. I don't think that would help things at this point. And we are undermanned with over a hundred thousand troops in the area. How many would they bring?

We have an obligation to stay until Iraq's forces are trained and capable. As has been mentioned, this isn't even a civil war, it is an insurgency. 82 people died in a mosque last week and we should just abandon the entire country to lawlessness and civil war?

The premises for the question are faulty.


Please provide some original source documentation (not media commentary) for the following points:
1. That WMDs were the primary or sole original justification for the war.
2. The administration alleged Saddam and Al Qaeda were in cahoots.
3. The administration alleged Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Bloggers and revisionists have asserted these false talking points so often that many of us seem to assume them as facts. They are not. Here are the facts:

1. WMDs were just one of many reasons given, and when they failed to materialize, the political opposition pretended it was the only argument or most important argument to try to win a presidential election. Politics as usual. All sides have done it in the past, but clear thinkers need to separate propaganda from what really happened.

Furthermore, the validity of the assumtion that the WMDs didn't exist simply because we haven't found them is suspicious at best. If Saddam had no WMD, then who attacked Iraqi Kurdistan with WMD? Saddam took credit for it. Saddam had many months of advance notice of the invasion. If he knew he couldn't win the war, he might have decided to wait out the invasion, and might have sold off his assets (perhaps through Oil-For-Food channels?) because money is easier to hide than bombs. He might have hoped the US would cut and run in the face of a terrorist insurgency, which he hoped would restore him to power, at which point he could rebuild the arsenal with the hidden cash.

2. The administration's primary talking point was that Saddam supported terrorists, not Al Qaeda specifically. They may have flirted on occasion with comparing the ideology of the terrorists Saddam supported with the ideology of Al Qaeda, but to be consistent with the principle of a pre-emptive strike, they actually asserted that no strong Al Qaeda link existed yet, but that such a link (perhaps with a different group equally motivated to massacre Americans) was an immenent, clear, and present danger. Summarizing that argument in a way that implies "Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda" is not a valid summary.

3. The administration warned that Saddam was "another" 9/11 waiting to go off, not that Saddam ordered 9/11, ergo the term "pre-emptive strike": preventing a future attack before thousands or millions more Americans are massacred. In contrast, the upshot of the counterplan offered by the national Democrats would result in taking no pre-emptive action, but waiting for another massace to happen before prosecuting the perpetrators. The administration's policy is to use force when every available indication shows a clear and present danger threatening the homeland from abroad. Saddam had been a clear threat for a long time, with regime change in Iraq the official policy of the Clinton administration as well. It was the threat of a replay of 9/11 that the administration was warning about, not that Saddam ordered 9/11. The confusion may have resulted from journalists summarizing the administration logic as "tying Saddam to 9/11," but that is an entirely media-created construct latched onto by politically motivated bloggers-- any "ties" alleged were allegorical/metaphorical at best.


I'd go further to say that most Kurdish Iraqis probably also want us to leave. I'd also say that most US soldiers, conservatives, and Republicans also eagerly anticipate the day when there is no longer any major US military force in Iraq. No sane person relishes war. Once initiated, war must be as brief as possible, but also as long as necessary to solidify a lasting victory. After it is begun, it is far worse to lose the willpower to win a war than to continue fighting an unpopular war until it is won. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle-- the only question is whether or not you want the deaths of the soldiers to be as meaningless as the deaths on 9/11. Cowardly cut-and-runners would have us turn a moral defense of our nation into an immoral act of mass murder as evil as what the terrorists did on 9/11. All we have to do to make that happen is to quit before we win. I'm glad the bark of such cowards are far worse than their bites-- the cut-and-run bill was overwhelmingly defeated in the House by a vote of 403-3.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?
Only if we want to lose. The most obvious way to lose the war is to let enemies know how long they have to wait before they can stage a coup without significant opposition. Only those who want the US-led coalition to lose the war in Iraq would ever consider declassifying a timetable, or even the existence of one. I cannot imagine that a serious politician would ever actually vote to approve a timetable for extraction knowing that they will have to face the repercussions of being directly responsible for losing the war.

The only reasonable course of action is to keep the enemy guessing, believing that we will be there for decades if necessary, and at the same time, gradually reducing the need for our presence as Iraqi forces are trained to replace ours over time. The impatience of the American public and the Iraqi public should not, in a perfect world, distract from such a plan for certain victory. In reality, the Democrats may be successful after the 2006 elections at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but I hope Americans are smarter than that.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?

If so, that's a good thing. Terrorists are evil and must be destroyed. Terrorism is NEVER justified or justifiable. Those who commit terrorism in opposition to a just cause (the coalition's) have no better excuse for their evil deeds than any other terrorists. In fact, their excuse is worse because it is a calculated decision to oppose the forces of good in order to embrace the forces of evil, along with all their evil methods, like bombing Muslim wedding ceremonies in Jordan, etc., because the building attracts outsiders.

Some seem to believe that the proper response to terrorism is to coddle the terrorists and blame their fellow countrymen for provoking the attacks. They are wrong. The proper response is to kill the terrorists before they fly another airplane into the Manhattan skyline, and to continue doing whatever it was that the evil people hate, because whatever evil people hate is likely to be good and right.

Is there another option?

Yes. Win. The coalition's plan from the outset, still followed today, is a very good one: combat the enemy while re-inforcing the ally, gradually reducing coalition presence as Iraqi troops are able to take up the slack, and occasionally reducing coalition troop allocations to motivate Iraqis to take up the slack.

Enemy attacks have increased over time, just as expected, on the premise that the longer they wait, the less resolve the American people will have, and the more effective the attacks will become at precipitating a politically-motivated pullout, followed by an easy overthrow of democracy and restoration to power of some coalition of Saddam's Baathists with Al-Zarqawi's terrorists.

Both sides have a strategy with a chance of winning, but the critical elemen