The question is:

Should H.R. 508 be enacted?

Please note, the question is not, whether H.R. 508 actually will be enacted.

The following, January 17, 2007 remarks of Congressman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) are quite informative concerning the provisions and intent of the proposed act:

"Today Congresswomen Waters and Lee and I are introducing a bill that would bring our troops home from Iraq within a six month timeframe.

"The Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act is the first comprehensive legislative proposal to end the occupation and provide a framework to help bring stability back to Iraq.

"Last Wednesday night, President Bush demonstrated to the world that he continues to remain blind to the realities on the ground in Iraq. Instead of putting forth a plan that would withdraw our troops, the President is increasing our military presence, by escalating the number of troops by over twenty thousand. What President Bush fails to grasp is that our military presence is only fueling the insurgency, plunging Iraq further into chaos and civil war.

"The November elections showed just how fed up the American public is with the President's failed Iraq policy. It is time to honor that mandate. It is now up to the Congress to catch up with the will of the American public.

"During his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Bush challenged those of us who disagree with him to offer a plan of our own. Today, we stand before you, and the American public, to take up his challenge.

"The Congress has already appropriated funding that will support our troops and keep this occupation going for at least another six months. That funding instead should be used to finance an aggressive withdrawal plan that brings our troops home to their families. Our bill would do exactly that.

"Our plan will also...

1. Withdraw all U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq within six months from date of enactment.
2. Prohibit any further funding to deploy, or continue to deploy U.S. troops in Iraq. The bill does, however, allow for funding to be used, as needed, to ensure a safe withdrawal of all US military personnel and contractors, diplomatic consultations. Funding may also be used for the increased training and equipping of Iraqi and international security forces.
3. Accelerate, during the six month transition, training of a permanent Iraqi security force.
4. Authorize, if requested by the Iraqi government, U.S. support for an international stabilization force. Such a force would be funded for no longer than two years, and be combined with economic and humanitarian assistance.
5. Guarantee full health care funding, including mental health, for U.S. veterans of military operations in Iraq and other conflicts.
6. Rescind the Congressional Authorization for the War in Iraq.
7. Prohibit the construction of permanent US military bases in the country.
8. Finally, we believe that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqis. Once the oil is in the international market, the U.S. will certainly have access to our share. That's why our bill ensures that the U.S. has no long-term control over Iraqi oil.

"Our plan, with the exception of Veterans' benefits, will cost the American people pennies on the dollar as compared to continuing the occupation for two more years. It will save lives, bodies, and minds, and it will give Iraq back to the Iraqis. It is an important step in regaining our credibility in the region and throughout the world, and provides the President, and this Congress, with a comprehensive way to respond to the majority of Americans who want our troops to come home."

This bill is co-sponsored by: Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Diane Watson (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Bob Filner (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Donald Payne (D-NJ) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX).

[quote name='Vladimir' date='Feb 7 2007, 09:04 AM' post='206911']
The question is:

Should H.R. 508 be enacted?

As stupid an idea as I have ever seen. And why am I not surprised that most of the sponsors are CA, MA and NY Dems.
So we throw away all the lives and money spent to run away and we hope that a “international stabilization force. Such a force would be funded for no longer than two years, and be combined with economic and humanitarian assistance.” Would just love to get in there and get shot in the ensuing chaos. Ha ha

Gee a wonderful idea from the left coast.

The usual, unworthy of response.


Dealing with the plan itself, I quite like it though I think the one thing I would change would be to alter the 6 month time-frame to 10 months, or even 12 at most. The idea is to give the Iraqis a compelling reason and sufficient time to get their own house in order, and 6 months is a but short. If they cannot manage it in a year, then will never be able to manage it at all.

I also question why the UN Humanitarian force would only be funded for 2 years. I seeno real reason for that. Past stabilisation forces have been kept in place for far longer. If there is to be one, and frankly I'm not sure there should be one at all (removing US troops being killed for nothing, and replacing them with international troops being killed for nothing).

Otherwise, quite a good plan. Certainly far better then "Escalate troops slightly, get more Americans killed for no purpose, but delay the pullout so the Republicans can blame it on the NEXT president, even if that means US lives and the expense of further tens of billions of US dollars and a few more years when Bush jr conveniently forgets international Al qaeda and allows them to keep growing unmolested."' plan that is currently in place.

Really Ted, is this argumentation: "As stupid an idea as I have ever seen," "Left coast," "CA, MA and NY Dems?" Or is it raw opinion and wild swiping at straw men? I will withhold my comments on H.R. 508 for awhile, but what are you here to do, except fume and bloviate? You post all the time, and all it ever is is concentrated crustiness. I am sure that an intellect lurks within you; it would be good if you would apply it to the question at hand.

The one substantive thing you've said is that if this plan is adopted, chaos will ensue. Why would there be more chaos with say, Canadian and Finnish peacekeepers than exists now with mostly American troops? Do you not think the presence of American forces in Iraq may actually incite violence? The authors of this bill think that it does. Why should stabilizing Iraq be particularly American business, if America has no agenda for Iraq other than its becoming peaceful, independent and stable?

Or for that matter, suppose for the sake of argument that withdrawal will lead to more chaos in Iraq. Is avoiding this incremental chaos worth the current expenditure of national blood and treasure?

Concerning the lives and money spent, have they not already been spent? There is no course of action that can restore them. The question is, what to do now.

Yes and that is the point isn’t it – CHAOS and victory for the bad guys. And do you know something I don’t – post the commitment of the “Canadian and Finnish peacekeepers” to come in and take over. You have to be joking. The real hypocrisy is that the Dems unanimously approve Casey and Pertaius (and with him his plan which he says can work) and then go on to immediately undermine him, the plan and the troops. Thoroughly disgusting.




YES



Yes and the idea is to give their sacrifice a chance to mean something before we run out of Iraq and hand the enemy a huge victory.

It is a pretty good plan but it does leave out a few things. Six months is too short of a realistic time period for the Iraqi forces to be competely ready to take on the civil war ensuing. In four years the Iraqi forces haven't gone much of anywhere, what makes us think that it would miraculously happen in 6 months. I'm not sure about the peace keeping force... the Iraqi's could take it one of two ways. The first being that "oh great here's another occupying force to 'keep us safe'" and want to fight them off as they are doing to us now OR the Iraqi government could have the situation under conrol by then and they would work with the force to create "peace". Rather than an immediate pull-out, an extended plan of this is what we should be working for. Keep it in Iraq for a couple more months, make sure the Iraqis are ready to take on the challenge, and leave it up to them.

Strange. That's the scenario when more G.I.'s are sent to Iraq.

"The Congress has already appropriated funding that will support our troops and keep this occupation going for at least another six months. That funding instead should be used to finance an aggressive withdrawal plan that brings our troops home to their families. Our bill would do exactly that.

Nothing like telling the other side(s) exactly how to plan--including Iran. Since when was Congress the commander in chief?



"Our plan will also...

1. Withdraw all U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq within six months from date of enactment.

Ditto

2. Prohibit any further funding to deploy, or continue to deploy U.S. troops in Iraq. The bill does, however, allow for funding to be used, as needed, to ensure a safe withdrawal of all US military personnel and contractors, diplomatic consultations. Funding may also be used for the increased training and equipping of Iraqi and international security forces.

Follows in line

3. Accelerate, during the six month transition, training of a permanent Iraqi security force.

Follows in line


4. Authorize, if requested by the Iraqi government, U.S. support for an international stabilization force. Such a force would be funded for no longer than two years, and be combined with economic and humanitarian assistance.

Of what benefit is this to us? If we are going to continue helping Iraq, I want something for my money and blood--see bases and oil contracts below.


5. Guarantee full health care funding, including mental health, for U.S. veterans of military operations in Iraq and other conflicts.

The VA is what it is, and has been so for decades. We have never delivered private quality health care to the military. We cannot afford "full funding" of health care for any citizens. There needs to be some reasonable compromise between cost and benefit here. This latest scandal with Walter Reed Hospital should not cause us to lose our heads. Everyone in the military was a volunteer and should understand the VA's role, and anyone familiar with the VA for the last number of decades should know its limitations.


6. Rescind the Congressional Authorization for the War in Iraq.

Follows in line

7. Prohibit the construction of permanent US military bases in the country.

As long as the Middle East is important, and it will be for decades to come, we need a presence there. Why would we give this up? If anything, that is one benefit we can say we have dervied from this ill-conceived and executed war.


8. Finally, we believe that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqis. Once the oil is in the international market, the U.S. will certainly have access to our share. That's why our bill ensures that the U.S. has no long-term control over Iraqi oil.

This is simply not in the US's self-interest. I think we should have been pumping oil from Iraq to the US since this mess started. The US should ink a favorable (though not manifestly unfair), long-term oil requirements contract with Iraq. We've spilled lots of US blood and should get some material benefit from it.


This war probably should never have been fought, but the US should not cut off its nose to spite its face at this point. If we can derive some benefits from being there, let's get them.

But quick, as I pointed out recently in another thread, the objectives you advocate, e.g. bases in Iraq and a substantial "taste" of Iraqi oil revenues, can only be obtained with military victory. The whole problem in Iraq, from the perspective of the U.S. interests that expected to gain from its conquest, is that all our military power has not been able to obtain that victory. What we have have had instead has been a long and costly standoff that now shows ample signs of deteriorating into absolute chaos.

Since fully four years of applying this much military force has been utterly insufficient for these objectives, what reason have we to suppose that any extension of the conflict will bring us any closer to the ends you advocate? At this point, I think a very reasonable case can be made that our troops are dying, and being wounded, not for any hope of success in Iraq, but merely to save the face of Bush, Cheney and a dwindling band of war proponents here. The main goal seems to be, to delay the hard but necessary decision to withdraw until Bush is no longer on watch. Is this a reason for more Americans, not to mention Iraqis, to die?

I am always a little shocked to hear war proponents dismiss hardships to our fighting people, such as their difficulty getting good medical care when they return here, with the blithe observation that "these people volunteered." Yes, they volunteered, volunteered to defend our peace, welfare and freedom to the death if necessary, and only a very callous person would dismiss the national obligation to these people by observing that their service was voluntary. It seems to me that we owe them an even greater debt because of that, not a lesser one.

I only wish they had fought in a better cause. I imagine that they volunteered expecting that when they were sent off to fight and die, it would be for the legitimate defense of the United States and not some imperialist project to gain bases in Iraq and control of Iraqi oil. But leaving that aside, I am sure they volunteered expecting that they would get good treatment, and profound national gratitude, if they were wounded.

Finally on the subject of the voluntary military, as the actions of this administration show, we can indeed rip off one generation of our youth by tempting them with promises of reward and honor in exchange for military service, then sending them on repeated, long tours in hell with scant support while there, and with bad treatment when they return. But we will never be able to rip off the next generation. Unless we take proper care of these people, and in my mind that implies bringing them out of the hell that Bush has gotten them into, but it certainly implies giving them generous medical treatment, it will be much harder to maintain a voluntary military in the future.

This is the Dem “plan to lose” in Iraq.

1. Withdraw all U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq within six months from date of enactment.

2. Prohibit any further funding to deploy, or continue to deploy U.S. troops in Iraq. The bill does, however, allow for funding to be used, as needed, to ensure a safe withdrawal of all US military personnel and contractors, diplomatic consultations. Funding may also be used for the increased training and equipping of Iraqi and international security forces

3. Accelerate, during the six month transition, training of a permanent Iraqi security force.

6. Rescind the Congressional Authorization for the War in Iraq

7. Prohibit the construction of permanent US military bases in the country

Anyone who says any Democrat thinks this is a “win” needs to show me where. This is classic cut and run with no thought or regard for the consequences. And that includes NO BASES there ???? Are they joking or just idiots???

Its just from Iraq, which in itself should lessen violence that many Iraqis when polled think is a product of U.S occupation. The Iraqis are in a civil war, we cant take sides in that really.

Iraq needs to run itself, we cant be there forever.

It has been four years of the same, and the other message is status quo, I don’t see how anyone can support this.

Some serious change needs to occur. If we withdraw that does not mean we cant stay near and continue to train. It would actually begin to put stress on Iraqis to work together. I don’t care to have our forces policing a civil war, fighting an insurgency and looking for terrorists. If Iraq does not want to work together nothing short of half a million troops will be required to actually bring to peace(suppression via violence against the populous at large). I also do not care to still be having this debate four years from now with not much changed.

We did not send our forces to fight the Iraqis. This is the entire essence of a quagmire.

No Ted, it's not a joke, nor is it idiocy. It's an explicit repudiation of one of the chief aims of the perpetrators of this war: to establish bases in Iraq which would serve as a foundation for further military adventures in the Middle East. It's an explicit repudiation of the goal of controlling the Middle East by force of arms, a goal which, it is perhaps worth mentioning, has already been shown to have been utterly unrealistic.

Remember before the war? It was "First Baghdad; then Damascus; then watch out, Teheran!" Well, after four years, we don't even have control of Baghdad. That certainly was a militaristic pipe dream, wasn't it?

The other chief war aim, to control Iraqi oil, is also explicitly repudiated in H.R. 508. It's saying quite explicitly that the war aims of the present administration shall not be the policy of the United States.

It does not propose the defeat of the United States, only that of George Bush and his dwindling circle of gung-ho militarists.

Well, as any student of military history should now, we never really tried for victory if that meant nation- building. We beat the Iraqi Army in 2 weeks. If we'd subjected the Iraqi population to another five months of severe privation, then we might have been able to do what we wanted. We indeed did miss our chance. We could have been very aggressive on the front end. Nation-building requires a pliable populace, one that is tired of living in boxes and eating garbage. Today, we do everything we can to bribe populations rather than make their lives miserable--sticks are much better incentives than carrots.

Americans have no taste for empire, but if we were to lose several hundred troops annually in bombings and ambushes for the next 20 years, but keep control over the region and access to the oil at a reduced cost and with a constant availability, a British, French or German leader from the 1800s would have considered it a very good deal.





Our miltiary has NEVER gotten good medical care by private standards. Never. Not in WWI, not in WWII, not in Korea, not in Vietnam. We generally gave much better medical care than our opponents in these wars, but some kind of blank check mentality is just not realistic. That is what I meant when I said the VA is what it is. Don' t put words in my mouth.





Me, too, but it is what it is. What are we going to get for the blood?







We are already moving to a mercenary army (Blackwater, etc.) to contain these costs. If we really want to be an imperial force, we'll need a draft and a cut in benefits. Few people want to be an "army of one" or "get skill training in one of 120 fields" just to die. This is something our leaders will have to grapple with. I do not believe American people are very game for empire building.

But, in this miserable spot we are in, we either determine to get something for our money and blood, or come home with our tail between our legs. We have all-but-completed a nearly impregnable new embassy in Baghdad--the largest US embassy anywhere--and we have secure bases. We need do nothing more than maintain them, like we do in S Korea, and probably lose a few soldiers from time to time. We keep al Qaeda tied up in nots, keep a bee in Iran's bonnet, and, surely, we can get a good oil deal.

No, it should not be. From what I can tell, pulling our entire fighting force out of Iraq before it has a stable government capable of defending itself from Islamic extremism could potentially put our country's security in danger and further destabilize the region. I think Iraq was a mistake, a very, very big mistake, but to simply move ourselves away from the mistake does not neutralize the mistake's consequences. If the Iraqi government is not capable of ensuring the existence of an anti-Islamic extremist Iraq then by leaving we could be allowing a terror-friendly state to incubate. I stress could because I understand it is not a 100% certainty that such an outcome would come to being, however, it is the duty of the Federal government to ensure that we the people are not harmed or our security threatened as a result of its enormous mistake.

That said, the day that we believe that Iraq is capable of protecting itself from terrorism, we should make plans to leave as quickly as we can. Six months from now is simply too soon. Honestly, anyone here think that Iraq's Reno 911-esque police and their unstable government can ensure their own existence?

I don't.

CP

What a deeply chilling image of a possible future. I wonder who the "we" is that you think would benefit from it. (It is not "we" that are in a miserable spot, by the way, it is those who can't come to grips with the failure of their imperial pipe-dream.) Leaving that aside, this future is utterly unviable from a political viewpoint. The American people, in spite of our faults, remain concerned with basic notions of fairness and justice, and not only within these borders.

Also I think you're mistaken that our presence in Iraq takes up any significant resources of the radical Islamists. It certainly is not impeding their forces in Afghanistan, which have greatly strengthened during our time in Iraq. Further I think our presence in Iraq serves a recruiting boon to jihadism, and tends entirely to confirm their preconceptions about us. The twin towers fell due to the actions of 20-30 peeople; it hardly seems likely that there aren't at least that many to spare now. In any case, part of the question here is whether we would even need to fight these people, if we suitably modified our regional policies.

I don't have to put any words in your mouth, by the way, to call attention to your callousness on the subject of the medical care of our returned troops. Our soldiers have "never" had good medical care? And that excuses this?



It really does not matter. Some power will eventually emerge that is capable of governing Iraq, or the country will divide into regions to which the analogous statement applies. In any case, those who have oil to sell will sell it at the world market price. We don't have enough interest in the details of this outcome to warrant the continuation of our present, very costly policy.

But if indeed the immediate stability of Iraq is a matter of grave international concern (I suspect it isn't), then the international community can supply some sort of peacekeeping authority that will ameliorate the situation. There is nothing, except dreams of cheap oil and empire, that should induce the U.S. to bear this burden alone.

Many, many experts disagree including the terrorists who cannot wait to declare victory.

Even the soldiers disagree with you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/c...AR2006110500770

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6120801686.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2124157/

Even experts against the war say pulling out is a loser:

"It was a great mistake to go to Iraq," said Syed Hasnat, an expert on terrorism at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C. But a sudden withdrawal, he added, would both greatly damage the United States and "affect the cycle of international extremism."
The roots of international Islamic militancy go far deeper than the U.S. military presence in Iraq, and their goals extend beyond forcing out 147,000 U.S. troops, experts say. And although the Iraq war has helped radicalize thousands of Muslims, without it, jihadists -- militants who seek to turn conviction in their faith into the grounds for a holy war against people of other religions -- can use other long-standing grievances to recruit new fighters: Muslim discontent over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the widespread belief that the United States intends to colonize the Middle East.
At the same time, most experts agree with the national intelligence estimate, an assessment by America's 16 intelligence agencies, that leaving Iraq in turmoil would embolden Islamic terrorists, giving them a foothold and a victory in the short run.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGT5LE3Q51.DTL


“it's worth thinking through what would happen if the U.S. does fail in Iraq. By fail, we mean cut and run before giving Iraqis the time and support to establish a stable, democratic government that can stand on its own. Beyond almost certain chaos in Iraq, here are some other likely consequences:
• The U.S. would lose all credibility on weapons proliferation. One doesn't have to be a dreamy-eyed optimist about democracy to recognize that toppling Saddam Hussein was a milestone in slowing the spread of WMD. Watching the Saddam example, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi decided he didn't want to be next. Gadhafi's "voluntary" disarmament in turn helped uncover the nuclear network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and Iran's two decades of deception.
Now Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons, a prospect that might yet be headed off by the use or threat of force. But if the U.S. retreats from Iraq, Iran's mullahs will know that we have no stomach to confront them and coercive diplomacy will have no credibility. An Iranian bomb, in turn, would inspire nuclear efforts in other Mideast countries and around the world.
• Broader Mideast instability. No one should underestimate America's deterrent effect in that unstable region, a benefit that would vanish if we left Iraq precipitously. Iran would feel free to begin unfettered meddling in southern Iraq with the aim of helping young radicals like Moqtada al-Sadr overwhelm moderate clerics like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani.
Syria would feel free to return to its predations in Lebanon and to unleash Hezbollah on Israel. Even allies like Turkey might feel compelled to take unilateral, albeit counterproductive steps, such as intervening in northern Iraq to protect their interests. Every country in the Middle East would make its own new calculation of how much it could afford to support U.S. interests. Some would make their own private deals with al Qaeda, or at a minimum stop aiding us in our pursuit of Islamists.
• We would lose all credibility with Muslim reformers. The Mideast is now undergoing a political evolution in which the clear majority, even if skeptical of U.S. motives, agrees with the goal of more democracy and accountable government. They have watched as millions of Iraqis have literally risked their lives to vote and otherwise support the project. Having seen those Iraqis later betrayed, other would-be reformers would not gamble their futures on American support. Nothing could be worse in the battle for Muslim "hearts and minds" than to betray our most natural allies.
• We would invite more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Osama bin Laden said many times that he saw the weak U.S. response to Somalia and the Khobar Towers and USS Cole bombings as evidence that we lacked the will for a long fight. The forceful response after 9/11 taught al Qaeda otherwise, but a retreat in Iraq would revive that reputation for American weakness. While Western liberals may deny any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, bin Laden and the rest of the Arab world see it clearly and would advertise a U.S. withdrawal as his victory. Far from leaving us alone, bin Laden would be more emboldened to strike the U.S. homeland with a goal of driving the U.S. entirely out of the Mideast.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110008124



http://trackingalqueda.blogspot.com/2005/1...raq-videos.html

And many, many experts are on the other side too, Ted.

Ted, this war has been lost. You don't sent five NATO-class divisions, three aircraft carrier battle groups and the world's most modern air force to fight a ragtag band of people armed with AK-47s and RPGs; fight for four years while the enemy's strength and boldness does nothing but increase, and while he absolutely prevents you from building an infrastructure; and then get to say that you're winning. If you say, "we have no choice but more of the same," you merely convince people what an idiot you are -- which is the position that Bush is in.

We're not being kicked out exactly, but in fact we're getting our butts kicked over there, and notwithstanding all of the many horrible demons that will emerge from the maw of hell when we leave, we're going to have to leave soon enough. The enemies we've chosen for ourselves don't have to wait until we leave to jump up and down for joy; they're already jumping. They're laughing their heads off, Ted. They have a TV station, you know, where they show our people getting shot down. And the question is, what to do about the whole d---d situation.

And if your answer is, "more and more of the same," you will only convince yourself and a dwindling band of dead-end war supporters. It's time to rethink our whole approach to the Middle East, and to come to terms with the obvious fact that military force is not the answer. It's time to think of some new answers, and most notably to abandon the dreams of cheap oil and empire that got us into this in the first place.

Finally, I very strongly suspect that if you went to Fort Campbell or Baghdad and polled the troops privately on this question, you would discover that they're not nearly as gung ho as you imagine they are. But in any case, fortunatly, we're not living in under a fascist regime where soldiers opinions count for more than anyone else's.

Yes, some power will indeed come to power that is capable of governing Iraq. My contention is that "some power" may be an Islamic fundamentalist regime that would threaten the security of this country. Until we are reasonably sure that that will not happen, we have the obligation to stay, IMO.
The int'l community COULD do that. But it won't. If the international community hasn't supplied any peacekeeping authority YET then what would make you believe they'll do it NOW or better yet after the worlds most powerful army has left the country?

CP

As in every war ever fought mistakes were made. In this case disbanding the Iraqi army was a major blunder as was allowing the AQ folks to foment the sectarian violence. Those things can be corrected (as with the surge) and the training can be completed of the Iraqi army. At that point in the Iraqi government cannot “hold it together” we and they have lost this one. We have not reached that point yet. IMO we will know by early 08 if we win or lose. Too soon to say has been lost, and throw in the towel – only to have top come back later.

We can't have terrorists declaring victory. That might hurt our pride.

The point in being in Iraq is what agian? To fight terrorists? There WERE no terrorists in Iraq that posed any operational threat to the US (according to the 9-11 commission and every single credible intelligence expert).

So you seem to be saying that conservative policies have been so disastrous, so pernicious that they have created a huge risk to the US because of the invasion of Iraq.

And you're solution -- continue occupying Iraq.

This is the kind of conservative logic that will hopefully make sure the GOP goes the way of the Whigs in the next election.

Why do you repeat assertions like that when they have already, repeatedly been soundly, factually disproven? The majority of US troops in Iraq want a pullout, most prefer a timeline over immediate, 6 months to a year, which I agree with. Please don't pretend otherwise.




Ted, let me ask you a question. You cite an 'expert' to prove your point. Do you believe this expert? Do you advocate his argument? because the very first thing he says is "It was a great mistake to go to Iraq". Do you accept his 'expert testemony?

Or do you reject it, only accepting him as an 'expert' later when he half-supports another personal opinion of yours? Is your acceptance of his 'expertise' so flexible that you accept as gospel one comment he makes, and reject as false another comment in the same paragraph?

And even funnier, he doesn't even support your point. he states a 'sudden withdrawal' would be a bad idea; which is not what is being advocated, but rather a phased withdrawal over 6-months to a year.

He does go on, in some detail, to explain just how terrible an effect the WAR SO FAR has had upon the middle east though: "the Iraq war has helped radicalize thousands of Muslims". Still velieve in your 'expert' Ted? Or are you now going to reject his comments? Or just cut-and-run and not address the point at all?





Yeah, the US has a LOT of credibility on weapons proliferation. Developing new 'bunker buster' nuclear weapons for their own use, not to mention North Korea becoming a nuclear Power and Iran actively pursuing nukes on Bush's watch... (oh wait, I forgot, everythin bad that happens under Bush's presidency is clinton's fault, right?)



That is the strangest logic I have ever heard. Iran is going nuclear BECAUSE iof the presence of the US and the Axis of Evil speech. Are you seriously suggesting that a US withdrawal from Iraq would accelerate Iranian bomb research? With a straight face?




Uh, look at the Middle East. look carefully. Then look at the ISG report, the NIE report, not to mention YOUR expert above. The US invasion of Iraq has been a destabilising force in the Middle east at large, unquestionably.




You mean like happened last year? Yeah, good deterrent effect the US is having.




Pure, unevidenced far-right conservative fear-mongering without a shred of backing. The NIE, the IISS and the CIA all state openly that the US is less safe as a direct result of the Iraq war, that AQ is stronger than it has ever ben as a direct result of the Iraq war. Iraqi insurgents are not coming to the US, they don't care one whit. International AQ is, however, remember them? They are the ones who were on the ropes before Bush jr deprioritised them and threw the available resources of the US into Iraq. Remember how Bush Jr tried to disband 'Alec station', the CIA task force dedicated to hunting down Bin Laden?

There is plenty of international support for a stable Iraq; what is lacking is international willingness to stabilize Iraq so that the United States can build military bases there and control its oil supply. We hardly had a valid expectation that France, Germany and the others would make a significant sacrifice merely so that U.S. power and wealth could be enlarged.

The other nations have no incentive to do anything so long as the United States pursues its dubious imperial ambitions. Yes indeed, they are quite willing to sit by and watch the U.S. sink into the mire of its failure as a latter-day conquistador. But if the U.S. announced a firm plan for early departure, and if the potential harm of Iraqi instabiliby is really as horrible as war supporters claim it is, it is rather likely that the international community will step forward with some sort of peace-keeping arrangments.

My own suspicion is that the supposed horrors of an Iraq free of Western military occupation are not as great as many here would claim they are. But if I do turn out to wrong on this score, then there will be time for the international community to step in with a remedy.

Which of the 19 Dem plans do you want to discuss? The most prominent I have heard is the “out by Sept 08” which can be defined as “sudden” esp. with no bases left. Even the ISG reccomended over a year with some residual presence.

IMO this is a classic Democrat political move for the White House. We have no “surge” ie. no chance to give the Iraqi army time to come up to speed as they chase one bomb after another – then we start the pullout and like magic the disaster of utter defeat happens right BEFORE the ELECTION. Dems clean house and Repubs hold the bag for the humiliating defeat – and of course any repercussions – like terrorist attacks here – for at least 2 years.

A perfect strategy – except the country loses.





As usual no clue V. Actually NK is coming around and you must know the nuke bunker buster was never approved.




Agreed – short term – but tell me what was the UN PLAN for Iraq after 1998??? Was it that the US would fly over forever or was it the French way – give up and let Saddam get back to his WMD production – as the first ISG report so elloquenty detailed?

Just curious.

Well, that's one theory. I don't buy into the fact that we're only staying in Iraq for oil, but as I said, it's a theory, it can't be proven or disproven. Regardless, I don't see any support for a stable Iraq. I hear the UN occasionally referencing Iraq, I hear heads of foreign nations referencing Iraq, I don't see anyone doing anything or offering to do anything.
A cease-fire? A ceasefire between two warring factions of Islam, highly doubtful. I'm not aware of any past UN mission that has sucessfully stopped two warring Islamic factions from destroying each other.
In addition, I don't understand how a ceasefire would curb the threat of terror in an unstable Iraq.

CP

Uh... I hate to ask this as I know it could be taken as an attack, but given that statement I am forced to ask in all seriousness... Do you know what year it is? September 2008 is over a year away. It is in fact a year and a half away: more time than I would have given them pesonally...

Yes the ISG recommended residual presence, in the form of training and some special forces. They specifically advised against large US bases in the region as distinctly counterproductive. May I humbly suggest (again) that you READ the ISG report before quoting/dismissing (you alternate) of its contents in such a manner?



Firstly, there IS a surge, it is ongoing. The Hawkish republicans GOT everything they asked for: they GOT the surge, so stop pretending the Democrats have done anything to obstruct the war effort, or even significantly influence it. The loss is in the hands of the party that planned it, led it, championed it, and executed it for foyur years of unremitting failure.

As for your prediction, I think its fairly accurate, except that it is not a 'strategy', it is the truth. The only exception being defeat isn't going to 'magically happen', defeat is ongoing and has been happening for years getting worse all the time.




The country already lost Ted. The country was led into a badly planned and badly executed war which has made the situation worse in pretty much every measurable way, both for Iraq and for the United States: made the US less safe, allowed the regrowth of international terrorism, destabilised the Middle East, created a civil war, created another Branch of AQ where none existed before, strongly encouraged scared nations to race for the bomb, left the US military bogged down and undeployable, killed and wounded tens of thousands of Americans and wasted about half a trillion US dollars.




Right Ted, I have no clue. Sure. North Korea is NOT 'coming around', unless you believe this new 'offer' of theirs carries any more weight than their last 50. All of which is beside the point, they now HAVE the bomb. And you are correct, the nuclear bunker busters were dropped: but only after the House revolted against Bush and blocked funding for the idea, and every indication was Comgress would do the same. Bush dropped the plan because he knew it would never pass.


Reality check: Withdrawal from Iraq over a timetable of up to a year, as suggested by the bi-partisan ISG, gives the best chance for sucess in the Middle East, and staops the hemmorage of US lives and dollars being thrown away on an endless venture. It removes a seriously destabilising force from the region, while allowing the Iraqi government the means, equipment, trainers and time to take control of the country: if it can. Your argument seems to be accept US dead, US injured and hundreds of billions of US dollars wasted, more every month, rather than admit error, because that would look bad for the republicans. And then you have the audacity to accuse everyone else of being political?

To those others who have made more sane and reasoned arguments: Look, the slogans and catchphrases are nice: "We broke it so we fix it" and so on, and they cerratinly sound nice. But they are not realistic. Who now is talking about 'fixing' Iraq? Remember when Hawks were touting the 'sucess' of the surge when attacks per day and deaths dropped in mid February? That 'sucess' lasted a WEEK. Attacks per days and civilian deaths in baghdad are now HIGHER than they were in December 2006. If the drop before marked 'sucess', does that not mean that numbers shooting up again marks 'failure'? The average number of US deaths over the past three months is higher than it has been at any time since the Fallujah operation.

Already the adminstration is caloing for MORE troops, so the 'surge' clearly hasn't been sucessful (so far: to be fair, it is still an ongoing operation), and the pentagon knows it. But the negative consequences keep piling up:

" study by the Centre on Law and Security at the NYU Foundation for "Mother Jones" magazine (US) proves this with hard numbers. The study looked at two periods, September 2001 to March 2003, and from March 2003 to September 2006. Globally, there was a 607 per cent rise in the yearly incidence of attacks and a 237 per cent rise in fatalities. The first period witnessed 729 deaths. The second saw 5,420. Even excluding Iraq, terrorist attacks and fatalities rose sharply, by 265 per cent and 58 per cent.

Iraq and Afghanistan account for 80 per cent of all attacks and 67 per cent of deaths. But even if they’re excluded, there’s still a 35 per cent increase in terrorist attacks and a 12 per cent rise in fatalities (to 554 per year). The Iraq war has caused a precipitous drop in support for the US in Muslim countries: from 25 per cent to 1 per cent in Jordan, a major US ally; in Lebanon, from 30 to 15 per cent; and in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, from 61 per cent to 15.



So slogans like 'we broke it so we need to fix it', while sounding nice, are meaningless plaitutes. the staus quo is NOT WORKING, it has not worked for four years, and there is no sign of it suddenly starting to work now. The ISG report (God I wish people would read it) very carefully looked at the alternatives, including the ill-advised troop esalation, and concluded that a phased withdrawal was the only reasonable way forward, and the one with the greatest chance of sucess.

That’s not the same. I doubt per say if another nation started a conflict, ran into trouble and then asked us to bail them out we would offer, not at least on the scale of Iraq. You can have genocides occurring in the world and nations don’t have to care. We unilaterally started Iraq, you can talk of a coalition of the willing, coalition only needing to be 2 or more, but in reality most of that coalition is going away, even the U.K.

Bearing the brunt of Iraq with a population around 26,783,383 is not going to easy for any single nation. More so that Iraq is a rather large country to police in the first place. We have a force there of over 100,000, but not all of that is boots on the ground to police Iraq either. Four years, going on five now, and it truly is status quo or stalemate. I would hate to say this but socially, politically and militarily, and economically Iraq is in a ruined state.

Not to say our military is a failure, no sir, management of it was. We went to liberate Iraq, now we deal with an insurgency, a civil war and of course nasty terrorist elements that are headfast working against us to save the holy land or whatever it is.

A massive change of plan needs to occur. To successfully police Iraq to me, which also means by force will require a much large concentration of troops then we currently can realistically muster, I by all means am not a military strategist but I could see nothing short of at least 400,-500,000 troops really being required. Simply because we would have to install really what we want.

If we cant muster enough troops then what do we have, a surge to attempt to control one major city in Iraq? IS that going to win the war, and what about when we de-surge those troops, we will have had to police the rest of all of Iraq, bring Iraq to a stable ground in terms of social, economical, and political in which the various peoples of Iraq work towards what we want from them, which would mean a standing military, police and related infrastructure that would really be quite massive and to date does not exist in really any state that is fit to do such, and how much money and time would that require, more so when we don’t have enough to stop an insurgency, terrorists and a civil war?

Lastly, Iraq is really destabilizing the middle east, and its also pulling resources that should have been used in Afghanistan. Iraq has become a quagmire where you have coalition or really soon to be only U.S forces engaged in armed conflict with blurred lines of what is a terrorist or simply local Iraqis.

I could support this withdraw way easier then I could support status quo.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Gordo. I'm not talking about any coalition of the willing, realistically, the US is going it alone in Iraq. I don't disagree with anything you said here.

As for the rest of your post, I completely agree [with the exception of having 500,000 troops in Iraq...IMO we just need to stop attempting to fight a politically correct war]. That said, I'm not sure how it really connects with what I'm saying. My only point is that we cannot leave Iraq with uncertainty as to whether or not it will be able to protect itself from Islamic extremism. I completely agree with your assessment that we need to install the kind of governmental structure we want, that seems to be the only way of doing things. Trouble is, in order to do that we'll have to prop up a more dictatorial/authoritarian government. Democracy in Iraq is all but impossible given the necessary components for it to work. That said, again, I agree with much of what you say.

CP

But not just a “year and a half” for stabilization 0- but compleat withdrawal – NO bases nothing – squat. Get it. And as I said even the ISG did not advocate this and it does fit so nicely in with the election doesn’t it?? I have read the ISG. It does NOT say complete withdrawal as the Dems now say.


From ISG –
The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq.
It is clear that the Iraqi government will need assistance from the United States for some time to come, especially in carrying out security responsibilities

If the Iraqi government demonstrates political will and makes substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should make clear its willingness to continue training, assistance, and support for Iraq's security forces and to continue political, military, and economic support.



Actually the troops are just starting to move but the strategy has made a difference in Iraq – mush to the chagrin, I am sure, of the left.

Surge Working
ABC News’ Terry McCarthy reports that things are really looking up in Sadr City, where the troops are meeting little resistance, the streets are “definitely more crowded,” the number of dead bodies are “dropping sharply,” and other positive signs. And things are positively booming in Kurdistan.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/...rom_sadr_city_/


But you just keep saying we lose – I thing you will be disappointed.

Ted, for God's sake, stop making things up as you post. How many times have you been caught out on facts just in the last half dozen of your posts?

The Democrats are NOT endorsing a complete withdrawal, they are endorsing the ISG report, no large bases, no substantial troop presence, just a small number of training and support personel, EXACTLY as the ISG report recommends. This report (as I said last post) explicitly suggests against the creation of large US military bases as well. PLEASE (seriously, all posturing aside, please) read the ISG report before making such wild comments regarding what you imagine it contains.




(Much laughter)

Wow Ted, even for you...

The actual title of the article is not (as you posted) 'Surge working', but in fact 'Surge working?'
Punctuation can make SUCH a difference, I wonder why you cut that out Ted?

Speaking of 'creative editing', I notice you also 'forgot' to include the second half of the paragraph you quoted:

"Then again, the recent car bombings in Baghdad have been quite deadly and there’s hardly a guarantee that the quiet in Sadr City will sustain itself once American troops leave, as they inevitably will."

Then of course, there are the facts and arguments in my last post you also conveniently ignored. Ah well.




I won't be 'disapointed' by a victory over the insurgency Ted (There you go again, pretending anyone who criticises Bush jr or the war WANTS the US to lose), but I will be astonished given the complete failure of previous 'troop surges'.

What I can guarentee: when the surge turns out to be a failure, you will conveniently forget all your predictions of victory, admit no error and move on trying to find anyone to blame except the man ultimately responsible for it all. Same as you have regarding all the other things you have 'confidently predicted' regarding Iraq over the last couple years.

For god’s sake yourself – WHICH of the plans are you discussing – did you pick one?

In a direct challenge to President Bush's strategy for Iraq, the plan would have troops redeploying as early as July of this year but no later than March 2008, and full combat withdrawal by August 2008

The House Democrats' plan would pull out troops sooner — within four to six months

GEE - V How does this match up with ISG???

Jondroe pointed to what Gen. David Petraeus said earlier Thursday as evidence that the Democrats' plan will not work, and he accused Democrats of "using political calculations" to craft a plan. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, pointed to early successes in Baghdad since a recent joint U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown got underway, but said a military solution alone will not settle Iraq, and a political solution is also important.





Of course V any excuse to declare defeat (not yours of course – cozy in Canada) is never passed up. Could it be the bad guys aren’t ALL dead yet?? Heavens!! - much, much laughter .

First off, the war ISN'T LOST. This war may be a lost cause and a big mistake, which I think any sane person in America can say as of now, but I'm sorry, the United States hasn't been defeated yet. A loss is Nazi Germany's unconditional surrender of basically their sovereignty to the Allies, the South Vietnamese finally surrendering to the North, but we are not even close to this.
The definition of a defeat is here: an overthrow or overturning; vanquishment.
But are the American forces in Iraq being overthrown? Vanquished? The total tide of war pushing us away off Iraq?
NO
Get your facts right before you go and make wild statements about our position.

"More and more of the same"... there is no possibility here for political agreements between us and the insurgents. The only way we can solve this is to hang in long enough for the Iraqi forces to fight there own civil war, because I can guarantee after the Shia have been oppressed for centuries there not going to just sit down and have a nice little talk with their hated passionately enemies (Sunni). The surge isn't a bad plan if you actually look at it in a realistic way. What made the U.S. come through as the superpower? Thing called realpolitik. That's what we need to do here. Look at our situation, and assess what is the best scenario we can get out of this. And I'm sorry but that DOES NOT include pulling out of the place we just invaded. If we leave, I guarantee you one of two things will happen. One- the "democratic" government will need to end the civil violence, grab more and more power, and probably end up a totalitarian dictatorship, which we just overthrew in the first place, but wait, I'm sorry, lives are already lost? So why not just give the whole entire four years up just to end up where we started. The second is more likely even worse. A Shi'a coup would occur, a radical Shi'ite government enforced, and we're even WORSE off than when Saddam was in power.

But the realpolitik.
There are three major assets we can get out of this whole fiasco.

1. A (potential) ally of Iraq, which we do not have many of in the Middle East, and which with Iraq backed by the U.S. will act as a bulwark to any Iranian aggression
2. Bases we have on formerly hostile ground, where we can base American troops in a powder keg area of the world, where in the future we will most likely need to stay for conflicts and interests
3. Cheap oil, by producing a beneficial trade agreement with the Iraqi government

Basically all 3 of these things are ignored or shot down in this proposal.
Total opposite of what we need to be doing and going for.

Let get a few matters straight:

1) The war was won in a few weeks. Period. This is not debatable. The Iraqi military was crushed and its government was toppled.

2) The excuses for the war were unacceptable even if true, and most were not true. I happen to think we were really trying to establish US hegemony in the Middle East and needed an excuse. 9-11 and Saddam's own boorish behavior gave us that excuse. It was basically an offensive war, couched as a defensive one for UN Charter purposes. I personally hate the UN, but hey, there is this New World Order and the Global Community

2) After the war, we began a process of nation-building. We wanted to Westernize Iraq and establish some kind of Republic with some kind of electoral process. We did not have a pliable, beaten citizenry to reshape--see 4) below.

3) During the nation-building process, a civil unrest sparked by some combination of al-Queda, Iran and Syria became serious. This event or process was not anticipated by our leaders and has not been handled well, if it could be handled at all. We did not have enough troops and staff to handle this situation. We did not seal borders, we did not exercise 24 hour curfews, etc. We are in a police function now because of this problem. We have no enemy--it was defeated. We are fighting several guerilla-type groups to maintain social order--very different.

4) Because of the strange new language of the "global community", we worked hard to avoid collateral damage and to minimize civilian suffering. Today, civilians in Iraq who are not part of the resistance are much more scared of the guerillas than they are of us. Why? The guerillas kill them, for the most part we have not, despite some well-publicized events to the contrary. The neutral citizenry may or may not not hate us, but they certainly do not support us much.

5) We have lost lots of blood and money--what are we going to get for it? Right or wrong, we are there, and I want something for my trouble. We have a crisis of self-interest. I could care less what Europe, Asia, the media, or anyone else thinks. What do I, Joe US citizen, get for my trillion dollars, 3200 dead, and thousands wounded?

6) Hillary Clinton hinted at what the Dems really have in mind--at least what she, who is steeped in realpolitik, has in mind, and it is much like what I said several posts above--we keep our embassy, our spooks, and several bases. We keep some control and most importantly a presence in Iraq. We get out of the streets, quit making sweeps, etc. Who cares? If Iraqis want peace, they can get it themselves. We will protect the oil fields and make sure Iran and Syria know we can reach out and touch them. I 'll suggest Clinton would leave a heavy division and a carrier battle group there indefinitely.

Now. Carry on.

This is all fantasy. The inevitable outcome of Bush's foolish invasion is and will be the establishment of a radical islamic state in Iraq, which will throw us out on our ear the minute they can.

Bush has spent $1 trillion accomplishing what Iran has wanted to do for a generation but couldn't pull off. Any fool could have predicted this (and plenty did). Conservative strategists could have done this for free by not having supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.

But hey, since when does conservative foreign policy have any relationship to reality.

Just so you know, even if we didn't support Saddam, Iran probably still wouldn't of won. They would've been fighting the whole Arab Middle East if they got too far into Iraq. See? Persians and Arabs HATE eachother. That most likely couldve turned into a Middle East conflict. So stop trying to argue the past. ITS DONE. We're at least attempting to discuss things to choose our future. Either get into reality or stop posting your ludicrous claims of "fantasy", get out of your own. The main warfare against the Baathists stopped years ago, they were demolished.
End of story

Yep, big mistake, since it unleashed the radical islamic factions that control Iraq today and will control it in the future.

We should have supported indigenous democratic movements, but Bush had his own conservative agenda, and now we have fantasies about a free Iraq in the future. What nonsense. Iraq will become the next Iran, And it only cost the US taxpayers $1 trillion