The Crypt - Pelosi, Reid to announce new push to end Iraq war

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are expected tomorrow to announce a new coordinated effort to force votes in July to end the Iraq war, according to Democratic insiders.

Reid has already publicly declared that Senate Democrats will offer four Iraq-related amendments to the upcoming 2008 Defense authorization bill, including a proposal by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to set a firm timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring.

Pelosi is planning to announce that the House will also vote on a bill setting a new withdrawal timetable of April 1, 2008, although the details of the proposal were still up in the air at press time, according to Democratic sources. The House will consider this proposal as a freestanding bill, said the sources.
...
Both Pelosi and Reid have come to the conclusion that President Bush's plan for a "surge" in the number of U.S. troops inside Iraq, has failed and that Democrats, despite losing their showdown with Bush and the Republicans over the recent Iraq supplemental funding bill, must continue to force votes to end the war. Gen. David Petraeus is supposed to report back to Congress in September on the state of the "surge," but Democrats have decided not to wait for his report.

Questions for debate:

1) Should Reid and Pelosi wait for the September report before moving ahead with "ending the war."

2) Is an April 1, 2008 timetable practical?

3) If such a timetable isn't practical, what does that say about the judgement of those pushing such a timetable?

4) What, exactly, do they mean by "ending the war"? What do we do if the Other Side doesn't cooperate in "ending the war"?

5) How much American "blood and treasure" expended in Iraq would you think is acceptable to "end the war"?

Questions for debate:

1) Should Reid and Pelosi wait for the September report before moving ahead with "ending the war."

Morally no, politically you can only do what you can do.

2) Is an April 1, 2008 timetable practical?

I'm not sure what is entailed in the word "practical." One would have to understand what is exactly going to be involved in the pullout and then what is a reasonable logistic timetable as determined by those with the knowledge to make such determinations.

3) If such a timetable isn't practical, what does that say about the judgement of those pushing such a timetable?

I think the idea of a specific timetable has more to do with getting a present time commitment from the administration for a phased withdrawal. One can then negotiate the actual time of withdrawal or even agree on a flexible window between dates X and Y for when the troops will be finally withdrawn.

4) What, exactly, do they mean by "ending the war"? What do we do if the Other Side doesn't cooperate in "ending the war"?

Ending the war means ending our involvement in it.

5) How much American "blood and treasure" expended in Iraq would you think is acceptable to "end the war"?

I think a small amount to secure an ordered withdrawal while giving the Iraqis a fighting chance to let their government work as we turn power over and try to work out some UN based international support system and discuss conditions of withdrawal with effected parties like Iran, along with internal factions.

1) Should Reid and Pelosi wait for the September report before moving ahead with "ending the war."

Two points.

#1 It doesn't really matter what Reid and Pelosi do, they have no practical power to stop the deployment of US troops in Iraq.

#2 They need to act more and speak less. If they feel the war is wrong for America and that it is in America's best interest to withdraw forces or dramatically change the mission. They should do what they can to pressure the administration.

2) Is an April 1, 2008 timetable practical?

I think the concept of a timetable is murky. I don't think they should be trying to name dates to remove the troops. They should be trying to rally congress in a genuine bipartisan manner (hey its just a dream I don;t believe it will happen either) to pressure the administration to change policy.

3) If such a timetable isn't practical, what does that say about the judgement of those pushing such a timetable?

I think it is what they think is best. We could remove all of our troops by April 2008. But politically, why would Bush ever give in to Democratic leadership on this issue. They might give in to Republican leadership in Congress. Again that hilarious bipartisan concept for our national interest.

4) What, exactly, do they mean by "ending the war"? What do we do if the Other Side doesn't cooperate in "ending the war"?

Well, I think the mission needs to be redifined. I don;t really see a war out there. Look at the history of this type of guerilla engagements. Pull out the foriegn occupying force and the situation changes dramatically. How many suicide bombs were there in Iraq before an American army was placed in the fertile crescent?

I think we won the military contest that we could win when Bush landed on that carrier. We have tried to push too strongly our agenda in reconstituting Iraq. How much worse could it really get if we withdrew even to the periphery of Iraq and made our presence felt for knocking off horrific factions trying to impose a reign of terror.

We should be working hard in diplomatic ways to secure international support to trying to find a political solution for Iraq. It is a very difficult task. GHW Bush understood this.

5) How much American "blood and treasure" expended in Iraq would you think is acceptable to "end the war"?

We have invested a sufficient amount now. We have lost thousands of lives we didn;t necessarily need to. We are squandering our lives and resources right now. It has been a horrific failure of leadership.

A better timetable would be July 5, 2007.

American troops shouldn't be in Iraq, period.

This has gotten beyond sick.

So, you would advocate conscripting 50% of the American civilian airline fleet and just lining the troops up at the airports and flying them out as fast as humanly possible?

Doesn't matter. They are there. Since they are there, if we want them out, we have to decide how much we're willing to spend to get them out. What's it gonna cost us, how much is "too much". Costs come in a variety of types, direct $$$ costs to us, consequences for the Iraqis, the Middle East, our ability to defend or advance our interests in the future, etc).

This is a real practical problem. How fast can we move 160,000 troops? Where do they go?


Have you heard anybody calling for the pullout discuss the logistics? Somebody, that is, with more of a clue than Murtha? (ready reaction from Okinawa, yeah, riiiight.....)

That might be a bit extreme. I would advocate flying them out as quickly as our military jets, ships and helicopters can do so.



I don't know how fast we can move them. How fast did we move them in? Where do they go? They come home.

What is the cost? In $$ there is no such thing as "too much" in safeguarding our troops. Costs in the Middle East? It will be difficult to sway me that there would be any cost, at least any cost more than having put them there in the first place.

1) Should Reid and Pelosi wait for the September report before moving ahead with "ending the war."

No. I do wish they’d bloviate less and actually DO something. I am almost as disgusted with Congress as I am with the Bush administration (for different reasons). Congress needs to get off their duffs, quit making speeches and DO something about the crooks destroying our country.

2) Is an April 1, 2008 timetable practical?

The date itself is unfortunate (I’d hate to see all the April Fools! Jokes), but that time period is more than adequate. If Iraq has no set timeframe, they are never going to take the actions necessary to be self-sustaining. They have no incentive to.

4) What, exactly, do they mean by "ending the war"? What do we do if the Other Side doesn't cooperate in "ending the war"?

Ending our involvement in occupying a foreign country.

5) How much American "blood and treasure" expended in Iraq would you think is acceptable to "end the war"?

None. Since I believe we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place, one soldier killed and one dollar spent was one soldier killed and one dollar spent too many.

Edited to clarify

1) Should Reid and Pelosi wait for the September report before moving ahead with "ending the war."

The war is a dreadful mistake, and it should be ended as soon as possible.

2) Is an April 1, 2008 timetable practical?

A much sooner withdrawal is practical.

3) If such a timetable isn't practical, what does that say about the judgement of those pushing such a timetable?

Vacuous and question-begging.

4) What, exactly, do they mean by "ending the war"? What do we do if the Other Side doesn't cooperate in "ending the war"?

Semantics. This is about withdrawing from Iraq.

5) How much American "blood and treasure" expended in Iraq would you think is acceptable to "end the war"?

Anything up to and including what we're spending to "win the war."



I have to laugh at the notion that our military, which was sufficiently competant to prepare and launch a massive invasion that defeated Iraq in two weeks, isn't competant to organize an expeditious withdrawal.

The expense of removing the troops is, presumably, approximately the same as the expense of sending them. Whatever that is, it is a one-time expenditure, as compared to the continued expense of fighting a war halfway around the globe, under harsh conditions.

Oh dear me, where will our troops go? Come on!

1) They need to stand clear; on Yahoo today, the new Al-Qaeda video is seen as evidence the Surge is working and AQ is worried that their tactics are driving some other militants into the American camp. Let's give this a chance. We finally seem to have overcome the notion of war on the cheap and we are using correct tactics. See link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070705/ap_on_...aq_070629184828

2) No--it will take years to get out.

3) Good point

4) Also, good point

5) We have already lost 3500 folks; if we leave now, their loss has accomplished little. Let's see what the new counter-insurgency program can do. As a practical matter, the troops cannot come home--truly--until the Middle East is no longer stratgically important. We've had a big presence in the region for decades.

2) Is an April 1, 2008 timetable practical?
If we start plans for withdrawl now, then yes. I would personally like to see a timetable of 1 April....or thereabouts. I believe that we will have been in Iraq long enough by that point in time to have either made a positive impact or not, considering the surge strategy.
Much to some detractors dismay, however........pulling all US forces out of Iraq, lock, stock and barrel.....is going to be a major undertaking. I would invite them to read the book by LT GEN Gus Pagonis (ret), titled 'Moving Mountains: Lessons in Leadership and Logistics from the Gulf War. He explains the monumental task of re-deploying troops from the gulf war, more troops but far, far less equipment and matériel than what we have in Iraq today.

There is no question of where they would go, except for the fact that on many Army posts, new units are standing up and using the barracks and facilities recently vacated by deployed troops (my own unit falls into this category).
For purposes of withdrawl, more has to be considered than just putting people onto airplanes. Even if we were to decide to discard and leave most major components of equipment behind......there are several thousands of pieces that are of a sensitive nature, they cannot be left behind. Then we have the question of security while forces and equipment are being re-deployed. It might be optimistic to think that Al-Faruq Brigades, Al-Mahdi Army, Al-Sadr's Group, Ansar al-Islam, Armed Vanguards of Mohammad's Second Army, Black Banner Organization, Hasad al-Muqawamah al-'Iraqiyah, Iraqi National Islamic Resistance, Iraqi Resistance Brigades, Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front (JAMI), Iraq's Revolutionaries, Islamic Armed Group of al-Qaida, Jamaat al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad, Jaysh Muhammad Jihad Cells, Liberating Iraq's Army, Mujahideen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq, Muslim Fighters of the Victorious Sect (aka, Mujaheddin of the Victorious Sect), Muslim Youth, Nasserites, National Iraqi Commandos Front, Salafist Jihad Group, Snake Party, Sons of Islam, Unity and Jihad Group, Wakefulness and Holy War, White Flags, General Command of the Armed Forces, Resistance and Liberation in Iraq, New Return Patriotic Front, Political Media Organ of the Ba‘ath Party (Jihaz al-Iilam al-Siasi lil hizb al-Baath), and Popular Resistance for the Liberation of Iraq....would ALL agree to let us peaceably leave...................but I rather doubt it.

5) How much American "blood and treasure" expended in Iraq would you think is acceptable to "end the war"?
We have already expended too much for Iraq. I personally do not see a democratic Iraq emerging, based on what I've seen. It will, at best, be a moderate Islamic state (under Jaysh Al-Mahdi auspices), or return to a dictatorship ala Saddam.


Laugh away. The problem with your theory is that it took far more than two weeks to assemble the force in Kuwait (a friendly host nation), and it will take far more than two weeks to pull forces out of Iraq, even if it were only Joe and his rucksack.

1) Should Reid and Pelosi wait for the September report before moving ahead with "ending the war."

Probably not. Depends on how much pressure they are getting to DO SOMETHING. After all, the Demos were voted in on a single issue . . .

or maybe not. Could have been local issues.

2) Is an April 1, 2008 timetable practical?

Beats me. The date does have an amount of snarkiness to it. Hey George, let's get out of Iraq! April fool.

3) If such a timetable isn't practical, what does that say about the judgement of those pushing such a timetable?

Nothing, really. I offer the observation that nobody but the high command has a clue what timetable will work. So it depends on how much homework the Congress has done and whether they have access to the high command. I'm pretty sure nobody posting here has anything but speculation and personal opinion.

My speculation is that most troops would be out within six months, if nowhere else than Kuwait or maybe staged in friendly parts of Iraq. You know, the parts away from Baghdad that are supposed to be stable. But there's been so much disinformation about the state of Iraq, maybe the troops do need to be airlifted.

4) What, exactly, do they mean by "ending the war"? What do we do if the Other Side doesn't cooperate in "ending the war"?

Let 'em have Iraq. Of course this isn't a war but a failed project. The war ended when the old Iraqi government was pushed out of power, by definition of war. That war is over. The project of rebuilding Iraq has worked up to a point, but has certainly taken more time and resources than initially thought. Some thought about it but were ignored.

5) How much American "blood and treasure" expended in Iraq would you think is acceptable to "end the war"?

What it takes to stop our involvement in this failed project. We will be more successful withdrawing the troops than surging to victory.

I don't think this is going to happen before 2009. I have my doubts it'll ever happen due to this quagmire of quotation marks. It may turn out that the American voting public likes being in Iraq, what with that brand new embassy and all.

But then again, it might be about local issues. Seems I've heard that somewhere before.

Oh, come on. I'm not talking about two weeks. It didn't take us two years to move into Iraq, and when the order is given, it won't take us two years to withdraw. I am quite sure that all our forces could be conveniently out of Iraq on 60 days notice; 30 days would be precipitate and unnecessary, but doable, I opine. Honestly, if we can't get our forces out that fast in a pinch, it's an even bigger mistake to have so many of them committed there than I thought it was.

I'm not enunciating a theory any more than anyone else here is, just talking about military logistics and what the U.S. military is most likely capable of. My essential point is, ships, planes and trucks can carry things in one direction as well as another, you know?

And when it comes to the fighting aspects, it's not as if we're engaged along a battle front. Though the occasional roadside bomb may go off, there is no question of a fighting withdrawl.

5) How much American "blood and treasure" expended in Iraq would you think is acceptable to "end the war"?
If all we have done in Iraq and the cost of same can be dismissed as a “failed project” then we have some serious problems with our government.

To “fail” IMO would be to waste all the spent lives and half a trillion $$. Certainly we can salvage an Iraq that has some stability, even if not a fully democratic government.

If Iraq descends into chaos we will surely be back in the future, especially if Iran secures strong influence in the country.


That said I believe that if a year from now we don’t see stability we need to make some hard decisions regarding what we are will to “settle for” in Iraq as opposed to the ideal democratic government.

I do not see how we can wait another year to make "hard decisions".

We've done one RIGHT THING, finally! Rumsfeld is out, and Robert Gates is now leading the effort. Rumsfeld totally failed to anticipate, failed to plan, failed to estimate, and failed to perform. All this time we've had no one at the helm LEADING with strong military experience. Since Rumsfeld has gone, and Gates has taken over, nearly every major senior military officer responsible for the war in Iraq has been replaced with strong minded, experienced generals. The lessons of Operation Iraqi Freedom and its aftermath are starting to be felt. Some Marines are even on their third tours in Iraq! They are worn out. Their equipment is falling apart, and I have heard this from many different sources. In my opinion we can't last another year in Iraq! The leadership up until Robert Gates has been tepid at best with nobody really "in charge"! Many of the military are purchasing their own equipment to take to Iraq for second and third tours.

I don't know how anyone else feels on AD, but in my opinion we should never again elect a president who has no military service record to speak of!
It appears that we haven't moved forward much since 9/11. For heavens sake, we still have the Pentagon, State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, and FBI , and no one talks to each other! That was supposed to be remedied immediately and now almost six years later we're still struggling!

http://www.defenselink.mil/osd/topleaders.aspx

Questions for debate:

1) Should Reid and Pelosi wait for the September report before moving ahead with "ending the war."
Yes, because my understanding is that's what they agreed to do.

2) Is an April 1, 2008 timetable practical?
No.

Dunkirk in the Desert, even NPR gets it!
Friday’s broadcast of NPR’s Morning Edition program featured a story by Pentagon correspondent, Tim Bowman, entitled, “Logistics Mean an Iraq Exit Can’t Happen Quickly.” Citing several unnamed current Defense Department officials and a retired officer who managed the last withdrawal from Iraq and Kuwait in 2001 after Operation Desert Storm, Bowman reported that it will take at least ten to fourteen months for the United States fully to withdraw from Iraq.

That, it turns out, is the best case.

3) If such a timetable isn't practical, what does that say about the judgement of those pushing such a timetable?
It says that at best, their judgement is not good.

4) What, exactly, do they mean by "ending the war"? What do we do if the Other Side doesn't cooperate in "ending the war"?
Some, clearly, such as Richardson, mean all troops out, period. If the myriad of combatants on the other side don't cooperate, we take casualties, lots of casualties.

5) How much American "blood and treasure" expended in Iraq would you think is acceptable to "end the war"?
The unwillingness of few responding in this thread to actually examine this question is distressing. Valdimir is correct, we could have all of our troops out of there in about 30 days. Doing so would mean leaving tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of equipment and supplies behind. We would have to destroy it or allow it to languish in Iraq, quite possibly falling into the hands of our enemies. A "expeditious withdrawal" of the type envisioned by Valdimir would mean that extraordinary efforts to secure the safety of our troops as we pull out would be required, efforts that would lack the benefit of taking the fight to the enemy.

Well, as you may know, whatever is sent to a war zone is expensed on the day it leaves the United States. So these costs are already on the books. But in any case, I doubt that too much vital equipment, necessary to military effectiveness would have to be left behind. No one is advocating a precipiate withdrawal, but I must say again, I find rather ludicrous the notion that U.S. military, with all of its means of logistical support and transportation, could not disengage from Iraq in inside 60 days if it needed to.

It really is a matter of policy and discretion as to how fast any withdrawal would have to be. Certainly we could not withdraw within a year if we had to make a pass at claiming that our war aims had been met, but that is not what we war opponents have been suggesting. Once you accept that the war is lost, it is quite easy to pull out everything. It is only those who hope to salvage something before we leave who think that it will thae 14 months to disengage.

I venture to guess, indeed, that if the North Koreans invaded the South and enjoyed much success, essentially all the forces now in Iraq could be put into Korea within 60 days. If not, well, we have to ask ourselves why we have 20 combat brigades committed to a front from which they can't be extracted on relatively short notice.

Also considering the vast expense being wasted on our failed Iraq ambitions every day (I believe it's on the order of $8 billion), I find your concern with the one-time expense of ending this river of waste rather perplexing.

It is patently untrue, by the way, that "we take casualties, lots of casualties" if our enemies in Iraq don't "cooperate with our withdrawal." Our forces are not pinned down to a front line; the enemy hides and makes sneaky attacks. In that context, there is no obvious reason whay casualties would be greater during withdrawal than they are today, with our forces spread thin across the whole country.

From Bd's 'Dunkirk in the Desert' link.


Once it was announced we were withdrawing on a timetable, what would be the point of the insurgents firing on American troops who were leaving(I realize the internal sectarian conflict would continue)? When the Russians announced they were leaving Afghanistan my understanding is there was a ceasefire between the main parties while the local infighting continued. And as Vladimir suggests, the insurgents aren't an army in the field of battle but more urban hit and run guerrillas, playing hide and seek in various neighborhoods.

On the timetable, as I said before, it should be based on what the experts say is practically possible, not an arbitrary date based strictly on political considerations. The actual setting of a timetable for withdrawal is the sticking point, not any particular final date of departure.

Patently false. Of course all interested parties could decide to let us leave unmolested........but should they decide to even keep the current rate of attacks, casualties during our withdrawl would increase, possible dramatically. As we would pack up aviation assets, counter-fire radar and pull out of our Combat Outposts and JSS's.........as we would dramatically increase the number of convoys on the roads leading south, far more opportunities would be present for IED's, ambush's and indirect fire.
I am in favor of withdrawing, and soon. But to pretend that we have air, sea and wheel lift assets able to carry us all out bag and baggage in a matter of weeks, is ridiculous.
In opposition to what seems to be the line of thought here, a static 'front line' would be far easier to withdraw from than the asymmetric environment we have in Iraq. When you know where the enemy is, you can mitigate the threat, and protect the lines of communication while disengaging.

This really is a lot of speculation. Having served eight years and having read a lot of military history, I am unaware of anything that would support it. For one thing, the enemy would have to have vastly more mobility than he has to put homemade bombs in place at arbitrary points tens and hundreds of miles from where he is today. Add to that that the South is relatively secure. I'm not saying that its easy to maneuver in unfriendly territory, but it's silly to suggest that the U.S. Army, with all of its resources, would have much trouble doing so.


There is an absence of facts here all around, but I fail to see why the process of withdrawal should be more dangerous or time-consuming than the invasion itself was -- particularly since we'll be well aware of the dangers and the ground. I don't think it is pretense that we could leave in a matter of weeks. We have a military that is specialized in extremely rapid deployment, re-deployment, and mobility. In any case, no one is arguing for withdrawal in a matter of weeks, merely expeditious withdrawal. The burden of proof here should rest with those who would claim that this vaunted military machine of ours is incapable of something.



I am sufficiently well educated in military matters to attest that that is a load of baloney. Wholesale withdrawal from an enganged front is a classic and extremely difficult military problem. The enemy has massed forces on your front, presumed reserves able to be deployed, and doesn't have to sit idly by while you withdraw. Typically a maneuver of this kind has to employ deception, which suggests just how dicey it can be. Usually it can't be done at all, it's so dangerous. Imagine if we had tried to withdraw from Korea while our forces were heavily engaged with the Chinese army across the whole breadth of the peninsula, and you see what I mean. Or read about the Seven Days battle in 1862. Or the Battle of Leipzig.

Merely moving forces through unfriendly territory is not an easy matter, but it is an entirely routine one at which our (and almost any) military is well practiced. It is orders of magnitude simpler than withdrawal from an engaged front. That's how we got into Iraq, you know? The enemy has scant mobility and no heavy weapons. He has no air power. He has no forces in being that could stand up to us in a firefight. Most of our casualties are from homemade bombs and snipers, you know? These are hardly means that could be deployed to hinder a wholesale withdrawal.

Just look at the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was precipitous. There were no reports at the time, nor have there been since, of inordinate Soviet casualties during that maneuver. One excellent reason for that is that the Afghan guerillas had very little mobility, which would have been necessary to engage withdrawing forces. Another is that the Soviets commanded the skies.

You really should read some military history, or doctrine books, before you offer your purported military expertise. Or at any rate, quote some legitimate expert opinion.

The enemy has the best form of mobility to move around undetected........non-descript automobiles. This knowledge comes also from serving for 21 years and reading a lot of military history. I'm not arguing against withdrawing......I'm arguing that it might not be a relative cakewalk as you seem to suggest, and that removing all troops and equipment in approximately 60 days is unrealistic, when facing the current threat........analogies to past engagements aside. The current enemy has the luxury of attacking at will, any lines of communications that they deem susceptible to attack. Were we facing an established enemy formation, we would at least have the ability to mass forces in a manner to meet the greatest enemy threat, and maintain interior lines, while disengaging.


You're joking of course, right?? When we invaded Iraq, it was by and large, not against an engaged front, but rather pockets of the Iraqi Army and Fedayeen. The enemy has greater mobility on the ground than we do, and knows the ground better than we do. IED's and snipers would not halt our withdrawl, but to claim that we would automatically be able to disengage without cost


Yes.....I really should bone up on military doctrine.....I quite obviously have no clue or any expertise as to what I'm speaking of......

He is quoting a legitimate expert in the area...he IS such a person. Decades of military experience, personal combat experience in the area in question, experience training people for just these kinds of operations...isn't that what a 'legitimate expert' would have? Or do we only listen to those who write, not do?

Oh please, Hobbes and Dontreadonme.

He who has air power can pretty much do whatever he wants. That is the point so many fail to see; militarily, we won this conflict almost immediately. The insurgents really cannot move any kind of large forces at will, and cannot set up sites that would be effective for any length of time. We could just bomb anybody and anything of consequence into oblivion. Can you tell me of some major battles that have been challenging in this conflict? Of course you can't. The strategic problem of this occupation is that it is, in fact, an occupation of a hostile populace, who are willing to pick off soldiers with homemade bombs, and by such tactics as suicide.

There is nothing we could do to take more casualties than what we are doing at present. Withdrawal does not carry 1/10th as much risk as occupation, or that ridiculous "surge."

According to the Department of Defense, more soldiers have died in the first six months of 2007 since "The Surge" began, than the same six months last year.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

NUMBER OF MILITARY CASUALTIES BEFORE THE SURGE:

Jan 2006 = 64

Feb 2006 = 58

March 2006 = 33

April 2006 = 82


May 2006 = 79

June 2006 = 63

NUMBER OF MILITARY CASUALTIES AFTER THE SURGE:

Jan 2007 86

Feb 2007 = 84

March 2007 = 82

April 2007 = 117


May 2007 = 131

June 2007 = 108

Even General Petraeus admits "The Surge" has so far produced mixed results.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Petraeus...has achieved "modest progress" but has also met setbacks such as a rise in devastating suicide bombings and other problems. Suicide bombings have increased 30% over the six weeks that ended in early April, according to military data. While an increase in U.S. and Iraqi troops has improved security in Baghdad and Anbar province, attacks have risen sharply elsewhere.

The entire strategy in Iraq has been foolhardy, and will go down in history as downright idiotic. Spreading troops thin, and having no real plan to acheive a real victory of any kind; occupying territory where anyone could be a hostile...

This is sheer madness, and nothing good can come of it, and nothing good has come of it.

American troops are being slain needlessly.

The generals in the field right now are incompetent, or acting under orders from incompetents. None of them should be taken as military experts, as none of them are following the simplest and most obvious rules of warfare. They are equal to the generals of WWI, who just threw battalions at machine gun fire.

Get the troops out, now.

Your post is long on rhetoric, but I submit, short on logic. 'Get the troops out now' is a great bumper sticker....on par with 'freedom isn't free' or some such. But I notice that instead of taking into account any practical matters, you cite casualty figures. Figures that even the most strident war supporter agrees with......that casualties would increase with the surge.
The strategic problem with the occupation as you correctly write, is also a strategic concern with a withdrawl under hostile conditions. Under the best of conditions, a near term withdrawl (which I do support) would only happen in conjunction with joint ISF/US security operations, securing transport routes and the continuing concern of force protection. It seems rather naive to me that insurgents would simply stop attacking ISF or US forces simply because we are withdrawing. If ISF could assume ALL security operations, then that naivety may be realized, but I rather doubt it.

There is nothing we could do to take more casualties than what we are doing at present. Withdrawal does not carry 1/10th as much risk as occupation, or that ridiculous "surge."
Simply false. I do however invite your obvious expert analysis, since the military commanders are all incompetent boobs.......Please don't give us the line that you don't know exactly what we could do, as you are not a military commander (as has been used by some before). You called the experts out, step up to the plate and tell us how you would conduct a withdrawl....in your word - NOW.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but in government/military matters, you can't get a roll of toilet paper in the time frames you are suggesting. I have to question your military experience in materiel matters to beleive what you are saying.

It might look good on paper, but when the military is involved, all bets are off.

Please help us understand the vital role air power takes in finding and eliminating IED's and other such traps that would be the type set against retreating forces.



Again, air power stops these tactics...how?



Nothing, that is, except start funnelling large numbers of troops and equipment down fairly obvious routes while simultaneously pulling out the resources used to prevent and detect the types of attacks that would most likely be used. It's really pretty simple..if you asked the insurgents if they would rather engage the current forces, or those in hasty retreat, which do you think they would take?




I thought you said "He who has air power can pretty much do whatever he wants." So what's the problem here then?



I'm sure the Joint Chiefs will take notice of your statement, and invite you to the next planning meetings. Of course you wouldn't mind providing us with the specifics of the actions taken that you so strongly disagree with, including detailed tactical plans, precise troop deployments, and changes in specific orders? Or would you be making such a strong statement with really no knowledge of such pertinent things?

Couldn't agree with you more on this one Ted. We do have quite a huge problem with our government, and perhaps that will be corrected in 2009 when the problem leaves office.

I don't mean to dismiss the cost of the Iraq project by admitting to its failure. I do mean to dismiss the threat of Iraq that was used to justify its liberation into chaos. How much of a threat that country, if it remains a country, becomes in the future is up to conjecture. I understand your take on that, but don't agree.

That's because the Magic Eight Balls of the right side have been consistently wrong.

I'll take DTOM's opinion on what it'll be like withdrawing from Iraq before pundits interviewed on NPR. I'm also not very trusting of pundits, no matter who does the interviewing. Everyone involved directly with Iraq from that level seem to have their own agendas.

Meanwhile, what we are doing in Iraq is undeniably a nation-building project. It's just that a very large portion of the population doesn't want to do the project and actively work against it. Well, in that case, screw it. It's not me dismissing the cost; it is the Iraqi people doing the dismissing, and that sucks. I truly wish things had worked out differently, but they have not. No significant counter-insurgency has developed in the Iraqi population, and a whole bunch of the population has abandoned the country. If this thing is not important to them, why should it be important to us?

Fear is the only surface answer to that question. Profit is the underlying motive. The fear is based on an unknown: Will Iraq become a threat to the US, and by that I mean the actual US, not foreign interests stamped super-uber top hushup secret. The profit motivation is a given.

Well, back to withdrawing the troops. The Demos might be doing what their constituencies tell them to do, but of course with the Bush administration still in power and without a super majority in Congress, nothing can actually be done but keep on throwing paper at a brick wall. That tells me no troop withdrawl until 2009. Then it looks like it'll take another year or so to pull out, and I bet that's not a 100% pullout, or even an 80% pullout.

I get it that there will be casualties during the pullout too. But DTOM favors a troop drawdown, so I'll go along with that. It's going in the right direction, even if it means small percentages at a time.

Well I respectfully doubt that, since that really is nonsense about being able to withdraw more readily from an engaged front than simply to move through a country where the populace is hostile. Also his arguments appear to assume that the enemy is vastly more mobile than he actually is. A homemade bomb is a static weapon, after all. Also there is airpower; there is the undoubted specialization the U.S. military has made in rapid maneuver, deployment and redeployment; there is the Soviet experience withdrawing from Afghanistan. Whatever this person's credentials may be, I do not know, but I am rather certain he is wrong on these points.



Well, I doubt your expertise on these points for the reasons I have given. The enemy has no force in being; he has very little command and control; he's loose amalgamation of gangs; he has no air power; and notwithstanding the availability of Chevrolets, I respectfully doubt his mobility (something tells me that dozens of Chevvys speeding across the desert would be likely to attract some attention); he can't stand up to us in a firefight; homemade bombs are static weapons; he has no air power; there was the Soviet experience withdrawing from Afghanistan; there is that southern Iraq, through which we would be moving, is relatively safe.

Since, however, you persist in posing here as a military expert, I will defer further comment until the actual event, which will come sooner or later. We will see then which one of us was right. And you may be sure that I'll come back here to remind you of it.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. My statement "Withdrawal does not carry 1/10th as much risk as occupation" is 100% accurate, and correct. You have not shown how it isn't, so for you to say "simply false" isn't really an argument. I do not claim to be any kind of expert. No one needs to be an expert to understand obvious concepts. If our forces leave Iraq by gathering at a well-guarded area, the only troops that would be at much risk would be the last ones to go. There are ways to plan for this contingency. Ultimately, no insurgents are attacking large, amassed forces, because they really can't do much damage that way. This is where air power come in play, and you know it. What can they move against us? Tanks? No. Planes? No. Helicopters? No. What can they do? Shoot at us? Anyone who shoots will be killed immediately.

Again, I say "please." This isn't even worth debating, and that is why I am going to leave the thread, and stay gone. I find the concept that we can't leave Iraq due to "practical challenges" simply absurd, laughable, wrong, and silly in the extreme.

I don't much enjoy arguing with people who are trying to claim the only reason we should stay in Iraq is because it would be too hard to go. That is a disengenious, and silly argument. The commanders who have gotten us where we are now are incompetent. Their track record bears that out. They have accomplished nothing of value. Their tactics aren't working. That speaks for itself.

And frankly, anyone who is involved with this war, and still has a job, is probably going to lie. I don't trust them. Again, track record. If they tell the truth, they will lose their job, so therefore, they have far too much motive for deception for me to believe one word they say.

As for your concept about insurgents not attacking because we are withdrawing, I have to ask if you enjoy arguing strawmen. Can you point out where I even hinted at such a thing? I didn't.

The biggest problems with the Iraqi pullout are political problems.

In short, it would be the worst president in history admitting he was wrong, something he has never done, and that we, and all Americans, and citizens of the world, are continually asked to pay for.

I haven't said we could withdraw in a matter of weeks; I've said we could withdraw in a 2-3 months, and could do so in one month if we had to. For crying out loud, we have a military that prides itself on its maneuverability. Would we have to leave some PCs and paper clips behind? No doubt, but most likely they would've been left behind anyway. Would it be a problem to move out the combat forces and support troops? With all due respect to "Dontreadonme's" alleged military expertise, I very much doubt it.

The whole argument is ridiculous, when you look at how rapidly our armed forces have been able to deploy and redeploy in the past. If Dontreadonme were anywhere near right about this, the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was precipitate, would have been a military disaster. Yet, so far as I know, there were no reports at then or since of the Soviets taking serious casualties during that maneuver. That argument should be the clincher.

IED's? I'm sorry, I prefer condoms. Air power obviously doesn't do anything to find or eliminate IED's. Now explain how IED's would be a bigger problem for retreating forces than they would be for occupying forces. Please be specific. "Other such traps?" I don't know what you have in mind.



It doesn't. We aren't really having a debate here. Air power stops the insurgents from amassing troops, using tanks or helicopters, or any of the other tactics that could be employed to stop our forces from pulling out. You haven't explained how these tactics are effective against our own large, amassed forces, moving out in large groups.



This is just getting sillier and sillier. What type of attacks are you talking about? If they don't know the troops routes, they can't plant bombs in wait, and you can protect any retreating forces from the air. Anyone makes a move on them, you can shoot them, you can bomb them, it's really not complicated.



"Pretty much" leaves room for exceptions, and that is obvious. I don't see how you're trying to actually debate with a line like this; it seems like you're just trying to be clever.



Really? You're proud to have typed this? I don't see where you are debating at all. It appears to be sarcasm, and just plain blind faith that the Joint Chiefs of staff have our best interests in heart. This isn't Earth's first war. I'm not stupid. That is all I need to be qualified to make such statements. I stand by what I have posted here as being very accurate, and true. These "we can't leave because it's too dangerous" arguments don't merit debate, and don't appear to cause any to actually break out.

As I said in my previous post to dontreadonme, I am done with the subject. This appears debated out.

We can leave. There will be risks. There are more risks in staying. That is obvious.

Absolutely correct. Based on his remarks, I really suspect that 'Dontreadonme' is some sort of fraud here, a college kid or something posing here as a great military expert.

However, I disagree that our military leaders have made very bad decisions. I really believe they have done about as well as could be expected with the available forces. The problem is much less with our military than with the war itself, which could not have been won by Erwin Rommel even, for the simple reason that it was a not a war against an opposing military, but an attempt to occupy and impose our will upon a country whose populace is mostly hostile to us.

My....such vitriol from the Command and Staff at Fort Living Room......Where to begin......


How terribly sad for you Vladimir.....going from being a oft-disagreed with, yet formidable poster....to one who uses the most juvenile of debating tactics. If I had claimed to be a great military expert, as you indeed have......you may have some reason, if not basis for this type of attack. Yet sadly, you do not. I merely disagree with you. As learned as you claim to be, you should know that tacticians disagree on military strategy as often as any persons may disagree on any subject.
Within the bounds of OPSEC, I have tried to share a unique perspective concerning the war in Iraq. If you choose to believe that I am living in my Grandmothers basement, taking breaks from Dungeons and Dragons to portray myself as something I'm not on an internet debate board, be my guest. Your strange, snarky comment says much more about you than it does me.
Given the meager credentials that I have shared publicly about what I do, it would make me indeed a sad case for poseur-hood. Surely I should have invented a much better resume to share and gloat on..........


You have posted more misconceptions than I have time to respond to in one sitting........But to start, you would claim that I have not offered any evidence to support my position, you then claim to not be a military expert (surprise, surprise) and then claim you are 100% accurate, while not providing any evidence, and to top it off, you offer us a statistic!
Pray tell, how does one so knowledgeable come to this divine conclusion?


Silly indeed. Are you at all knowledgeable as to how many Main Supply Routes are traffic-able between Baghdad and North.....to Kuwait? I surmise not. Are you at all aware of how many Attack Aviation teams can be in one keypad of airspace at one time, not to mention fixed wing CAS? Again, I surmise not. I don't bring this up to be snarky, but to point out that there are indeed limitations contrary to your doctrine of you can bomb them, it's really not complicated.


Let me paint the picture for you of about a dozen 100 vehicle convoys heading south on MSR Tampa, Even a single IED stops all traffic, providing a multi mile long line of static RPG targets.


I'm not sure if you are responding to myself or Hobbes, but neither of us have made the argument that we cannot nor should not leave because it's too dangerous. Silly indeed. But again, what empirical evidence do you bring forth to make your case.......that your not stupid?? Bravo........


I'm no shrink, but this is quite simply the worst case of close mindedness I have yet encountered on AD. I have posted my critical review of our chance of democratizing Iraq, given the current state of religious fanaticism and corruption, yet strangely, I'm still very much employed.

Let me again spell out my point for the tragically misread and utterly confused:

I support a withdrawal, and by the end of the year, at least. However, to accomplish that.....to move out of theater, the troops, equipment, vehicles, contractors and government civilians, the planning needs to start right about now. I do not now, nor have I ever alluded to the chance of insurgents stopping the withdrawal. But it is utterly absurd to believe that at the current rate of attacks, we would not be more vulnerable, as we pull out of FOB's, COP's and JSS's, loading equipment and soldiers, transporting the aforementioned, all the while providing force protection, as the ISF would be unable to perform that role unilaterally. This is all presuming of course, that we don't reach some sort of agreement with the various insurgent groups. It would be nice if they showered us with flowers on our way out of Iraq, but since this environment bears little, resemblance to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, I am rather hesitant to place my trust in their goodwill.

The whole argument by Vladimir about being easier than disengaging from a static front is rendered null and void if he understood interior and exterior lines, mass and unity of effort. As often as one side tends to deride bumper sticker slogans that are often without logical merit.....we find that they sometimes do the same.....

Hmmm, the questions are really bad- but I will give it a shot

I think the truth lies somewhere between Vladimir and DTOM- one is an experianced soldier too far away from the problem- the other- a soldier probably too close to the problem- and I say that with all respect that I would of two former comrades in a disagreement between them.

MY specialty in the military, to some small degree, WAS moving troops and equipment- and I have to say- it was WAY easier getting it TO the "battlefield" (whatever that may be) than AWAY from the battlefield.

I am not near the expert in war of either of your- clearly- but I do know how to load equipment on to helicopters and planes-

when you take equipment TO a place- it is already prepared for you- usually by a civilian contractor (my knowledge is dated- I know this DTOM- I got out in 88 ) - but anyway- it is in a nice tidy package- or, you have basically LOTS of time and NO danger loading it up to take it somewhere- BUT- taking that equipment OUT of the arena is EXACTLY the opposite- you have troops, perhaps "volunteered" from other areas, NOT experts, taking down equipment and packaging it up- usually wrong (sorry- eternal pessimist) and under pressure- of, you know DYING.

I would say, shooting from the hip- under the BEST of conditions- it takes 3-4 times longer to remove equipment from the field than getting it there.

And it becomes real messy towards the end- when the support troops are nearly gone, and only the "combat" troops left- you have to be very careful here not to remove vital defense equipment for the last troops to leave- while removing vital defense equipment to the troops- a REAL catch-22.

So, I would say that 10-14 months is downright silly- 4-6 months is probably reasonable for an orderly withdrawel. I believe Vladimirs major mistake is the flow of equipment AFTER the initial "rapid transfer" of the military- we built it up, now we have to remove it- very difficult

NOT a cakewalk, NOT any more safe than staying, and probably would risk higher casualities- NOT gobs and gobs more- but probably as much as the surge increased casualities.

but I am not expert

Why do you think Afghanistan and Iraq are so different? Both involve(d) disparate native insurgencies with an outside Jihadist presence fighting the occupation of a major occupying power and being supported by resources from the outside. Both have(had) weak standing governments that were able to exert little effect on the conflict. Both are(were) loosely knit together federations whose regions and culture were distinct from each other. Both are(were) Muslim. Both had a British colonial history.

I'd say they cross-compare quite closely and I think common sense tells me that if the US were clearly about leaving on a timetable and we stayed out of the ethnic conflict that there would be no reason for the insurgents to engage. Why would they bother to take the risk of engaging us when their objectives were being met without them lifting a finger? Presumably any training of Iraqi government troops would be in a place like Kuwait.

I have to give credence to the expert cited in the NPR piece, although I'm sure some of you will simply dismiss that source since we all know that National Public Radio is a hotbed of neo-cons and Religious Right warmongers. I give this credence for two reasons.

First, my personal experience in the afterglow of Desert Storm. Getting in country took far less time than getting out, and our equipment didn't get home until about 4 months after we did. Second, more personal experience, specfically 12 years of training and operations as a Military Policeman. For those who aren't aware, Military Police units are the sole Army units tasked explicitly with three missions most critical to a safe withdrawal under these circumstances, specifically battlefield circulation control (i.e. managing traffic), convoy security and rear area security. As a result, just as DTOM's background and experience gives him greater insight into the logistical challenges of packing and moving 160,000 troops than anybody else on this board, my experience give me greater insight into the operational security challenges such a withdrawal will entail. It is not impossible, far from it. It is simply much more challenging and risky than some folks seem to be willing to believe.

Another theme I've noted by those who seek to minimize the challenges posed by a "speedy withdrawal" is the implication that the terrorists and insurgents will stand by and let our troops leave in peace. This is a fantasy for two reasons. First, the option of negotiations with the opponents is highly unrealistic as the earlier list of organizations opposing our presence reveals. We were able to "negotiate" a relatively peaceful withdrawal from Vietnam because there were only two parties on the other side of the table, North Vietnam and their proxies, the remnants of the Viet Cong. The second reason is even more compelling: many of our enemies in Iraq have made it clear that "liberating" Iraq is not their goal, defeating the Great Satan is their goal. Iraq is just the current battleground. The huge morale and recruiting boost that they'll receive as they harry our troops out of Iraq is immeasurable. Every dead "retreating, defeated Crusader" serves the cause of jihad.

Just 2 points.

1. Can't we all agree that once the decision to leave is made the timetable should be targeted to how long the most knowledgeable people say it would take to get our personnel and equipment out. Must we argue about such an elementary matter?

2. As far as leaving Iraq without suffering many casualties, what about the Soviet experience in Afghanistan are people not getting? For the most part after a brutal war when they announced their departure the firing stopped. There were not just two parties fighting, there were many often contending Afghan factions involved. As far as some wider Jihadist intent to kill the "Crusaders" in retreat, that would involve at the most, according to military figures, something like 5% of the insurgency, let's say 1000 insurgents. The rest are quite content to get on with the ethnic/religious/political struggle for power, position and resources in Iraq. Again we are dealing with a situation that was comparable to Afghanistan, with a minority of Jihadists. Even among the foreign Jihadists their targets have been more Shiites than Americans, so I think it is reasonable to conclude that most would stick with the simpler conflict close at hand than try to run the gauntlet of heavily armed convoys leaving the high conflict areas. They also haven't been getting along too well with their on again off again allies, the Baathist Sunnis, so with the Americans leaving as a unifying focus that should sharpen the differences between them and of course the Shiites who have always been their enemies. The 1000 Al Qaeda folks are going to have too much on their plates just staying viable against their local enemies and developing a permanent base of operations in Iraq to afford them the luxury of chasing after well armed military convoys. Well for the most part.

I fully agree. Really, I am not sure that this debate is about much. What's the difference really, three months or nine, so long as we get out. I also agree with your second point, which I do not quote, that getting out should be about as easy for us as it was for the Soviets from Afghanistan.

I wonder what the German experience was, withdrawing from Yugoslavia. I have no knowledge of that case.

Dontreadonme I withdraw and apologize for my speculations about your actual degree of military experience, which were unkind.

No one has mentioned Bush’s speech the other day comparing withdrawing from Iraq to…

wait for it....................................

Vietnam!

All the faux outrage expressed by the Bush administration in the past any time there was a comparison made of Iraq to Vietnam is suddenly brushed aside when it is convenient to use it themselves, with dire warnings of “boat people”-like refugees and mass killings. There are several problems with Bush’s comparison of the Vietnam withdrawal and leaving Iraq.

Is Bush suggesting that we didn’t stay in Vietnam long enough? If we’d stayed 15, 20, 30 years, things would have been different? Is that what he's inferring? If so, does he think keeping the US in Iraq indefinitely will result in some amorphous idea of "victory"?

Did all of Southeast Asia turn communist after the US left? No. Will Iraq turn into a fractured country with 3 warring factions? Very likely. Their cultural and religious differences make it hard to believe otherwise, and anything we do will only make matters worse.

There are going to be refugees no matter what happens from this day forward. Millions of Iraqis are already displaced in neighboring countries.

As for mass killings, in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge would never have existed had it not been for our involvement in Vietnam. And the withdrawal from Vietnam was hardly quick…it dragged on for years.

So, again, Mr. Bush, what possible reason do we have to stay in Iraq at the cost of more American lives and the uncontrollable hemorrhage of taxpayers’ money?

Certainly not the best comparison.


Lets remember we really did not “fight” North Vietnam – instead we had an idiot in the White House (who makes Bush look like a tactical genius) who tried, unsuccessfully, to run the war himself.

Did Southeast Asia go commi? Well So. Vietnam and Cambodia did and millions did die – but hey who cares – the idea that it was vital for the US was dead wrong.

The same cannot be said for Iraq.

" .........only hardening Vietnamese nationalist resolve......"

IMHO that is exactly what we are accomplishing in Iraq! Our being in Iraq brings groups out of the "woodwork" that would have never mobilized if not for our presence! Maliki is too weak to hold the government together. Contrary to John Warner's opinion, the Iraqi's don't have a chance in ----, of getting it together WHEN we pull out, and I don't feel that the Iraqi citizens care one hoot about Democracy! Heavens, if we could poll them honestly, they probably would rather have Sadaam return - at least he would be familiar and the shooting would stop! Trying to force Democracy down their throats is not only causing adults to rise up against us, but the next generation as well! I for one do not want to sacrifice our young men and women for people who do not want Democracy and who will not fight for it!