What's Wrong with Cutting and Running?

I refer you to this article by retired General William Odom:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/odom.php?articleid=7487

read and discuss?

[clinthopson]

The guy is ab-so-lute-ly corrrect.

[groover]

Good article, Achilles. Wait a bit, and I'm sure someone here will give you an argument.

[Al in NYC]

That's a great article. Thanks for posting it. It goes with what I've been saying for awhile now -- that the civil war is already a reality, that you can't expect to inculcate democracy at the point of a gun, and that our continued military presence has become the focus of violence rather than the answer to it.

Eventually we're going to just leave anyway. Why not do it sooner and at least keep some folks alive? Why reprise the mistakes of Nixon and Kissinger that killed so many people only to end up with an even worse result?

I am finding it harder to support our presence there for any longer. I have heard nothing from this administration that leads me to believe they know what they are doing, and I am tired of the spin. Keeping Rumsfeld on has been an obscene mistake, and a nasty insult to the military. People who know much more than I about national security, such as General Odom, make me believe that we must do whatever we can to get our people out of there.

[tristano's ghost]

Three-state solution. And let them work it out... we've already given up way too many dead for this bogus war.

[Al in NYC]

Here is a more complete article by Gen. Odom from last year, that also takes on the origins of the war and its effect on our alliances and the international order.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...ummer_2004.pdf

And Odom is a Hudson Institute guy. One of the radical free-marketeers.

Bush says Iraqi troops playing bigger role
Wed 5 Oct 2005 2:50 PM ET


WASHINGTON, Oct 5 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, facing waning public support for Iraq war, said on Wednesday Iraqi troops are taking a bigger role against the Iraqi insurgency and offered hope U.S. troops could come home.

The White House said Bush would take on critics of the Iraq war in a speech on Thursday in Washington before the National Endowment for Democracy.
Bush emerged from a White House war council with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Peter Pace, new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, to claim progress in the training of Iraqi troops, which he calls a prerequisite to a U.S. pullout.
But he offered no timetable.

A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll last month said only 32 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of the war, which he launched in 2003 citing the threat of weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam Hussein's government. Such weapons were never found.

"Over 30 percent of the Iraqi troops are in the lead on these offensive operations. We've got troops embedded with them, and that's an important part of the training mission. But nevertheless, the Iraqis are showing more and more capability to take the fight to the enemy," Bush said on the steps of the White House Rose Garden.

There are persistent questions about the quality of the trained Iraqi forces and the degree to which they have been infiltrated by insurgents. Senior U.S. generals said last week that the number of Iraqi battalions able to fight last week without help from American forces had shrunk to one, from three in July.

As part of this stepped-up focus on the Iraq war after concentrating on hurricanes in September, Bush on Wednesday also visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center to see about 20 troops in the hospital's amputee ward. They were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More than 1,900 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, increasing the uneasiness among Americans about the wisdom of pursuing the war.
McClellan said Bush will give "unprecedented detail" about the Iraqi insurgency in his Thursday speech. He called it an effort aimed at "educating the American people and raising awareness about the enemy we face and the stakes involved."

"He is going to be directly taking on some of those who argue that we should withdraw from the Middle East and those who suggest that taking the fight to the enemy only causes these radicals to launch attacks," he added.
Bush said U.S. troops will stay on the offensive to try to tamp down an upsurge in violence spurred by a planned Oct. 15 referendum on an Iraqi constitution.

"I've told the American people all along our troops will stay there as long as necessary. We'll do the job. We'll train these folks. And as they become more capable, we'll be able to bring folks home with the honor they've earned," he said.
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

This part of the above article is particularly alarming:

"There are persistent questions about the quality of the trained Iraqi forces and the degree to which they have been infiltrated by insurgents. Senior U.S. generals said last week that the number of Iraqi battalions able to fight last week without help from American forces had shrunk to one, from three in July."

[sonic1]

They won't and don't sufficiently train the Iraqi troops because they know the troops are infiltrated with insurgents. So until they find some way to comb those guys out (I doubt they will find a way), the troops can never be trained sufficiently to run Iraq.


Lesson: You can't force democracy on another country. That is not how democracy and freedom are born. Bush should learn a little about how our own country started.


I am not so sure we CAN cut and run. But really is there a good choice?

[Al in NYC]

Worst thing is that this was all completely predictable, and was completely predicted, back at the beginning.

[kenny weir]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

Worst thing is that this was all completely predictable, and was completely predicted, back at the beginning.

Yep. One of our local apologists for the invasion yesterday opined: "I suppose I could say I didn't know the Bush Administration would make such a bad job of it, which is true."

I emailed her to the effect that THERE WAS NOTHING MORE CERTAIN. Her reply was snaky! As you'd expect from a liberal pro-war type. Yech!

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by tristano's ghost

Three-state solution. And let them work it out... we've already given up way too many dead for this bogus war.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6559

[groover]

Bush: Radicals Seek to Intimidate World
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush sought Thursday to revive waning public support for the war in Iraq, accusing militants of seeking to establish a "radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia" with Iraq serving as the main front.

This is some truth to his statement, though we could still argue whether our continued presence in Iraq is helping or hurting our interests. The fact that Iraq is now the main front of the Islamic jihad is a self-fulfilled prophecy, for better or worse. The three state solution sounds good to me, no matter what the Turks think of it. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

[groover]

Seems like all the conservative posters have cut and run from here.

Originally Posted by groover

Seems like all the conservative posters have cut and run from here.

To be fair, if the admin decided on a whole new approach, one that:
--significantly increased the number of troops
--replaced Rumsfeld
--set a withdrawal date for 15-18 months
I would support this.

But as we know they will do NOTHING differently, we should just get
the hell out now.

[Al in NYC]

So, since the weapons of mass destruction argument was proven patently false, the war against terror argument was dead on arrival, and the democracy building argument has not survived the harsh realities on the ground, they have now finally and at last resorted to the "clash of cultures" argument. Well, that should go a ways towards further alienating the Islamic world from us for decades to come. And all in the name of ass-covering for domestic American politics.

No wonder the conservatives have cut and run. There's so little left to defend, and what is left is horrifying.

But it is fair to ask those who oppose cutting and running how
they think things will improve as we continue to operate as we've
been for more than 2 years now. Do they really think political developments (and even these are highly debatable) are enough?
And if security does not improve, and the economy does not get working, when would you support a full pull out? 2 more years? 4? 6?

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by groover

Seems like all the conservative posters have cut and run from here.

Not Goody!

[groover]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

No wonder the conservatives have cut and run. There's so little left to defend, and what is left is horrifying.

Funny how they never stick around to admit they're wrong after it becomes obvious, isn't it?

[letchhausen]

[QUOTE=groover][size=3][color=#0000cc]Radicals Seek to Intimidate World
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Catholic Church sought Thursday to revive waning public support for the their beliefs, accusing militants of seeking to establish a "radical Fundamentalist empire" that spans from Florida to Washington State with Washington D.C. serving as the main front. Admitting that the book of Revelation is "symbolic language" and that the bible is not historically accurate they seek to maintain their power base against a radical and violent interpretation that seeks a speedy apocalypse. "These radicals seek to fight a war with the world against all odds and are dangerous to peace and the lives of those around them." Meanwhile White House officials defend a conflict that by and large has no other outcome than more death and destruction. George Bush defended the Iraq war by pointing out the economic trickle-down effects of the massive rebuilding contracts given to Halliburton. "What's good for Dick, errr I mean what's good for business is good for America." he was quoted as saying.

[color=blue]QUOTE]

[RedJazz]

What a ridiculous machismo question having absolutely nothing to do with our personal interests as ordinary private citizens with absolutely no intereist in the American Imperium. My impression is that their are several active political conservatives on this list, and probably many people who might be chacterized as upper middle class, many middle middle class, some in the upper ranges of the working class, some students and a very few genuinely poor people. But I'd be astonished if there were many people on this list who could be genuinely characterized as part of the ruling class. Historically jazz has attracted a few of those types, but generally so few that they were almost all known by name (such as John Hammond or Nica Von Koesingwater). Even in those cases they tended to be very left wing and part of the "enlightened bourgeoisie," so I find the question absurdist.

The rest of this article can be found at the LA Times website:

October 9, 2005
latimes.com
THE WORLD

A Central Pillar of Iraq Policy Crumbling
* Bush's administration has insisted that political progress would quell the insurgency. But the reverse may be true, U.S. analysts say.
By Tyler Marshall and Louise Roug, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Senior U.S. officials have begun to question a key presumption of American strategy in Iraq: that establishing democracy there can erode and ultimately eradicate the insurgency gripping the country.
The expectation that political progress would bring stability has been fundamental to the Bush administration's approach to rebuilding Iraq, as well as a central theme of White House rhetoric to convince the American public that its policy in Iraq remains on course.

But within the last two months, U.S. analysts with access to classified intelligence have started to challenge this precept, noting a "significant and disturbing disconnect" between apparent advances on the political front and efforts to reduce insurgent attacks.

Now, with Saturday's constitutional referendum appearing more likely to divide than unify the country, some within the administration have concluded that the quest for democracy in Iraq, at least in its current form, could actually strengthen the insurgency.

The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. George W. Casey, has acknowledged that such a scenario is possible, while officials elsewhere in the administration, all of whom declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, say they share similar concerns about the referendum.

A question for those of you who either a) support the war; and/or b) oppose immediate withdrawal:

What is it that you think can or will happen that will greatly improve the current situation?

I know it's hard to answer such a question here, so maybe you can counter with an article that sums up your thoughts.

[RedJazz]

Originally Posted by achilles

A question for those of you who either a) support the war; and/or b) oppose immediate withdrawal:

What is it that you think can or will happen that will greatly improve the current situation?

I know it's hard to answer such a question here, so maybe you can counter with an article that sums up your thoughts.

The question presumes that the American imperialists and their allies and oil monigers have any business there or anywhere in the Third World in the first place. Of course, at one level it is their business. The real question is how to stop them.

[john williams]

The quicker a new dictator wins political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country will stop producing experienced terrorists.

Then why the fuck take out the old dictator in the first place. Duh! Enforced democracy will never work in Iraq and the politicians look more stupid by the day for continuing to try to sell that lemon.

Worst thing is that this was all completely predictable, and was completely predicted, back at the beginning.

As usual Al you hit the nail on the head.

[crawjo]

My response to the author's points:

1. On Civil War. I would argue that things could and probably would get worse without the U.S. presence. The constitutional framework would collapse, and open warfare would break out, possibly including genocide. Yes, Iraqis are killing mostly Iraqis right now, but I don't think that makes it a civil war, because the intention seems to be to not only destabilize the fledgling Iraqi government, but also to repel the American invaders.

2. On credibility. I don't find this to be a reasonable argument for staying in Iraq, so no comment.

3. On the insurgency and democracy. I agree that a liberal democracy is basically an impossibility. But that doesn't mean that I think that control of the country should be ceded to the insurgents. There's room for something in the middle that is not pro-American, but is also not terrorist.

4. On terrorists. I'm not sure I can agree that a dictator in power would stop terrorists. Right now, the terrorists are the main power that would fill the vaccuum left by the U.S., should it leave. It's hard for me to see how an anti-terrorist dictator would emerge from the current situation.

5. On Iranian influence. How much influence does Iran have if they are the ones hoping for an election and discouraging sectarian clashes? I thought this author had already declared that Iraq was in a state of civil war and democracy was hopeless. Seems to me he's trying to have it both ways here. I think Iran's influence over the Shi'ites is a matter for debate.

6. On Iraq's neighbors. This is a weak point. These other countries are not in open warfare with Iraq. He seems to be suggesting that whatever involvement these countries are currently sustaining is equivalent to their involvement in a potential civil war with no U.S. presence. I find that hard to believe.

7. Shi'ite-Sunni conflict. A potential plus for staying in Iraq is having the power to mediate between these two groups, so that Iran fails to stir up the kind of sectarian clash the author suggests is inevitable.

8. On training the Iraqi military and police. This is a good point. Political consolidation will be difficult to achieve, but regardless of whether it is possible or not, it can't happen without some sort of constitutional framework in place.

9. On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. This is another pro-war argument that I find to be without any merit.

Originally Posted by crawjo

My response to the author's points:

1. On Civil War. I would argue that things could and probably would get worse without the U.S. presence. The constitutional framework would collapse, and open warfare would break out, possibly including genocide. Yes, Iraqis are killing mostly Iraqis right now, but I don't think that makes it a civil war, because the intention seems to be to not only destabilize the fledgling Iraqi government, but also to repel the American invaders.

2. On credibility. I don't find this to be a reasonable argument for staying in Iraq, so no comment.

3. On the insurgency and democracy. I agree that a liberal democracy is basically an impossibility. But that doesn't mean that I think that control of the country should be ceded to the insurgents. There's room for something in the middle that is not pro-American, but is also not terrorist.

4. On terrorists. I'm not sure I can agree that a dictator in power would stop terrorists. Right now, the terrorists are the main power that would fill the vaccuum left by the U.S., should it leave. It's hard for me to see how an anti-terrorist dictator would emerge from the current situation.

5. On Iranian influence. How much influence does Iran have if they are the ones hoping for an election and discouraging sectarian clashes? I thought this author had already declared that Iraq was in a state of civil war and democracy was hopeless. Seems to me he's trying to have it both ways here. I think Iran's influence over the Shi'ites is a matter for debate.

6. On Iraq's neighbors. This is a weak point. These other countries are not in open warfare with Iraq. He seems to be suggesting that whatever involvement these countries are currently sustaining is equivalent to their involvement in a potential civil war with no U.S. presence. I find that hard to believe.

7. Shi'ite-Sunni conflict. A potential plus for staying in Iraq is having the power to mediate between these two groups, so that Iran fails to stir up the kind of sectarian clash the author suggests is inevitable.

8. On training the Iraqi military and police. This is a good point. Political consolidation will be difficult to achieve, but regardless of whether it is possible or not, it can't happen without some sort of constitutional framework in place.

9. On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. This is another pro-war argument that I find to be without any merit.

As your response is lacking any supportive information, it seems to amount to this: it would be worse without us there. On what can anyone base that? (I do not find your previous comparsion to Rwanda remotely convincing as there are no similarities whatsoever) Do you understand how bad it is now? And how long will you apply your reasoning? Another 3 years? Because we've made no progress in defeating the insurgency, the economy is a shambles, basic services are lacking, and political developments have had no stablizing effect. So how long do we "stay the course?"

[LennyH]

I've believed this war was a huge mistake from the beginning, but I'm having trouble buying into the idea of cut and run.

IMO, we can safely assume that the primary motivation of some of the insurgents is to drive the US out of Iraq and, if we pulled out today, some would put down their weapons and go home. The problem is, I think it's increasingly evident that this is a relatively small portion of the insurgency. Time Magazine recently reported that about 5% of the insurgents who have been killed or captured were foreigners. This is troubling to me. As much as the Administration likes to paint the insurgency as being Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, most of the insurgents are most likely, IMO, disenfranchised Sunni who want to drive the US out of the country so they'll be in better position to re-take Iraq by force. If my assumptions are accurate, I think it would be immoral and irresponsible to leave the country and allow this to happen.

The General who wrote the article feels that us being there is just postponing the inevitable civil war. I guess he's right, but we owe it to the Iraqi people to do everything in our power to prevent that.

Crawjo, I agree with most of what you said. A couple of random responses:

You're right about the credibility angle. Total bullshit. I don't see how our credibility could be any worse than right now.

"There's room for something in the middle that is not pro-American, but is also not terrorist."

Unfortunately, I agree. I don't think an American style democracy was ever realistic. The Iraqi people didn't like us in the first place and it was stupid and arrogant of us to believe we could convince them to be more like us. We're going to have to come to the realization that we need to allow them to create a government that can stabilize the country and be sustained in the long term, even if we're not particularly thrilled with the result. A democracy is neither desirable nor acceptable to a large portion of the country. If a democracy were somehow implemented, I think the insurgency would be permanent and the separation between Shiites and Sunnis would continue to grow. I'm not sure the insurgency isn't permanent anyway.

I hate to say this, and I hope I'm wrong about this, but I don't see any reason to believe Iraq can survive as a single country. The fundamental differences between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are too great and I think it took an oppressive, brutal dictator like Saddam to keep them together.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by achilles

As your response is lacking any supportive information, it seems to amount to this: it would be worse without us there. On what can anyone base that? (I do not find your previous comparsion to Rwanda remotely convincing as there are no similarities whatsoever) Do you understand how bad it is now? And how long will you apply your reasoning? Another 3 years? Because we've made no progress in defeating the insurgency, the economy is a shambles, basic services are lacking, and political developments have had no stablizing effect. So how long do we "stay the course?"

You seem to be arguing that it can't get any worse than it now is. You say there is no room for comparison with Rwanda. Why? In that case, the people massacred (Tutsis) were blamed by the Hutus for their complicity with the colonial powers. Why couldn't the same occur in Iraq? There, you have a minority, the Sunnis, who disproportionately benefited from Hussein's regime. Without the U.S. presence there, what evidence is there to suggest that the Shi'ites would restrain themselves from taking revenge? Indeed, isn't this the author's point, that Iran would stir up the Shi'ites to annihilate the Sunnis? Why wouldn't that be genocide?