Dennis Kucinich says Bring The Troops Home

[patricia]

Dennis Kucinich may not have a hope in hell of being President, now that he has officially thrown his hat in the ring.
His contention is that the money that is already in the pipeline is enough to bring the troops home.
He says that the 170 billion additional dollars being asked for by the Bush Administration will do nothing but prolong a war that cannot be won militarily.
Kucinich says that it's illogical for fellow politicians to now say they are against the war but to continue to fund it, coincidentaly, until the Bush Administration is out of office, leaving the war to be dealt with by whoever succeeds them.

What do you think??

[Sandi22]

What I think may be as convoluted as administration policy.

This part isn't though: Dennis Kucinich saying bring the troops home is spot on. This needs to be done, but even the Baker~Hamilton confab is worried about oil and New Hampshire. So it's not likely to happen as we'd like, that is unless the public keeps up the calls for the war to end.

This is where I think it gets strange. What if the administrations plans for Iraq are on track? On track as a contingency? They want to stay and build Mega Forts, what better way than to have it seem we should stay to fix what we broke? Could this be part of a contingency plan, one we thought they didn't have? The country of Iraq is broken. Nothing there works, and the Iraqi's are killing one another at a higher rate than they're killing us. It's been said we can't go off and leave them or it will be a blood bath, so we need to stay. Has this turned into a convenience? Will they stay and fix it?

The administration has found they can ignore our laws, so they do. They keep building prisons to stow away anyone suspected of being a terrorist or a backer of terrorism. To be caught up in that web has to be a nightmare of unparalleled dimensions. Pity the poor innocent man. They also want to stay and have Mega Forts to base operations of all sorts from, enabling them to control the whole of the region. Not just Iraq.

Like I've said before, it's location, location, location which is so important as far as Iraq goes. Prime positioning which could give the military a vantage point from which to control the region, along with it's many resources. Even it's water, thus finances. The administration believes that staying the course keeps them in the cat bird seat. This bumbled mess they've put us in with blessings from Congress and with too much of the voting public could still be how things go here at home and in Iraq. That is if they choose to continue violating our Constitution; our laws. If they can figure out just how to bypass all of this; bypass all of us, as well as bypassing this new bunch of elected officials, will they still be on track for that region? It will be us, and the region who will be in a mess. The administration will have won. They'll get to stay and if they fix it, I'll be stunned.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Kucinich is still alive?

[Paul B]

He is--he's not a grunt in Iraq serving a lost and arrogant conservative cause.

[crawjo]

I think we should send all the troops to Darfur, and leave them there.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

We could change that

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I think we should send all the troops to Darfur, and leave them there.

Isn't that a sickening mess?

[chuckyd4]

I spent a weekend with Mr. Kucinich a while back... interesting guy. Can't say I'd ever vote for him for president though.

[chuckyd4]

And who is this Jeffrey guy? Whatta tard, seriously, you are man

[Al in NYC]

Glad some presidential candidate said it. As much as I like the guy, it's too bad it's someone marginal as Kucinich.

I'm really tired of the other Democratic contenders tip-toeing around the issue and coming up with incoherent Kerry-esque statements on the war. Most of which seem to depend on something - the evolution of a capable central government - that very clearly is not going to happen. The truth is that this war was a horrible, and pretty much criminal, idea from the start, which was then carried out in an unbelievably clumsy fashion. Keeping our troops there now simply prolongs the time before we just leave anyway. There is no "victory" to be won, and things have gone well past the point where we can expect some wonderful magic feel good resolution (incidentally, can anyone define for me what this crazy Bush idea of "victory" in Iraq would actually consist of?). There is simply more death and destruction, and somebody at some point is just going to have come out and say it.

[Sandi22]

Last night on PBS, they were saying that the Baker~Hamilton group made up of rich government entities aren't suggesting or recommending an end to this war. They in their recommendations, in their suggestions, are going against what it is the people have voted for, and that is they're recommending a long term extended occupation, with solutions worked out with neighboring country's, among other things. They want the position of strength the location of Iraq gives them, they don't believe we should just drop the ball and leave. They believe that some sort of solution which isn't harmful to either Republican or Democrat should be ironed out before the New Hampshire primaries. As usual, they're more worried about politics than they are the American people and the people of Iraq. They do believe, however, that diplomacy should be at work where it hasn't even been a distant thought before, with the administration thinking tough talk and threats are more than enough to snap country's into line. They are strongly asking for diplomacy to be a main tool to make the changes necessary. Diplomacy with this group? It seems so unlikely. They raise ire in people, not respect, they work threats and fears, not an agreeable premise.

[Gary Sisco]

What Al said and I wish that many more in the dim base and leadership would be as honest and as sensible.

A wish and a metro card, however, get me a ride on the bus.

We will see soon enough what cojones they have or not when it comes down to staring down the Bushists from a position of power.

I hope they are better at it than they were in Reagan's time.

I have no realistic reason for such hope but it's all there is. That Kucinich is marginalized in his own party, by his own party, tells more than many I think are prepared to admit, even to themselves.

[Dr Dave]

As has been stated many times before, if Democratic candidates are tip-toeing around the war, it's because there aren't any good options. Either we call it a day, or we commit not just McCain's piddling 20,000 troops but more like 200,000 troops to get real control of Iraq. Of course, 200,000 is out of the question, because it would involve re-introducing a draft, and there just isn't any support for conscription to fight a war that was begun on lies.

As John McCain wrote in his introduction to David Halberstam's "The Best And The Brightest":

"It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn’t support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay.

"No other national endeavor requires as much unshakable resolve as war. If the nation and the government lack that resolve, it is criminal to expect men in the field to carry it alone."


Yeah, John McCain wrote that. What do you know. What the hell is he thinking now?

[Gary Sisco]

There's also the always forgotten point that more conventional troops will not control Iraq. More troops and all of the firepower the US possessed short of nukes -- used at unprecedented levels of violence -- didn't control the Vietnamese and they haven't controlled or defeated any irregular insurrection in all of history.

If the dims are tip toeing, it's because of their longstanding inability to not allow themselves to become repugnants lite. They have to prove that they are tough guys, too -- apparently even to a repugnant party led by draftdodgers nearly one and all. They can never seem to grasp the concept that *really* tough guys during a disastrous war that never should have happened will stand up to the Bushists, stare them down constitionally, and put an end to the carnage. That would indicate toughness. Taking over the war or mindlessly continuing it "because there are no good options" isn't tough. It's murderous cowardice. If there are no good options, the good option is to stop killing and dying.

Again, that attitude takes only Americans into consideration.

The ghost of Vietnam again, haunting a generation. Way too many people still talk about that war as if it was something done to Americans, when it was actually something done to the Vietnamese *by* Americans.

I can remember too many arguments about how the war might be futile but had to be continued because otherwise the killing and dying would have been in vain.

Tell me what's logical about that concept. Never mind human as in humane.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

There's also the always forgotten point that more conventional troops will not control Iraq. More troops and all of the firepower the US possessed short of nukes -- used at unprecedented levels of violence -- didn't control the Vietnamese and they haven't controlled or defeated any irregular insurrection in all of history.

Not the best analogy, Gary. Like the Vietnamese, the Iraqis may be united in their desire to expel the invaders (that's us), but that's the limit of the comparison. North Vietnam/South Vietnam does not parse to Sunni/Shiite. I think we could get the place under control if we really wanted to. But I'm the first to admit that my own point is moot: We don't want to do what would be necessary. And by John McCain's lights, (the guy I quoted, not the guy running around grunting about more troops now) that means it's time to get the hell out.

[Gary Sisco]

Everyone seems to think the military is trained to get places under control. It isn't. It's purpose and its training is to kill people and destroy stuff. That's all. And it does that very well.

They aren't cops, they aren't a substitute for governmental order, or anything like it. They aren't trained to be those things and frankly they shouldn't be.

*No one can control Iraq until it's hash has been settled by the Iraqis themselves.* And when it has been a different order of their own will emerge there. The only question is what kind, and that is a question also that will be decided by them, not by the US. Again, as it should be.

You think, Doc, but you're mistaken. First of all, there really aren't any more US troops combat ready to send there. The limits of the American armed power have been clearly revealed when a USMC commanding general declares the war to be unwinnable, let's face it. Which happened a couple of weeks back and was posted here.

What possible political gain could anyone be expecting by *not* having the place under control "if they really wanted to?"

Again, very often in history, almost always, in fact, once an armed struggle begins, the fight follows its own course. That's war college 101, not tv or movies.

The simple truth is that the Bushists expected an entirely different result from the invasion than the one they got. It blew up in their faces because they were gravely mistaken about how such an invasion would be met by the people of Iraq.

No conspiracy about. No secret purpose. Wrongheaded thinking produced a disastrous result.

Throwing more troops into the picture would change nothing, even if there were troops to throw.

The comparison to VN is not a bad one, politically speaking. Westmoreland did in fact request a couple of hundred thousand more troops when the war was clearly out of the US's control and dissent in the empire's population was nothing but rising every day. LBJ thought the request was insane and said so.

To me this whole argument about (the nonexistent) "more troops" is like the one about throwing more money at schools to increase literacy and so forth. You could throw money at them for the rest of time without substantially changing anything. And you can send in more troops to Iraq (by removing them from other duties that will therefore not get done elsewhere) and still not change anything except the number of troops and the number of dead or maimed, on all sides, and there are many more than two or even three.

Another political (note political -- not military) similarity with VN is this notion of an Iraqi government. It's an American creation for American purposes for American television viewing. It has no more reality to it than the alleged government(s) of South Vietnam had. Take the US out of the picture and the illusion evaporates, over night.

What Americans think about all of this doesn't matter anymore because the Iraqis will do what they are going to do. There has been too much repression for too long, and too much bloodshed already, for anyone there with any power to change things to be ready or willing to change them yet. Bloodshed begets bloodshed until a ruling faction eventually emerges. And it won't be one created or likely even desirable by Americans or their standards or anything else.

It will certainly be a Shi'a order, since they are the very large majority of the population. The only question is what kind of Shi'a order, and only time and history can answer that. No amount of American firepower can answer it or even prevent it, because the US is impotent in this circumstance (as has been every regular force in history dealing with irregular insurrections) and, politically, it will be forced by its own people to get out and to bring the troops home.

The American people simply don't have the stomach for continuous strife and casualties (to their credit, in many ways, actually). They've had all they want to have of Iraq right now.

The end result is going to be a phased withdrawal of American troops apart from "advisors" and eventually they, too, will be headed for the nearest chopper sent to haul their asses out of there.

This is inevitable and the talk in Washington is already slowly moving in that direction. They have no other "option."

What is "necessary" to control Iraq at this point, is another question, and if there is any answer, it is the creation of an ironfisted, absolute dictatorship that simply kills anything in its path, civilian or otherwise, and it would have to be as ruthless as any other formation there, except many more times moreso.

In short, a hellish bloodbath that produces exactly what Americans claim opposition to, in the first place. It would have to be a dictatorship much more complete and much more ruthless than Saddam Hussein's ever was. Much.

Good luck with your mission, gentlemen.

The US is not invinceable. It was vinced in Korea while still on very nearly total war footing, and it was defeated in Vietnam.

Call what they're planning now Iraqization. I do. And it will have the same results as Vietnamization. Phased withdrawal of US troops, "embedded" advisors, military catastrophe, a hurried removal of advisors and whatever residual civilian staff it still has there. Everyone on the helicopter with a tired "Welcome to your new free country."

And Iraq will become another war in American memory and history.

I will take wagers if anyone really wants to stake anything on it.

[Gary Sisco]

The above is the political end.

Militarily, Iraq will much more resemble Beirut and Lebanon in the days than Vietnam. It already does and has. There will be --hell, already is -- a mad, multisided civil war, literally at the civic level, that draws no distinctions between military and civilian, and its fighters will be both and either.

In that situation, the US today will be as militarily impotent as was the USMC in Beirut. Nothing was accomplished except getting a bunch of Marines killed in their barracks, and another national embarassment. It's hardly discussed, that little event.

Militarily speaking, however, there is another similarity to Vietnam: friendly borders. Vietnam would have been a whole other war if it hadn't bordered on China. Its munitions requirements were supplied by both the USSR and China via the Chinese border. Though the three (Russia, China, and Vietnam) were much more at each other's throats historically than anything else, China did side with VN to that extent, and also to the extent of allowing Russian munitions transport through China to North Vietnam. They had also at least tacitly friendly borders in Laos and Cambodia, if only because neither government was prepared to militarily confront N VN, which at the time had arguably the finest military in the world.

Iraq has two friendly borders. Its border with Iran, friendly with Shia. And Syria, for Sunni. It has an unfriendly border with Turkey and a nascent Kurdistan, but Turkey is not going to intervene in Iraqi war, though it will go on killing Kurds on its side of the border and occasionally, as it already has, across the border as well.

In addition, the insurgent forces control a mountain of munitions looted in the opening weeks of the US invasion. It wasn't just antiquities that were looted, let's face it. The NYT ran a very long front page article -- it was during the JC hang in New York the time Sergio and Jason Bivins were both in attendance -- with two photos of a huge munitions manufacture/storage depot, before and after. In the after picture, not just the contents but even the buildings had been taken down to nothing, munitions stashed, construction ingredients sold as salvage. Scrap metal with UN inspection team stamps on it turned up in scrap yards as far away as the Netherlands, in only a few weeks.

With the borders and the mountain of stashed munitions, a civil war there between Iraqis -- which is the main war and has been for quite some time -- and a multisided insurgency, really a sideshow at this point, against the US can be maintained, by American standards, indefinitely. Certainly for longer than the US domestic population is willing to continue taking casualties, not to mention forking over 84 billion dollars a month *in the red* through governmental deficit spending.

The graffiti is there to read for those who care to.

Those who don't, no matter what they say or do, will be revealed in time as irrelevant.

[walto]

Fixed.

Neither god nor master and generally happy to settle for maven!

[Gary Sisco]

Maven who?