Centerfield

So you've decided to enlist?
After all if its that important that we stay............

I think both sides on this issue absolutely suck... to offer a timeline or talk about withdrawal is not only irresponsible but unrealistic. However, I am personally bored with listening to Rumsfeld and Cheney's rose colored outlook regarding Iraq. England and France were formed after tribes fought for hundreds of years. In France, even today, a city over 10,000 people must be policed by the national government, by law, as to prevent large scale police forces from forming a militia with the intent of over throwing Paris. We are building a nation, it isn't going to happen this week or even next year, to think otherwise is simply ridiculous. However, it would help if this administration would once and for all level with people and tell the truth about Iraq.

BTW, does anyone else love to hear Biden and McCain talk about this issue every Sunday? I do...

Bob,

Thanks for making that comment and furthering the debate...

Not really.

Mat:
Your welcome.
I've always felt that the cold water of reality helps put the debate in the proper perspective.

Well, one man's cold water is another man's Kool-ade, you know.

I'm 45 years old and bifocaled--but I'm available for duty. Don't know that I'd be much help, however.

There are reasons to continue to fight, but unwillingness to acknowledge a mistake is not one of them. Unlike Vietnam, this is not a place were we can pull out and its over. Jihad is global. They will pursue us. In fact, if Iraq collapsed like Vietnam, we would see a wave of Iraqi refugees that we would have to absorb. If Al Qaeda were smart--and they are--they would infiltrate Iraqi refugees given shelter in the US with their own recruits.

So the plan is to stay and play bunching bag for a couple of decades? If we pull a Vietnam an wait a decade, then withdraw the situation will be no better.

PS:Actually there are a plethora of contracting positions available. Any age and physical disability is acceptable.

I work with a guy who just got back from Kuwait. He is physically handicapped but can still hobble.

Wasn't communism a global threat?

So you've decided to enlist? After all if its that important that we stay............

Ah, the old partisan warcry "America- love it or leave it!" find its way back into the modern debate, only this time from the other political flank. Interesting.

So the plan is to stay and play bunching bag for a couple of decades? If we pull a Vietnam an wait a decade, then withdraw the situation will be no better.

No, the plan should be to develop a viable counter-insurgency and nation-building strategy in Iraq that will allow us to hand over responsibility to an Iraqi government with the indigenous security capacity to defend its people from internal threats, while simultaneously isolating the insurgents from their base of support (the Iraqi people) and extending the legitimacy of the government through political and economic reconstruction.

Joe Biden knows this. Now whether or not the Bush Administration can adapt their current strategy to pull this off, is a different story.

But I find it amusing that people who only know of Iraq what they see on television or read on the Internet can be so convinced that we're already consigned to inevitable failure.

P.S. Zalmay Khalilzad was just confirmed as Ambassador to Iraq. Expect things to start getting a lot better over the next year.

From this NCC post:

The NCC is part of a national coalition urging an end to the war. The coalition, which includes MoveOn.org, True Majority, Sojourners, Working Assets and the National Organization of Women, is planning a national grassroots outreach campaign encouraging Members of Congress to sign onto the bi-partisan resolution.

I'd love to be able to bring home every American there tomorrow, but I don't think we have that luxury.

The situation in Iraq is our fault, no argument, and we have to take some responsibility for it. That means we do, unfortunately, have to stay there until the job is done, to parrot the parrot.

Of course, we need a major reworking of our strategy... and, sadly, probably more troops. Marines killed Fallujah on Thursday... and here I thought Fallujah had been subdued. All we're doing is moving from place to place, with the insurgents moving back in behind us.

BUT... to play devil's advocate, it's pretty much the same people telling us that Iraq would be so much worse if we left who told us that there were WMD's, and we didn't need a post war plan because they would greet us with American flags, so why isn't their credibility in question?

Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a national security adviser) to figure out that Iraq would be worse if we left.

People say that, but they don't say *how*... they say the terrorists will use it as a proving ground, but aren't they doing that, anyway?

I'm sure *someone* before March 2003 said it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Iraq has WMD's...

Treat me like the idiot that I am, and spell out to me how it would be worse than it is. -worse that is, for America.-

Seems like the classic "between a rock and a hard place" situation.

I agree that pulling out early carries definite risks. On the other hand the Bush administration is clearly intent on blowing rose-colored smoke up our collective backsides.

Ryan makes a very relevant observation about Iraq being a proving ground for terrorists right now. Whereas prior to our invasion it was nothing of the sort. Saddam kept terrorists on an exceptionally short leash for obvious reasons - they posed a threat otherwise and Al Quada was widely believed to have desired him being removed by whatever means necessary.

Seems to me that Iraq became a haven for terrorists because the Bush admin were blowing rose-colored smoke up their own backsides. It was avoidable. But, they F-ed it up because they were too arrogant to listen to the advice of competent professionals like General Shalivashkili or however the hell his name is spelled.

So... it seems to me that the question is really whether the risks of pulling out early are worse than the risks of the situation being further mismanaged by the Bush administration.

Bottom line: I subscribe to the Lincolnian view of this country's premise and purpose: government of the people, by the people and for the people. That means that if we the people decide that we should get out of Iraq by the end of the year then that's what needs to happen, just like it did with the Vietnam War. Maybe there'd be a price to pay. But, we are the sovereign government. It is our right. Anything less is tyranny.

Those of you who are arguing for an immediate withdrawl from Iraq are forgeting one major fact. UBL declared war on us - not we on him or on Islam. Admittedly, before the Iraqi invasion, the two were not associated, but they are now. We must make our decisions based on the current situation and probabilities for the future, not on our sense of morality or political pique.

I might recommend a mind experiment on the issue. Take the part of an al-Qaeda leader and postulate an American timetable for or a withdrawl from Iraq. What would your actions be? When I run the experiment, I cannot predict a scenerio where I would just let the US cut and run.

I might also suggest that we establish and publish an objective-based plan for withdrawl, identifying what we expect to happen along with our promise to withdraw when they are achieved. This just might encourage Arabs to begin to think that we are not there as a colonial power.

For the record, one would be hard pressed to find someone more adverse to the Iraqi invasion that I. I would also welcome, if it were possible, a movement to fire Misters Bush and Chaney for opening up another front just because they wanted to and for lying to the American people to achieve this end.

Osama bin Laden is a Sunni Muslim. Iraq is dominated by Shia and is sure to remain that way short of genocide. Sunni and Shia don't coexist well and rarily cooperate. Therefore, Osama's primary interest in Iraq right now is the fact that American troops are in Iraq. Remove the troops and his interest in Iraq would drop dramatically.

Kevin, of course, we have the right to go. Just as I could go jump off a bridge. The fact that we can do it has no bearing on whether we ought to do it. As it stands, the popularly elected government of Iraq wants us there. In fact, even the Sunnis are no longer demanding that we leave, because they know that the Shiites might use that opportunity to exact their revenge.

We invaded that country and it would be immoral for us to go if the people in that country desire us to stay. We owe them our help now that we've invaded.

Furthermore, it would damage our reputation in the Muslim world (we just go in and leave the place in ruins) and further undermine our standing in the world. Maybe the terrorists wouldn't keep fighting if we left. Maybe. However, in any case, it would be excellent propaganda for the terrorists and "victory" in Iraq might lead to insurgencies throughout the entire Middle East.

I think we're hobbling along now, and I also believe that given Bush is not up for election, congressmen and women in his own party will force him to correct major mistakes if it becomes imperative. They need to get re-elected.

If we just cut-it-and-run, I think that would be the height of moral myopia and selfishness unless it could be thoroughly demonstrated that it would be best for us and the Iraqis.

I don't oppose censuring Bush. I do oppose using the Iraqis as the spapegoat for Bush. I think the focus needs to be on pressuring Bush to do what the situation calls for. I don't know what that is, but I do know it means he has to be frank and not just make decisions to retroactively justify his past mistakes.

Adam,

And that, in a nut shell, is what's wrong with this NCC initiative. These organizations-- MoveOn.org, True Majority, Sojourners, Working Assets and the National Organization of Women-- care far less about issues being resolved in America's best interests than they do about issues being resolved in a manner that could lead to the embarassment and/or destruction of this President.

Not that the other side is any better, mind you.

And that's the sad state of affairs in American politics: the American people and the nation's interests have become mere footballs for the partisans to play with, leaving those of who truly care about our country (and not just our personal agendas) to be left without representation.

Oh c'mon, Adam. Surely you can't be serious.

You hang your hat on the dubious proposition that since the interum government in Iraq was popularly elected, and that government wants us to stay, that therefore that desire for us to remain is a reflection of the Iraqi will.

Newsflash! The head of our own government was popularly elected much more recently than was the interum Iraqi government. That same head of our government is intent on enacting a fundamental change to Social Security. Yet polling of the American people reveals that his plan is deeply unpopular - ie, it does NOT reflect the popular will.

I'm curious what y'all think of the recent reports that our government is negotiating with the "terrorists" in Iraq?

Obviously, if our government reached a negotiated settlement with said "terrorists", that would leave said "terrorists" in place and unmolested. Which probably would lead to our withdrawing from Iraq. Yet, all those "terrorists" would still be there.

If the argument is that we can't withdraw early from Iraq because terrorists declared war on us and we gotta do what we gotta do... why would the Bush admin even bother talking to the terrorists?

Treat me like the idiot that I am, and spell out to me how it would be worse than it is. -worse that is, for America.-

For America, already low international standing is worsened with perception by skeptical allies that we're not in anything for the long-haul. Already bad enough for them to say your a "friend" of the US, now worse knowing that "friend" won't stand by you.

Now Marcus, the real tough question which maybe you're asking (and I have NO answer for is )"How many American lives is that potential problem worth?"

What Chris said. That you don't like us being there does not change the potential damage from us cutting and running. We broke it, we bought it, we fix it.

Current reports indicate that the Iraqi government is indeed negotiating with the Sunni. We've discussed this before. There's only a few things that can be done about the Sunni portion of the insurgency. Kill 'em, bring 'em back into Iraqi society, or put 'em back in charge. I vote for Door #2. If we pull out, the Shia and Kurds are likely to go for Door #1, while the Sunni would pull out all stops chasing Door #3 with the assistance of Syria and others--just to keep breathing. And Door #3 would bring us back to Iran/Iraq conflict, probably with Syria pulling all the Baathist strings. But hey, the anti-war movement will feel better about themselves! After all, no one in the movement batted an eye when the North Vietnamese "normalized" Vietnam, killing close to a million and forcibly "re-educating" millions more. It was a victory for The Movement, doncha know, so the fallout was incidental. Political victory and ideological point-scoring, after all, is everything.

Then there's that thing that is obvious to everyone but the anti-war folks. Iraq is not Vietnam. It's not even close. I do find it curious that the Sunni/Baathist elements are "insurgents" when they're attacking others, but "terrorists" if they want to come to the negotiating table and end the fighting. It's an interesting Lakoffian framing shift. Sort out the implications of that one for yourself.

The foreign jihadis are of course actual terrorists, by any realistic definition. They cannot be negotiated with short of our total capitulation or their eradication. Put me down for Option B.

Dear me. Did I actually link to information indicating a potential al-Qaeda terrorist connection with Saddam and Syria and WMD's, with elements of the connection predating the U.S. invasion of Iraq? How politically incorrect of me.

The basic fallacy of that argument is the assumption that Iraq can be fixed.
We are not god and we can't un-fry an egg. Sometime you pick fights you can't win and no amount of gold and bombastic rhetoric can fix a lost cause.

Kevin,

If the argument is that we can't withdraw early from Iraq because terrorists declared war on us and we gotta do what we gotta do... why would the Bush admin even bother talking to the terrorists?

Good question. I'm not privvy to the actual information so I don't know for sure how accurate those reports really are (God knows I used to laugh at some of the MSM's reporting about Afghanistan during my tenure there).

But if I were to guess, I suspect the answer would be that we're not trying to seek a deal with *all* of the terorrists (since by definition, many of them are of the nature that they cannot be negotiated with), rather that we are trying to reach an accomodation with the "moderate" type with whom a political settlement is possible, thereby splitting the two groups.

The model there would be Taliban Reconciliation in Afghanistan, which I know quite a bit about, or if you're looking for more historical episodes, there's the FMLN in El Salvador, M-19 in Colombia, the IRA with Great Britain, the PLA with Israel, and even before that the Irgun. None of these settlements eliminated the opposition, but it did reduce their power by splitting the moderates from the fanatics.

In any case, if you buy Clausewitzean theory, war is an extension of politics, which means that you can't hope to win by military and kinetic measures alone, and at some point, *must* seek a political arrangement of some kind.

The basic fallacy of that argument is the assumption that Iraq can be fixed. We are not god and we can't un-fry an egg. Sometime you pick fights you can't win and no amount of gold and bombastic rhetoric can fix a lost cause.

I suppose that's possible. But the flip side is that you don't *need* to be a deity to defeat an insurgency, and that some fights you *can* win because they are *not* lost causes.

What are your specific reasons for this pessimism?

As I mentioned to Tully in still another thread, we, as Americans *could* fix it, if we really wanted. It would involve a major commitment of troops and money that we're just not willing to up, however.

We've become Wal-Mart Americans. We want our nice, democratic Iraq at the cheapest price possible.

So what happens? We kill some insurgents in Fallujah, pull out, and they're back... and this is happening everywhere. We garrison Baghdad with 30,000 odd troops when Saddam Hussein had over a 100,000, and we wonder at the lack of security. We can't protect the training Iraqi forces, and the administration is unwilling to take them elsewhere to be trained... these people are so afraid they won't even show their faces! Can you imagine a US police officer or soldier hiding his face from his own countrymen?

My arguement, simply is, if we're not willing to do it right, why should we do it at all? All we're doing is killing ourselves and Iraqis, and a few foreign insurgets in the process...

At the rate we're going, we might have the Iraq we want in, twenty odd years, but in that time, the politicians will have used a withdrawal to, perhaps rightly, win an election.

No one has satisfactorially explained to me, beyond moral arguments, what would be so terrible about leaving Iraq. I have my own reasons to believe we should stay, but from a practical standpoint, what's to be gained -for America-? Are we winning the "war on terrorism" in Iraq, or simply training a terrorist army to fight us elsewhere?

Our reputation in the Middle East and Europe is already in tatters, anyway, and if we pulled out, those who hate us will still hate us, and those who hate us, but take our money, -think Saudi Arabia- will still take our money.

And shoot, if we pulled out, maybe Europe would fill the gap out of necessity, and maybe I'll win the lottery without even playing!

On a side note: If we "negotiate" with insurgent/terrorist leaders, doesn't that validate them to the point where we have to treat them as enemies of war? Just call me curious, from a legal standpoint.

Ryan - we pretty much already treat them as legitimate enemies, via our POW policies in GTMO and other places. The Geneva Convention says that these folks for a variety of good reasons (you could look it up) may be summarily executed.

Bob J Young - I haven't seen you around here much. I miss your proclamations.

Bobby:
“What are your specific reasons for this pessimism?”
You mean besides our inability to secure the peace?

Literally Retarded: Health issues have been keeping me down. (Does this mean its time for a group hug?)

Yeah, I suppose expecting some degree of patience from a culture that has become addicted to instant gratification is foolish on my part. My bad.

But since there's still a multinational presence in *Bosnia*-- ten years later, and where the equation was far more favorable-- precisely why would you expect this one to be resolved in two years? Or five years?

Negotiating with enemies only "validates" that they are currently enemies, Ryan. Pardon my sarcasm, but so freakin' what? We should instead start the anti-Sunni pogrom to eradicate them from Iraq? Even though most of the Sunnis are not insurgents, and are becoming part of the new government? The drift I get there is that you feel it is somehow a bad thing to bring the enemy to the peace table, instead of just killing them. That there is something dishonorable about seeking peace. That a unified Iraqi government would somehow be an abdication of our principles. This seems to me an attempt to paint any wins as losses, to claim that no good is possible no matter what actually happens. What am I missing there?

The number of troops that Saddam used to barracks in Baghdad is absolutely irrelevant. Escelation is NOT a guarantee of a "win." And could have severely counter-productive effects, both with the populace and with other nations.

Last week the "Biden" approach also came up, along with the DLC "three prong" proposal. Of the DLC's three prongs, two are already well under way and have been for months, and the other is a doubtful political positioning statement, not a policy statement. When Kofi Annan starts jumping to hog credit for that "international effort" that is in reality almost entirely undertaken by coalition troops, I'd say that's a good sign. Sounds like "pre-emptive" credit claiming in progress. (PS--I don't find anything wrong with that--it's a time honored back-door method of supporting an opponent's policy or parts thereof covertly instead of overtly, for political reasons.)

BTW, Germany, Egypt, and the Ukraine are all training Iraqi troops. And the EU has just begun training Iraqi police, prosecutors, and prison officials. It is simply not true that that other nations are not participating in training Iraqi troops and police. But all we hear about on the evening news is the violence. To listen to the left and the media, we're over there all alone, the entire population wants us dead, and we're losing badly. And that's just not the truth. If it were, Kofi, wouldn't be hogging that credit.

There seems to be a great cry for "simple" solutions. There are no simple solutions. Any approach will have consequences.

Yeah, I suppose expecting some degree of patience from a culture that has become addicted to instant gratification is foolish on my part.

It's not about the reality on the ground, Bobby. It never was. Didn't you know that?

Hmmmm.
Ground truth!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

I do find it odd that we should decry seeking political accomodations with the enemy. At some point, that *has* to happen-- short of, I suppose, executing every Trojan male and taking their wives and daughters back to Greece...

Interestingly enough, most critiques of the current military strategy (from within the military, that is) tends to center on it being *too* kinetic; that is, that my brothers are too focused on killing insurgents instead of attacking his *strategy*. If Afghanistan is any kind of model (and it may not be, I know), we need *more* political maneuvering in Iraq (albeit not of Bremer's variety)...

Tully, your point about the UNSG is well taken. In Kabul, much of UNAMA's work on the elections plan was actually ghostwritten by a US Marine colonel-- it didn't stop Uncle Kofi from taking the credit when things went well, and we actually didn't mind. That it came off well was all we cared about.

Bob Young, next time please tell me ahead of time that you're just a clown and I won't waste your time or mine actually trying to have a serious conversation...

Tully- I was referring to the legal standing of "enemy combatant" vs "Enemy of war". Wouldn't negotiating with the enemy raise them from the first to the second by way of validating, if not their right to fight, than at least that they are in a position *to* fight?

You seem, as you have before, to assume I want nothing more than a Sunni blood bath, which is furthest from my mind. Escalation is by no means a guarentee of a win, but it might bring about a more secure Iraq faster. It's not a guarentee, but don't we have to try?

Tully, it seems I can't play devil's advocate without being accused of desiring outright genocide, which y'know, kinda hurts, because I like to keep my killing to small degrees...

Lastly, no one has yet to answer my question, which, frankly, makes me wonder, about how, from a practical if not moral point of view, we can't just withdraw completely from Iraq.

I ask again- How would withdrawing from Iraq make things worse for America?

Yes, yes, yes, much of Europe, and the Coalition, is helping, and gosh, lets not forget Poland!! But to face facts, we are assuming the burden of costs and losses, or would you argue otherwise?

Again, I point to the attack on the marine convoy in the supposedly "retaken" Fallujah as evidence that maybe, just maybe, we could use more troops on the ground there. You say the number of troops in Baghdad is irrelevant, but you don't say how, when every day security breeches that occur would seem to indicate otherwise.

For what it's worth, my paragraphs seemed to have gotten out of order there, and the fourth and third from the last should have been the last two.

Weird. I think the computers have begun the revolution.

Well bobby I guess I could call you a name also.

But that would violate the rules of this board, and there is no point both of us getting banned from posting here.

For those who are interested, here are some graphs comparing Vietnam and Iraq casualties:
I ignored the rhetoric, but scroll down and look at the graphs.
http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-deaths-in-vietnam-and-iraq-by-month/

and just for some historical perspective, casualties from other wars.

http://www.education-world.com/a_lesson/images/memorialdaylplesson04imagebig.jpg

Bobby, were you under the mistaken impression that actually knowing what you were talking about would make an impression on a closed mind?

Your "unanswered" question was answered in the original post, Ryan. Did you miss that before replying to the thread? You have offered no reasonable refutations, so it comes across as if you're not paying attention.

I was referring to the legal standing of "enemy combatant" vs "Enemy of war". Wouldn't negotiating with the enemy raise them from the first to the second by way of validating, if not their right to fight, than at least that they are in a position *to* fight?

Two contrasting answers--Nope, and who cares? They can't rise to a legal "higher level" without little details like being the official military of a nation, wearing uniforms, etc. Anyone can fight. Ask the Bloods and the Crips. But without meeting the requirements, they're still just "insurgents" or "terrorists" or criminals, not soldiers. Their only legitimacy at all comes from organized violence--the ability to commit it, and the ability to stop it. If they can't/don't commit it, they're not a problem. If they can't stop it, they're not a relevant negotiating force. If they can stop it, and want to come to the table, we should talk. No?

You seem, as you have before, to assume I want nothing more than a Sunni blood bath, which is furthest from my mind. Escalation is by no means a guarentee of a win, but it might bring about a more secure Iraq faster. It's not a guarentee, but don't we have to try?

Now we're getting somewhere! My apologies if I misunderstood you, but that is exactly why I kept grinding at the point--because it doesn't seem to make sense. So, onward through the fog. "No guarantee" is putting it mildly. We're not facing a standing army. Listen carefully here, 'cause this part is important. The Iraq war is over. We won. As much of a shock as this may be, we're not in a regular war scenario over there anymore. We're in a nation-building scenario.

Our over-arching agenda is not to annihilate the insurgency (as nice as that would be) it's to help the Iraqis establish that nation, and "solutions" that are counter-productive of that agenda are worthless to us. We (and the Iraqi people and government) are facing a fragmented and dispersed insurgency, composed of several factions with different aims. So we should escalate against what? The entire Iraqi populace? Pouring in more foreign (U.S.) troops could easily make things much worse without solving anything at all. Helping create a police state is not the way to split off the Sunni insurgents from the jihadis.

All we can do with the insurgents is kill them. Barring that, the Iraqi portion of the insurgency must ultimately be dealt with by the Iraqis themselves, and the jihadi portion of the insurgency will follow us wherever we go. Neither are a concentrated force that can be centrally assaulted.

For the rest, you keep throwing out tired old cliches that are either irrelevant or immaterial, and that have been dealt with here to the point of absurdity over the last coupla years. Have you got anything new, with references? 'Cause we've heard all the wing chatter talking points already.

Tully, you're so great. You're like our friendly contrarian anti-spin jihadist. I'm sure you've addressed this somewhere, but you really don't think more troops would help? I don't mean flood the place, but wouldn't more troops put more pressure on the "nationalists" to compromise and help to secure the place?

Tully,

Their only legitimacy at all comes from organized violence--the ability to commit it, and the ability to stop it. If they can't/don't commit it, they're not a problem. If they can't stop it, they're not a relevant negotiating force. If they can stop it, and want to come to the table, we should talk. No?

EXACTLY! And if they *can* stop it, but don't *want* to, then that is where the Iraqi government and the Coalition must excise the revolutionary cancer in order to enable the proper environment that will render them impotent. Intelligence-driven applied kinetic violence in support of carefully-crafted information operations that will generate strategic and political effects-- that's really the point of military operations (or should be, anyway).

Ryan,

It should be noted that not everyone is in agreement that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would result in utter chaos. Edward Luttwak from CSIS actually argued almost a year ago that an immediate withdrawal would *better* align US policy with US interests, and that it would be a positive move for us, primarily because he assumes that many of the "free-riders" or "troublemakers" like the Iraqi Shi'ites, Turkey, and Iran would have to behave more responsibly in the event of an American withdrawal (their own interests would be at stake). I disagree with some of his assumptions and his conclusion, but he's a big enough thinker that he can't be ignored.

He emailed me a copy of it around last summer, but I think it wasn't published in Foreign Affairs until last winter. I could email you a copy if you're interested-- just keep in mind that it was pre-election, and many of his assumptions have been dispelled. Also, I strongly disagree with his argument.

Adam,

I can't answer for Tully, but my own experience indicates that adding more troops is irrelevant if it's not part of the right strategic campaign plan. With no more than 18,000 troops in Afghanistan (roughly one-eighth that of OIF), CFC has seen better (not perfect) results-- in a country roughly the same population and size as Iraq (and with many other challenges, to boot)-- than MNF-I. I would argue it is because the Coalition's tactics and operations have better supported a more sound strategic and political plan in Kabul than in Baghdad (and that it was a direct result of Ambassador Khalilzad and LTG Barno's leadership, but that's a different story).

If we've learned anything from British counter-insurgency operations (and they're really the guys who have gotten it "right"-- right, not perfect-- over the years), it's that you can't overestimate the importance of using "indigenous" forces and political maneuvers instead of simply adding more troops and looking for that decisive, kinetic solution.

Tully says: Dear me. Did I actually link to information indicating a potential al-Qaeda terrorist connection with Saddam and Syria and WMD's, with elements of the connection predating the U.S. invasion of Iraq? How politically incorrect of me.

The connection between Saddam and the al Quada-linked terrorist organization of Zarqawi is tenuous at best.

The reality is that Zarqawi's main terrorist training camp was in the far Northeastern corner of Iraq. As such it was well outside of Saddam's control, thanks to allied fighter jets and American weapons in the hands of our Kurdish allies. It was, obviously, well within the area controlled by our allies the Kurds, however. Which begs several questions that the Bush apologists don't wanna hear, much less answer.

BTW, Germany, Egypt, and the Ukraine are all training Iraqi troops.

I think it's a fundamental mistake to have either the Egyptians or the Ukranians training them if our goal,as I've been led to believe, is to stand up a credible Iraqi army.

Tully-

I do so enjoy "talking" with you. Half the time I just shake my head and want to walk away rather than prove my point, which means I'm enjoying it and being lazy, and so I come back and try again..

The original posting speaks of our moral obligation to Iraq to prevent a slaughter that would occur upon our departure and conceptualizes insurgencies spreading across the entire middle east. The first is very probable, although with the lightning rod of the US out of Iraq it could easily be argued that the nationals will then allign with the government to oust the foreigners. The second, of insurgencies all across the middle east? Well, anything's possible, I suppose, but I rather doubt it, and frankly, insurgencies in Syria, and Iran may well work to our favor.

I find it amusing that the same people who painted such a rosy picture of our invasion are now painting a doom and gloom picture of our departing. Considering thier track record in predicting Iraqi reactions, I wonder that we listen to them at all.

So I return to my original query... How could things be worse FOR AMERICA if we withdrew? This has yet to be answered beyond conjecture of the most unlikely sort.

For the record, although I believe I've said as much before, I am in favor of staying in Iraq, although I believe as much for moral reasons, and not security. Yet when I find myself debating friends who have brothers and sisters, mothers and daughters, wives and husbands in Iraq, I feel compelled to offer reasons of American Security to stay in Iraq, and yet no one has offered me any beyond vague doom and gloom predictions.

Tully, my last posting was seven paragraphs. The first was clarifying my query about the legal status of captured enemies -and for the record, I imagine *they* care, their families care, or even the principled beyond reason ACLU cares-. My second was my correcting you on me wanting a bloodbath, and on giving escalation of troops a try. The third was about me playing devil's advocate and making a poor joke. The fourth and fifth were me repeating yet again the same question I've repeated in this post. The sixth was my agreeing with you that the coalition has participated in Iraq, although not to the degree we have, and the seventh was pointing out that a marine convoy was targeted in Fallujah again, after we'd already run the insurgents out.

Which of those paragraphs do your following remarks pertain to?

For the rest, you keep throwing out tired old cliches that are either irrelevant or immaterial, and that have been dealt with here to the point of absurdity over the last coupla years. Have you got anything new, with references? 'Cause we've heard all the wing chatter talking points already.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume we can have a rationale discussion, but I find myself facing knee jerk reactionism; the sort of "That's leftwing talk, and not worth even discussing 'cause you're a leftwinger," nonsense... Was it the deaths in Fallujah, a supposedly secure city, that's wing propaganda? Are you suggesting I check with Fox for all my facts, 'cause that's what it sounds like. What sort of references would you like? US spending and casualities compared to that of the rest of the coalition?

33 more dead in Mosul today. Mosul's largely considered an insurgent hotbed, like Fallujah was. So we'll probably have to go in there, and then the insurgents will flee to Tikrit, or back to Fallujah, and we're off again. We're playing musical chairs because our force is static, and limited, while theirs is growing at a rate faster than the Iraqi security forces can handle... Is it too much to ask that we review our strategy and find the problems and fix them?

Lastly, Secretery Rumsfield said we may be there for up to twelve years, but that's not a quagmire... what timeline, out of curiousity, defines quagmire? Fifteen years? Twenty? Or is it measured in lives?

Bobby- I would very much like a copy, thankyou. Email me at trybutez@yahoo.com. Don't worry... where Iraq is concerned, I take everything with a grain of salt...

"Fool me once..." Well, anyway, I'm sure they have the saying in Tennessee, too.

The reality is that Zarqawi's main terrorist training camp was in the far Northeastern corner of Iraq. As such it was well outside of Saddam's control, thanks to allied fighter jets and American weapons in the hands of our Kurdish allies. It was, obviously, well within the area controlled by our allies the Kurds, however.

Nice try, Kevin. Better get out your country maps and look again. Dar al-Islam controlled a piece of eastern Iraq, on the Iranian border. It was not in Kurdish-controlled territory, nor was it controlled by the Kurds. The Kurds were to the NW, Iran to the N, E, & S, and fundie Shi'ites to the SW. It was controlled by Zarqawi's buddies Dar al-Islam, who chased out or killed the natives around their bases, and brutally imposed Jund al-Islam Sunni rule on those left. The territory butted up directly against Saddam's 2nd Army on the west. Saddam left 'em alone.

I'll agree it was not apparently in Saddam's control, just his forbearance. In fact, it might even be claimed that Iran had more control over the area than Saddam--given Iranian links to the Dar al-Islam crowd. But it was certainly not in Kurd control--Dar al-Islam was fighting the Kurds, not being supported by (or supporting) them. Which is probably why Saddam left them alone.

The connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda is somewhat tenuous and disputable. The connection between Saddam and Middle Eastern terrorism is not. Of course, I still have yet to hear from the left how bombing the al-Shifa aspirin factory wasn't (as the Clinton administration called it) the destruction of a WMD plant owned by Osama and supplying Saddam. That anti-war hero Richard Clarke maintains to this day that it was exactly that.

Ryan, everytime you multiply your arguments and extraneous asides you give the impression you're trying to bury the responder with expansion rather than focus on an issue. I'm not writing a book. You are free to.

How could withdrawing be to our detriment? You mean other than demoralizing our military, and destroying any credibility in our foreign policy? And emboldening the jihadis while shifting their target space back to America? That's not "conjecture of the most unlikely sort." Cut and run is what we did in Somalia. It led directly to 9/11, according to Osama himself. He percieved it as an unwillingess to sustain a military effort. Do you believe the attack on New York was an illusion? An unlikely conjecture? Vague? What about the USS Cole? The Khobar Towers? The U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi? The Luxor massacre?

I am sure our policies are being reviewed and assessed. I'm also sure they're not being reveiwed and assessed in public by opinion poll for your viewing pleasure. And I know for a fact that those in Iraq and Washington doing those reviews have better information than we do.

You seem to be ignoring entirely the stated problems with "throwing more troops at the problem" in favor of just re-arguing that the insurgency's not dead yet. Well, duh. They're striking mostly civilian targets. How do you think more troops would help? I've listed copious ways they could hurt. Ultimately the insurgency is an Iraqi problem. If they get their native factions brought into line, that leaves the jihadis. But at the point that the native insurgent factions come to the table and make (and live by) agreements, Iraq will be down to facing the same problem that the rest of the world has--Islamic terrorism. That's hardly unique to Iraq.

PS--Israel's been a "quagmire" since before 1947. "Quagmire" is political rhetoric, defined by the user. Which means a quagmire is whatever you want to call one. It has no operational usefullness other than as political rhetoric.

Sometimes to heal a wound you have to clean it up, and if needed, put some antibiotic ointment on it and bandage it up, and then just let it heal. If you start to bother a healing wound too much, it may get infected and be worse than the original injury.

Maybe we are festering up a nasty infection in the wound we call Iraq because we did not let it heal on its own when we were done cleaning up the wound (i.e., Mission Accomplished was when??).

In so many ways, the US foreign policy for Iraq and our continued military presence in Iraq is creating more and more terrorism in Iraq. If some foreign country came here, bombed out your house, tortured and killed your wife and children, and you fought back, I am sure they would label you a terrorist. Think about it. I am sure you would feel better if the foreign military would just leave so you could go back to doing your business again.

Let's let Iraq heal itself. Iraq has dealt with its own issues and knows itself much better than we do. Let's let the Iraqi people win their country back and allow them to heal.

Regarding the issue of terrorism:
The world will always have terrorism and the US will always be threatened by terrorists in some way, shape, form, or another. Nothing we do will change that, so get over the notion that this military action or that action will cause the US to be safer from terrorists. Some people are just ticked off, and that is the way they are. The best thing we can to is to not have them so ticked off at us, and give them a benign thing to be ticked off at to divert their ticked off ambitions.

The wound analogy implies that the infection has been treated, and is gone. Sometimes if you cover up a wound and leave it alone the infection gets worse. So you have to be SURE the infection is being treated properly, because infections are potentially fatal. You have to keep a close wyw on it, keep cleaning and treating it, change the dressing, and so on and so forth.

I'm glad I missed this thread, lots of shouting. If Iraq is indeed a lost cause, we'll have no alternative but to leave. The unanswered question is whether this cause is "fried egg" lost. If you declare this is so, the arguing gets pretty easy. But is it so? I continue to think that the signal of a lost cause, shoudl it occur, will be a loss of the pragmatic tolerance for our presence by the majority of Iraqis. I don't see this yet.

I agree with the notion that, regardless of what has become before, we broke it, we bought it, we fix it. Yes, of course we may not be able to fix it. However, we are morally beholden to do our utmost to try and fix it. That means we have to be SURE the cause is lost before giving up. My sense is that bailing now would represent the greatest possible disgrace for the US. With our continued help, Iraq may still establish a constitution, elect ever-more legitimate governments, and become a representative democracy of some form. I believe the chances of this happening are greater if we stay.

Tully, as short and sweet as I could get, -wouldn't want the debate to be ignored because it was too long-

two points.

How could withdrawing be to our detriment? You mean other than demoralizing our military, and destroying any credibility in our foreign policy?

And eight to twelve years or more in Iraq *won't* demoralize our army? We have to accept that if we're going to be in Iraq, we WILL be looking at severe morale problems. One need only reference current recruiting or reenlistment to see as much. This argument is pointless, as it'll happen in either context, sadly.

And frankly, with the lack of WMD's, I'd say our credibility is already shot, as might well be our foreign policy. Besides, nations don't have friends, they have interests. When it's in Europe's interest to work with us, they will, and so will everyone else.

And emboldening the jihadis while shifting their target space back to America? That's not "conjecture of the most unlikely sort." Cut and run is what we did in Somalia. It led directly to 9/11, according to Osama himself. He percieved it as an unwillingess to sustain a military effort.

Nothing we do will "embolden" the jihadis. They're going to attack us, and that's that. Someone who is willing to strap a bomb to their chest has been about as "emboldened" as they're likely to get.

Now the argument of moving the target back to the US proper is a valid one, directly affecting the security of the United States, and from a selfish point of view, worth arguing; "We're fighting the terrorists in Iraq rather than here." Of course, once you use that argument, you lose the moral high ground though, and can't use "democracy's on the march" or even "we broke it, we bought it, we fix it." It's admitting we're not there for the Iraqis. They're dying there so we can live here. Again, a valid security argument, however. Of course, it's also a stop gap measure. Assuming ten years from now we ARE out of Iraq, the target shifts back. Unless, of course, we defeat all the terrorists in the interim.

Do you believe the attack on New York was an illusion? An unlikely conjecture? Vague? What about the USS Cole? The Khobar Towers? The U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi? The Luxor massacre?

I'm not even going to bother replying to this, save to say it's unworthy of you to imply as much.

As far as troop escalation? Again, I agree totally, neither of us has all the facts, and despite your beliefs otherwise, I wouldn't care for the military to share all their thought processes with us, if for no other reason I'd have to sit and translate the military english to english/english. All I am trying to do is open the debate here, pointing out that if we'd been able to secure Fallujah after our departure, maybe we'd some more marines alive today. Correct me if I'm wrong but you've already determined without room for debate that more troops are unnecessary, and we shouldn't even bother talking about it.

Ultimately the insurgency is an Iraqi problem.

It's a problem we're sharing with them, and will be sharing with them for the next ten years or so.

Lastly, for the record, because I feel I must, I am FOR staying in Iraq! I do believe it is our responsibility, but again, my argument for as much is moral. I'd really, really, love for someone to offer me a serous securty of America reason to stay that doesn't involve outright speculation made by the same people who speculated we would be welcomed with flowers.

'd really, really, love for someone to offer me a serous securty of America reason to stay

I don't believe you. You completely dismiss(never mind discount) the notion that our departure would provide encouragement to muslim fundamentalist terrorists. That dumbounds me. How can I take you at your word? Given this blithe dismissal, I'd love for you to explain why our departure and the subsequent power vaccuum would not have adverse affects for national security.

I'm one of many who feels that our failure to stay the course in Iraq will result in a devolution to chaos in Iraq, and foster the growth both of islamic fundamentalism and general despotism in Iraq and in other places watching for signals that our resolve is weak and our attention span limited. Groups of either ilk (despots and mus funds) are bound to continue to seek nuclear weapons. Our departure seems likely to me to make this easier. And I don't see that as a positive for our national security.

I realize that this is speculation, which you specifically requested some refrain from. But since I didn't predict Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, I guess I am off the hook. By the way, to my knowledge, no one else who posts here predicted this, so i don't know where this comes from. I also don't get how we can be expected to think about future outcomes without speculating.

I don't mind speculation, especially if it has some merit in fact, or precedence. What I do take exception with is the fact that all the people speculating today are "doom and gloom" about our withdrawal but were all rosy and happy about liberation. Is it any wonder I take everything they say with an enormous grain of salt?

Maybe I am asking for too much. Maybe I can't expect an argument beyond the moral, which is fine for me, but lacks something when you lose the moral high ground, as we arguably, have, in regards to Iraq being WMD free.

Thus far, and it wasn't on this blog, the closest I've seen to a real security reason for the US to stay in Iraq and stabilize it has been, simply, for the oil.

If we pull out, one of two things happen. The insurgents fold into the government without us to hate, and everyone's happy... or civil war. It could go on as long or longer than our occupation, and disrupt all oil production, both making more dependent upon Saudi Arabia, and sending prices skyward.

At the same time, if we stay the course, we can be fairly certain the government that forms is to our liking. We would have absolutely no guarentee of as much upon our immediate withdrawl. Anything from an Iranian backed fundamentalist government to a resurgence of the Baathists is a possibility.

I'm not sure how much credence I give to the idea of Iraq being a source of future WMDs, considering their current economic situation. Maybe twenty years from now, but I do believe it's safe to say we've bombed them back, if not to the stoneage, than at least to the 1950's... I would be more concerned about missing Iraqi scientists, as I am about former soviet scientists...

Lastly, I find myself agreeing with the Administration that a US backed, democratic Iraq IS good for the middle east and the US. It will better stabalize our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and put more pressure on Iran and Syria to behave. Plus, a democratic Iraq, similar, but better than, Turkey, would also be good for Israel, by in all probability recognizing them, and ending payouts to suicide bombers, which would in turn, be good for us.

There ARE valid security reasons for the US to stay... it's just no one here has presented them beyond the doom and gloom, and in specifics.

-with the possible exception of fighting the terrorists in Iraq, as opposed to in the US, which is a valid security concern.-

Ryan, please note that you're the one that called such a scenario "conjecture of the wildest sort." The things I listed happened. If pointing that out annoys you, tough. Also please do note that all but one of the things I listed occured outside the US. I am NOT making an exclusive "they'll be back in the US if we don't keep fighting them in Iraq" argument--though I think the argument has some merit. The terrorists will follow us. Americans everywhere become the "target space." Even if the "collateral damage" is mostly locals, as it was in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi.

I'm making the argument that giving them the appearance or reality of success against us in Iraq will inspire their efforts and recruitment everywhere. And that kicking their asses will have somewhat the opposite effect. We have no reason to believe that our leaving Iraq will deter them from continuing to attack Iraqis--they appear to want to try the "Afghanistan ploy" of taking over a nation for a home base again. And we're pretty damn sure they will continue to target Americans wherever it is most logistically convenient for them. Which would bring us back to square one.

I'll repeat again the argument against throwing more troops at the problem. The problem of fighting the jihadis in Iraq is not one of troop numbers in the first place. It's a problem of timing and placement and intel. The only way that putting in more troops would help militarily would be if we put in enough to saturate the nation, to impose a military/police state on Iraq. This would be completely antithetical to our goal of a democratic Iraq under Iraqi control, and would be much more likely to increase overall fighting and terrorism than reduce it. Got that? It's the apocryphal "burn the the village in order to save it" doctrine. We're trying to save the village, not toast marshmallows.

The problem of the Iraqi insurgents is a different problem from that of the jihadis, a problem internal to the nation. It has potential political solutions. And the argument about not imposing a military/police state regime to combat it is even more important in regards to that problem.

That's not gloom and doom OR rose petals in the streets.

Tully, I called a scenario where the entire Middle East goes up in insurgency flames as "conjecture". Obviously I can't and won't dispute facts that have happened, such as terrorist attacks on US ships or installations.

Sadly, there's no real numbers to prove your point of terrorist recruitment. If being in Iraq recruits in A amount of terrorits per year for X number of years in Iraq, and immediately leaving Iraq recruits B amount immediately, we've no real way of knowing which is greater. I simply point that the number of terrorists will rise in either case -short of a massive PR campaign and an improved opinion of the US-, and one can't prove with any degree of success which outcome will merit more terrorists. And as far as emboldening them, well, I would politely disagree that there's just about nothing we could do which would embolden a man more than to strap a bomb onto his chest and kill himself in the mere hopes of taking out a few of his enemy as well.

I pretty much agree with you on the rest. I leave the matter of troop escalation up to the men on the ground, but I believe it should be an option on the table, and not immediately removed due to political concerns. We seem to have reached a consensus in America where we've given as much as we're going to give to Iraq, in regards to troops, and it should all be downhill from there. I'm trying to disabuse this notion for the sake of our collective consciousness should something go wrong, or should our generals decide we DO need more troops for whatever reason.

I can live with that (no joke intended).

The new Iraqi Prime Minsiter seems to think they'll have sufficient expertise and troop numbers for their purposes inside of the next two years. He doesn't say where his estimate comes from. The article has some vague backgrounding on the effort to pull the Sunnis into the process as well.

The difference in your scenario A and scenario B is that the ones in sceanrio A are being actively "diminished" on an onging basis. Which would bring us back to the "flypaper" theory. No real way to get the numbers there--if our intel was that good we wouldn't have the problem, eh? But it would logically seem that the more zealous and less intelligent jihad-inclined have short life expectancies.

That's true, my formula doesn't subtract terrorists lost in battle, but then, how much of who are currently considered "terrorists" would simply disappear into the Iraqi government or society upon a withdrawl? Those numbers have to be factored in as well. Simply put, there is no definitive way to tell.

What would recruit a terrorist better? An American army that retreats with its tail between its legs, or an American army which killed your brother? Unfortunately, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Unfortunately, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

True enough. But at that point it becomes an irrelevant factor for strategic calculations. Six of one....

So, what are US troops doing in Iraq right now? Are they helping to heal wounds or are they creating more infections and pouring salt in the wounds?

What is the game-plan with this Iraq war right now anyway? Are we nation-building now? What direction is the US occupation supposed to be taking right now? What actions are the troops doing to get toward some sort of direction, goal or plan?

IMHO, at best we are seen as crazy medicine doctors that use crazy old remedies and potions to cure a country that needs something other than brut force to attain whatever the Iraqi citizens require to govern themselves. The Iraqi people need the freedom to win this war themselves. US Troops ought to be there as assistance and able to respect the Iraqi people and leave when the Iraqis want them gone.

Well, not that I want to sound like I'm a paid advertiser for him, but I do think you're going to see a real difference in the American political strategy in Iraq now that Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is on the ground.

The man really knows what we're up against and what we have to do to be successful.