Centerfield

Since the main objection at present seems to be poor planning let's try looking ahead at what a phased withdrawal would look like, and doing some planning of our own. My assumption is that the situation wouldn't be much better as we withdrew (6months to a year from now) then it is now. Otherwise why withdraw when our hard work is beginning to pay off? Without the US presence is the sectarian violence likely to get worse or better? My guess it would get worse. I find it hard to believe our troops haven't had at least some stabilizing influence. What is the likely course of events without our presence? Best case IMO would be a low grade civil war and the breakup of Iraq into 3 or more states. Some of them violent. Petty dictators, and religious strife. After a time some form of semi-stable area may form there. Worse would be full control by Iran in the south, Turkish incursion in the north, and a race to genocide in the middle. Worst would be complete destablization of the entire region, and a complete disruption of our energy supply. Other scenarios exist. Most of them I can think of are bad for us. How are you going to protect our interests if the situation degrades completely once we leave?

I don't accept the premise that no planning for postwar Iraq existed, but I'll grant it missed the mark on several points. Our weakness regarding Iran being the most prominent to my mind. Cost over runs another. But if you are proposing a plan different than the present one I would like to hear it and what you think the consequences would be, since lack of planning seems to be your main objection to what we are doing now. How would the benefits of withdrawing our troops be better than seeing this through? And yes I am assuming that this can be brought to an acceptable conclusion in the end. If the assumption is that it can't then we could save a couple of bucks by getting out immediately.

Nic, I am not trying to be facetious, but I've never heard how we are going to handle the consequences of our actions (withdrawal in this case). What are the positives and negatives?

Posted by: Dennis at November 27, 2006 02:10 AM

I can't seem to post my reply-- I keep getting the error message.

Posted by: Bobby at November 27, 2006 02:42 AM

Otherwise why withdraw when our hard work is beginning to pay off?

1) A majority of Americans don't want us in Iraq.

2) A majority of Iraqis don't want us in Iraq.

3) Objective #1 of the war was to locate the WMDs. We now know that Iraq hand no WMD at the time of the invasion. Ergo, objective #1 has been fulfilled.

3) Objective #2 of the war was to fight the terrorists "over there so that we won't have to fight them here" (an argument that I thought was ridiculous from the beginning no matter how many times it was parroted by supporters of the war). Reality: Al Qaida had no significant presence in Iraq before the war. Then we invaded and overthrew the Iraqi government (and disbanded the Iraqi military), creating a power vacuum that made conditions ripe for Al Qaida to come in and wreak havoc, thus creating a terrorist problem where none previously existed.

Tragically, the first half of objective #2 (giving Al Qaida a reason to fight us in Iraq) has been fulfilled. I'm not sure how comforting that would be to the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died in response to our government's decision to make their country the central front in the War on Terrorism.

4) Objective #3 of the war was to liberate the Iraqis from a tyrannical dictator. Saddam Hussein was captured 35 months ago, has subsequently been tried for war crimes, and has been sentenced to death. Ergo, objective #3 has been fulfilled.

5) Objective #4 of the war was to bring democracy to the Iraqis. Iraq has now had at least two democratic elections and has a democratically-elected government. Whether democracy thrives or fails in Iraq can only be determined POLITICALLY, not MILITARILY. Ergo, objective #4 has been fulfilled.

6) There is a very real possibility that our presence in Iraq is threatening the long-term security of this country.

Apparently, the only reason we're still in Iraq is to make the country safer. You argue that "our hard work is beginning to pay off", but I'd like to know what metrics you are using to make such a statement. We've been told by the Bush Administration and proponents of the war that "we're making progress" and "the insurgents are in their last throes" now for more than 44 months.

It may well be the case that THIS MONTH is month that "our hard work is beginning to pay off", but frankly, it's hard to believe this when this same message has been told over and over and over again--and always been wrong. There comes a time when the villagers stop listening to the boy who cries wolf.

This is not a Democrat versus Republican, liberal versus conservative debate (though unscrupulous politicians and pundits have consistently tried to portray it that way). It has been a debate about what's best for the long term interests of this country--and by country, I mean the American people--not the politicians, who are only given the privilege of serving us until such time as either they or we decide it is time for them to go.

I think that Senator Hagel (whom I do not often agree with) has made some very good arguments in his op-ed piece that would be very difficult to refute.

1) Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations.

In other words, our military should not be used for nation-building. This was once the position held by George W. Bush, a point that he emphasized REPEATEDLY during the 2000 debates with Al Gore. Quite a few conservatives and libertarians who voted for Bush in 2000 were in complete agreement with him then and are not happy that he has seemingly flip-flopped on an issue with such far-reaching consequences.

But to those who have always championed nation-building, I ask them, is that really a legitimate function of our military? Isn't the purpose of our military to fight for the security of THIS country--not some third world country halfway around the world?

2) America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.

This is a truism. Democracy, by its very definition, is allowing the people of a nation to make decisions about how their country is to be run, or else, to democratically elect people to make these decisions on their behalf. The people of Iraq have made their decision. They've indicated in polls that they no longer want us in their country. To argue that our military should remain in Iraq in defiance of the expressed wishes of the Iraq people suggests that our government does respect the will or the Iraqi people or democracy at all.

3) We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam.

Misplanned and mismanaged--virtually everyone on all sides of the debate has already conceded these points. But "arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam"? What does he mean by that?

I guess that all depends on what you believe to be the lessons to be learned from Vietnam. Some people feel that we could have won that war if we have only shown more resolve and stayed the course.

But what I and many others have taken from that war is that if you let the government pursue its foreign policy fantasies without demanding any accountability from it, that government will go on to spend as many American lives and taxpayers dollars as it takes for it to achieve its utopian vision.

One has to wonder, had we not pulled out of Vietnam when we did, how many more years would proponents of that war had us stay? 5 years? 10 years?

4) Honorable intentions are not policies and plans.

Sometimes well-meaning policies go bad, and criticism of a policy should in no way be interpreted as a criticism of the intentions or morals of the person who supported said policy.

Having said that, the honorable thing for a politician to do when his/her policies are not working, is to implement new policies. We haven't heard a lot of that from this administration or from those in the media who continuously defend and its policies. An even more honorable thing would be for that politician to admit responsibility for his/her actions and this he/she was wrong.

5) The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating. We've already spent more than $300 billion there to prosecute an almost four-year-old war and are still spending $8 billion per month.

What's sad is that our government didn't take the time to debate the cost-benefit analysis of going to war BEFORE we went to war. All of the debates in congress and in the media and before the United Nations concerned whether Iraq had WMDs and whether Iraq had ties to Al Qaida. So much time and energy was focused on proving these two things, but so very little time and energy was devoted for pointing out the negatives of the war and the possible unintended consequences it would produce. People who warned about the costs that the war would bring were ridiculed.

But what's even more sad is that in the months and years to come, hundreds more lives will be lost and billions more dollars will be spent on this war--a war that most Americans feel we shouldn't have entered in the first place.

This war is not going to resolve itself neatly regardless of how much longer we remain there. We have to at least accept the possibility that when we finally DO leave Iraq, it won't necessarily be the ideal thriving pluralistic democracy that we would like it to be.

The line has to drawn somewhere. How many years are you willing to stay in Iraq in order to achieve your vision for that country? How many American deaths are you willing to accept to achieve your vision for Iraq? How many billions of taxpayer dollars are you willing to spend?

These are no longer rhetorical questions. "Stay until the job is done" is no longer an acceptable answer. If you're willing to expend another four years, another 2,900 American lives, and another $350 billion, you might as well say so now. Any further debate regarding the future of the war that does not address the ongoing costs of the war is not a debate at all.

6) And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq.

Iraq is hardly the most unpopular war we've ever had, and it hardly the first time that our government led us into a war by being less than forthright with the American people (McKinley: "Remember the Maine!", Wilson: "Make the world safe for democracy!", LBJ: Gulf of Tonkin Incident). It is, however, the only time in history that I can think of in which our government went to war with one country and then, before that war was even finished, went to war with another country, and then tried to convince the American people that the two wars were inextricably linked ("Iraq...9/11", "Iraq...9/11", "Iraq...9/11").

Three years ago, Howard Dean made the statement that invading Iraq hadn't made us any safer and was PILLORIED by the press and was called some pretty nasty things by proponents of the war for even DARING to suggest such a thing.

Now we have Chuck Hagel, a conservative Republican, making essentially the same claim. In fact, he's gone even further. He's arguing that invading Iraq detracted from our efforts in the much wider War on Terrorism. And the American people agree with him.

What a difference three years makes. It makes you wonder what people three years from now will think about the "cut-and-run" debate we're having today.

But if you are proposing a plan different than the present one I would like to hear it and what you think the consequences would be, since lack of planning seems to be your main objection to what we are doing now. How would the benefits of withdrawing our troops be better than seeing this through?

My plan?

Withdrawal our troops from Iraq--and soon--as in begin within the next three or four months.

How long the withdrawal process takes--that's for the military to decide. The withdrawal process should take as long as necessary to ensure the safety of every last one of our troops.

But in order to carry out a safe withdrawal, we need to start the necessary planning now--not twelve months from now. And in the meantime, efforts should be made to make the Iraq army ready to take over the responsibility of defending their own country.

It's kind of like Welfare. Realizing that some people in this country weren't born with the resources that others were, the government gives them some resources to help them out in the short term. But what the government DOESN'T do is say, "Here's your government check. Keep looking for a job, but even if you don't find one, rest assured that we won't impose a timetable on you. We're here for as long as it takes for you to find a job."

Similarly, giving the Iraqi people the impression that our commitment to staying in Iraq is open-ended certainly doesn't give them much of an incentive for taking control of their own country.

The benefits of withdrawing from Iraq are obvious:

1) Our troops won't being dying in Iraq since...well...since they won't be in Iraq.

2) Billions of taxpayer dollars will no longer be spent since there will no longer be any war to fund. (Sorry, but Halliburton will just have to go on without receiving government handouts. Meanwhile, I'm sure Boeing and Lockheed-Martin will have no problem securing government contracts to build the weapons and weapons systems needed for the next war we get into.)

But you're right. Withdrawing our forces in not without its own consequences. Like most government programs, this war is far more complex than the government originally predicted it would be, and there is not easy solution.

Maybe our exit from Iraq will embolden the insurgents. Or maybe it will create another power vacuum for Al Qaida to exploit. Maybe the sectarian strife with boil over into a full-fledged civil war. But we seem to be heading in that direction even with our troops IN Iraq.

"Stay the course" does not seem to be working, and McCain's idea of sending more troops is not likely to gain traction with the American public. But more importantly, it is an option that scares me and a lot of other people because it's exactly what we did in Vietnam--ramped up our involvement when we should have been looking for a way to "Leave honorably", as Senator Hagel would put it.

Anyway, Dennis, I've given you what I would do at this point in time. It's not an ideal solution, but I think it's better than remaining in Iraq for another year or two or five.

In 1968, Eugene McCarthy challenged President Johnson, a man from his own party, over the Vietnam War. He demanded a withdrawal from the war at a time when virtually no other politician was willing to do so publically. If Gene had had his way, and troops had been withdrawn from Vietnam, things probably wouldn't have gone as smoothly as he would have liked, and the Communists would have come to power all that much more quickly.

But the thing is, his decision to withdraw our troops then would have saved tens of thousands of American lives. And I think that most Americans today admire Gene for having the courage to speak out against the Vietnam War. If one thing is for sure--history certainly hasn't been too kind to Lyndon Johnson in regards to the role he played in getting us involved in that war and the manner in which he prosecuted it.

Iraq is nowhere near Vietnam in terms of the numbers of lives lost (and more importantly, there's no draft). But when you feel that your government has made a grave mistake (as I do), it's best that the government correct that mistake sooner rather than later.

As difficult as it would have been to have withdrawn from Iraq two years ago, it would have been easier to have withdrawn then that it would be now (and would have saved some 1,500 American lives).

How much MORE difficulty do you suppose it will be to withdraw two years from now?

Posted by: nicrivera at November 27, 2006 08:32 AM

It is, however, the only time in history that I can think of in which our government went to war with one country and then, before that war was even finished, went to war with another country, and then tried to convince the American people that the two wars were inextricably linked

Wrong. If you can't think of the obvious examples you need to read more history. World War II. War declared with Germany and Italy three days after war declared on Japan. No prior attacks on America by either Germany or Italy. Of coure, they declared war on us first, but there wasn't any doubt it would happen after Pearl Harbor. "Inextricably linked."

More notably, the Spanish-American War and the subsequent Filipino-American War. "Inextricably linked." (The Filipino-American War remains the best historical parallel to Iraq of American nation-building on hostile territory.)

Also the decades-long Indian Nations campaigns of the 1800's, where they were all strung together as "inextricably linked," as Nation after Nation was added to the rolling lineup.

Now we have Chuck Hagel, a conservative Republican

How conservative? 30th back in the "conservative" ratings for Senate per National Journal. Also, running for President. And has been arguing for complete withdrawal for two years now. This isn't news. Hagel's shooting for the prairie populist middle. Always has. He's a Mainstreeter, not a so-con.

But the thing is, his decision to withdraw our troops then would have saved tens of thousands of American lives.

We really do need to beef up our history classes, don't we? The peak of US casualties in Vietnam was in 1966-1968, and declined rapidly thereafter as Nixon began massive troop withdrawals in 1969. There is no reason to suppose that Humphrey (or McCarthy, for that matter) could or would have withdrawn them any faster. Total US Vietnam casualties after Inauguration Day 1969 were about 20K, of which 9K occured in the period of January-June 1969. By 1970 the casualty rate was half of 1969, which in turn was close to half of 1968. US troop levels in Vietnam peaked in 1968 at 560+K, and declined rapidly after the Tet Offensive that crippled the Viet Cong.

The Communists did not invade South Vietnam and topple it until the Democratic majority in the US Congress stripped out ALL material and military aid to South Vietnam (Foreign Assistance Act of December 1974), and then overrode Ford's veto, openly and completely abandoning South Vietnam. This in turn resulted in the complete withdrawal of the South Korean troop contingent remaining, the MASSIVE boosting of material military aid to North Vietnam by the USSR, the "testing" invasion of Phuoc Long out of Cambodia to see if American air power would return (it didn't) and the subsequent 1975 invasions of the central highlands from Cambodia and the northern provinces from NV.

The point being, if history is a guide then the very best way to ensure total disaster in Iraq is to abandon Iraq. Change in direction, yes. Run away, no.

Posted by: Tully at November 27, 2006 11:11 AM

General Ab*zaid said very clearly on 60 Minutes last night that the best way to insure WW3 doesn't happen is to continue our critical deployment in the Middle East. Nic offers nothing but wishful thinking. Many more lives may be lost by more mistakes and as far as the cost; Americans spent almost a trillion dollars on Friday buying gifts. How much is the price of security? As far as the draft, a major conflict down the road will most certainly produce a draft. I repeat, the military and the commanding General says the best way to prevent WW3 taking shape is not to "stay the course", but modify present resolve and not "cut and run". Nic's history lesson is selective at best.

Hagel offered no plan. AQ is beefing up its numbers in Iraq. Doesn't Hizb"allah's declared effort in Lebanon, the Shiite mililtia's position in Iraq, Iran's obvious motives have any bearing on US foreign policy?

Olmert advanced a new peace initiative today. The KIng of Jordan warned of the possibility of three civil wars destabilizing the region. To retreat without a plan is absurd. Democrats and Republicans supported the Iraq invasion for numerous reasons.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Once America made the strategic decision to remove a dangerous tyrannt from the center of the Middle East, we became responsible for not allowing such a move to end up creating a worse situation. Hagel once supported such a view and Kerry even declared a nuclear Iran was unacceptable. Our policy changes now should not end up putting us at greater risk, capitulating to Iran or Jihadists, or even allowing Iran and Syria through proxies to destabilize the region and spread a manevolent extremism outward. Remember, while Syria was telling Baker they would promote peace, they planned another hit in Lebanon.

Last, to think that MAD can replace our soldiers, consider the events in Britain. Can we trace the radiactive polonium? Soon Iran can have this tool as well. Mad doesn't work when this kind of stuff goes on. The game is clear, isn't it. Proxies, false-flag tactics, clandestine technology and a religious extremism moving against the approaches of our Liberal Democracy aided by our former adversaries.

Now watch me get called pro-war or a neo-con......

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 27, 2006 12:45 PM

our military should not be used for nation-building

Could someone please tell me who's job it is? And if the answer is "no ones" can we stop talking about "problem" governments (because clearly removing a "problem" government will lead to a need for "nation building") Posted by: c3 at November 27, 2006 03:04 PM

The point being, if history is a guide then the very best way to ensure total disaster in Iraq is to abandon Iraq. Change in direction, yes. Run away, no.

I appreciate your knowledge of history, but how exactly is it that we go about doing that, and how many American soldiers die while we are figuring it out? Sure we should wait for the Baker Commission, but all of these recent calls for a phased withdrawal leads me to the conclusion that we already know what they are going to say. Train more Iraqi police forces? That is what we have been saying for three years. Send more troops? What troops and what exactly will that accomplish? The best way to ensure total disaster is to leave Iraq? Maybe, but maybe also that is the consequence of going to war without adequate preperation. I read an article about Rumsfeld in the New Yorker that stated in the years before the Iraqi invasion it was the policy of the Defense Department to never enter into a guerilla/insurgency style of combat because we were not capable of winning it, yet that is now what we find ourselves in and the former DoD intelligence agent who just won a Congressional seat in Pennsylvania tells us that we knew what we were going into. When do we start considering the possibility that we can't win? If it isn't now than how exactly are we going to move forward, because listening to two Members of Congress and former Military leaders on Meet the Press this week, it was my impression that we didn't have a clue.

Could someone please tell me who's job it is?

On nation building, according to George W. Bush before September 11th it certainly was not going to be our responsibility, and there was a reason for that. Because we weren't capable of it, especially on our own.

Iraq is nowhere near Vietnam in terms of the numbers of lives lost (and more importantly, there's no draft). But when you feel that your government has made a grave mistake (as I do), it's best that the government correct that mistake sooner rather than later.

I more and more find myself with Nic on this one.

Posted by: Mathew at November 27, 2006 03:48 PM

And for those wondering where Michael Moore has been; I present that visionary New Left spokesperson's Declaration of War against -not the Jihadists or Terrorists, but the Democrats.......YOU HAVE ONE MONTH OR ELSE MOORE WRATH BE UPON YOU!!!!!

Monday, Nov. 27, 2006 10:33 a.m. EST
Michael Moore Demands Democrats ‘Cut and Run’

Leftist filmmaker Michael Moore has delivered a message to the newly empowered Democrats: "Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW.”

In a mass e-mail addressed to "Friends,” Moore writes: "After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to sweep across North Africa [in World War II], storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole.”

When it comes to "liberating” a country, according to the "Fahrenheit 9/11” director, "the one way that doesn’t work is to invade a country and tell the people, ‘We are here to liberate you!’ - when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot - but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks . . .

"So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or ‘redeploying’ them, or waiting four months to begin the ‘phase-out.’ There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can . . .

"The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. [Sen. Harry] Reid and [Rep. Nancy] Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters.

"We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans.”

NewsMax

What to do? Well, Tully pointed out that securing a piece of the oil wealth for every Iraqi household would be a good start. It gives them a vested interest in the survival of the Iraqi institutions rather than a target for IEDs. Recent reports indicate that Iraqi insurgents are financed from within Iraq through corrupt officials and the self-induced scarcity of oil. International oversight and better protection of oil infrastructure aided by Moderate Muslim countries might be a start.

Better application of the military's own approach to Urban warfare might help.

Of course, the best move might be for the Democrats to reject Moore within the month and state a realistic view of foreign policy. State that just talking about Darfur, Iran, North Korea, and Jihadism has done zero to avert looming conflicts. Point out that China still is violating human rights on a grand scale as part of their judicial system. Assert that Russian retreat from lawful behavior is not consistent with membership in the WTO or as a "self-proclaimed" defender of international law. Restate our common values with Europe and reaffirm the shared princioles of our historic alliance. Explain why evacuating the Middle East and leaving Israel to consider nuclear weapons to survive is a flawed strategy. Again, the false-flag problem. Tell Americans we may very well not know who attacks us here. Educate Americans on the growing dangers of proliferation and technology. Elucidate a coherent policy for destroying AQ and the spread of Islamic extremism BEFORE it deposes moderates and inflames Africa. Lay out a strategy to prevent Iran and Syria from enabling a network of proxies with WMD or WMC. Dedicate a uncompromising resolve to repair and improve American Leadership in order to contain today’s threats BEFORE we can no longer influence the consequence of passivity.

Now that would change the equation, wouldn't it? Perhaps the Michael Moores already know this.

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 27, 2006 03:50 PM

This isn't EXACTLY on topic, but I came accross
this from George Washington University via a link on another blog.

Post-Saddam Iraq: The War Game, "Desert Crossing" 1999

Assumed 400,000 Troops and Still a Mess

Some key excerpts:

The results of Desert Crossing, however, drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the immediate possible outcomes of such action. Some of these conclusions are interestingly similar to the events which actually occurred after Saddam was overthrown. (Note 1) The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.

The Desert Crossing report was similarly pessimistic when discussing the nature of a new Iraqi government. If the U.S. were to establish a transitional government, it would likely encounter difficulty, some groups discussed, from a "period of widespread bloodshed in which various factions seek to eliminate their enemies." The report stressed that the creation of a democratic government in Iraq was not feasible, but a new pluralistic Iraqi government which included nationalist leaders might be possible, suggesting that nationalist leaders were a stabilizing force. Moreover, the report suggested that the U.S. role be one in which it would assist Middle Eastern governments in creating the transitional government for Iraq.

This sort of thing bums me out, big time. I don't know what it means about what we do now, but it sure makes it look like the pooch was screwed like a five-dollar whore during the gold rush. Thoughts?

Posted by: WHQ at November 27, 2006 04:12 PM

the policy of the Defense Department to never enter into a guerilla/insurgency style of combat because we were not capable of winning it,

Mathew, Bobby is the expert on this one, of course, but the point I have been making for the last couple of years now is that this illustrates precisely the problem with the military leadership which has caused the friction between some generals and Secretary Rumsfeld. For a good 2 decades now, the civilian leadership of this country, both Democrat and Republican, have called upon the military to fight in unconventional wars. From Panama to Somalia to Bosnia to Afghanistan to Iraq, the civilian leadership has seen a need to engage in these types of unconventional wars and "nation building" in order to protect American and international humanitarian interests.

Large segments of the traditional military have instead preferred to stick to the "Powell Doctrine", which essentially says, "the military will not engage in counterinsurgency wars, period". Sec. Rumsfeld and that segment of the military leadership clashed quickly, fighting, for example, over the Crusader armored artillery system which would be wonderful for a land battle in Europe or the Korean peninsula, but almost useless for counterinsurgency fighting in places like Iraq.

In other words, the military intentionally failed to develop the techniques and training needed to do well in a war like we are in in Iraq precisely because much of the military leadership simply did not want to fight that kind of war. They wanted massive air battles and traditional tank manuevering and the like, nothing so non-traditional as counter-insurgency operations and nation-building. But it is their responsibility to prepare to fight the kinds of battles the civilian leadership determines they need to fight.

If it's not winnable, it's because they didn't plan and train and staff for it, not because it's inherently unwinnable. It's just like Henry Kissinger's recent comments. Contrary to popular reporting, he didn't say the war was unwinnable in the end, he said that the American public lacked the will to see it through to the end, and because of that it was unwinnable.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 27, 2006 04:23 PM

Pat,

I don't disagree with anything you said, but only come to the same conclusiont that it's over. The fact that we do not have the will, in my estimation, is also a preperation issue. Historically, Americans have sacrificed when they have been compelled to do so, in this case, nobody ever properly asked either because this administration didn't feel the need to do so or didn't have the skills. I come down on the side of it being a little bit of both, and I voted for him twice.

Posted by: Mathew at November 27, 2006 04:52 PM

WHQ;
Interesting that you posted that. This morning on the drive to work listening to more bad news from Iraq it occured to me that Bush 41 had the "competency" issue down but lacked "the vision thing". Maybe Bush 43 went too much toward the "vision thing" and lost track of the "competency" stuff (i.e. how to succeed after winning in Iraq; how to coordinate a large national disaster etc.)

Posted by: c3 at November 27, 2006 05:31 PM

Pat,
There was this disagreement that you talked about. FIASCO however, paints a different picture. There were numerous military experts that rejected the Zinni plan. They were not about to arm the Shiite militias. Turkey was very opposed to arming the Kurds. Several military planners did not ask for 400,000 troops. They wanted police forces. They wanted a shock supply of troops to go after militias. They wanted some Sunnis in government. They did not want to disband the Iraqi army completely. Other experts insisted that we were not applying the lessons learned from Viet Nam. Bobby has alluded to the failure of our planners to set up established tactics of urban and insurgent fighting.

Our successes in Afghanistan were not the result of tank battles or heavy bombing. SF were on the ground directing air power in coordination with local militias. It doesn’t seem Franks applied the lessons and failure in Afghanistan to Iraq.

We had massive PR failures, tactics without strategies, corruption and infrastructure bungling. I won't let the military get off the hook as they do in Cobra ll, but Ricks does portray a combination of failures to listen and learn. His warnings about Iraq should be considered. The danger was and still is the fatal blowback we will suffer should we retreat and succeed in only enabling Iran and Jihadists. That was always the biggest worry. Az*baid fought a successful campaign against Saddam in the north before we invaded. I do not believe it is as simple as more versus less, or transformed versus conventional. Victory was always an Iraq no longer a threat to its neighbors and us. There may still be a way to achieve this once Iraqis grow tired of killing each other with the help of Syria, the Brotherhood, AQ, Iran and others. Tully pointed to Anwar. In the end, this will be decided over leadership; -Iraqi, Democratic, Republican, Military and International. Iraqi is only the prelude of a much larger threat.

Republicans have actually rejected Hagel and some are calling for between 20,000 to 50,000 more troops to embed and field the Iraqi army. Moderate Arabs as well as Europe should be VERY concerned about failure. Our military might be reminded of why the US loses small wars and that the role of "Stability-makers" is crucial to containing extremism in the decades to come. AQ is hoping we will suffer the Madrid syndrome and go home.

I think Bobby was having trouble posting. I hope he is able to offer some ideas to this thread. I'm not sure he would put much hope in a regional conference.

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 27, 2006 05:48 PM

losing small wars

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 27, 2006 05:55 PM

Wrong. If you can't think of the obvious examples you need to read more history. World War II. War declared with Germany and Italy three days after war declared on Japan. No prior attacks on America by either Germany or Italy. Of coure, they declared war on us first, but there wasn't any doubt it would happen after Pearl Harbor. "Inextricably linked."

Tully,

Germany, Italy, and Japan were all part of the Axis, which formally came about when these three countries signed the Tripartite Pact in 1940.

Unlike Bush's made up "Axis of Evil", the Axis during World War II was a formal alliance between these three countries which not only recognized the governments of all three countries but also agreed to:

further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

Your claim that the war with Japan and the war with Germany were not inextricably linked, is a b1zarre one. They were formally allied with one another and had agreed to support one another MILITARILY should one or the other become embroiled in a war with a previously non-participating power (i.e. the United States). And, as you said yourself, Germany declared war on us before we declared war on them.

Are you seriously arguing that Iraq and Al Qaida were allies with one another to the extent that Germany and Japan were allies with one another? If so, then you are guilty of peddling revisionist history. Salman Pak does not equate to a Tripartite Pact, no matter how much discredited writers at the Weekly Standard try to convince us otherwise.

We really do need to beef up our history classes, don't we? The peak of US casualties in Vietnam was in 1966-1968, and declined rapidly thereafter as Nixon began massive troop withdrawals in 1969. There is no reason to suppose that Humphrey (or McCarthy, for that matter) could or would have withdrawn them any faster. Total US Vietnam casualties after Inauguration Day 1969 were about 20K, of which 9K occured in the period of January-June 1969. By 1970 the casualty rate was half of 1969, which in turn was close to half of 1968. US troop levels in Vietnam peaked in 1968 at 560+K, and declined rapidly after the Tet Offensive that crippled the Viet Cong.

Either your history or your math is wrong, Tully.

Eugene McCarthy mounted a campaign against the Vietnam War during the Democratic Presidential Primaries in 1968, the year in which deaths peaked at about 16,500. McCarthy began his campaign before the New Hampshire primary, which was on March 12, 1968--less than three months into 1968.

But EVEN if you take it as a given that it would have taken several months--if not the rest of 1968--to complete a withdrawal from Vietnam, such a withdrawal STILL would have saved "tens of thousands of lives."

Let's consider the numbers:

1969: 9,414 KIA + 2,113 non-hostile deaths = total of 11,527 deaths

1970: 4,221 KIA + 1,884 non-hostile deaths = 6,065 total deaths

1971: 1,380 KIA + 968 non-hostile deaths = 2,348 total deaths

1972: 300 KIA + 261 non-hostile deaths = 561 total deaths

Now unless there's something fishy in the way I do my math, I come up with a grand total of 20,501 deaths from 1969 to 1972.

Are 20,501 deaths not equivalent to "tens of thousands of deaths"?

And that's not even counting the thousands of American deaths that could have been prevented had LBJ decided to act in 1968 rather than handing the war over to his successor.

I would ask for you admit you're wrong on this one, but I know better than that. You're never wrong, Tully. You have a pretty good track record of always being right on this war--right down to the WMDs that you claimed that we had found back when you were still posting on your personal blog--I guess the fact that those chemical weapons were from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s didn't seem relevant enough for you point out.

Change in direction, yes. Run away, no.

I'm still waiting to hear what your "change in direction" would be, Tully. I've given my view: begin withdrawal within 3 to 4 months, and allow the military experts to decide how long the withdrawal process needs to take to ensure the safety of our troops.

What is your proposal? Being anti-"cut-and-run" makes for a great talking point, but it's not a real strategy.

And finally, how many Americans have to die until you're satisfied that we can leave Iraq? Why can't you or anyone else on this blog answer this question. Arguing that we must stay until the job is done is not an answer, but merely a way to evade the question.

If you're willing to sacrifice another 2,900 lives to get the job done, why not just say so here and now on this blog?

Posted by: nicrivera at November 27, 2006 07:02 PM

Sorry it took so long to get back to this. Busy day.

Not trying to nitpick, but you quoted me out of context twice in your first response Nic. Let's not do that to each other. You had a long list of arguments as to why the war was wrong to begin with, but we've been over that many times. Let's just agree that it was tougher than the planners thought. I don't agree with your premise that Iraq is unwinnable. Certainly more costly than I originally thought. But to my mind $350B is chump change compared to the economic pain of defeat in the region.

As to your answer to what plans we should make NOW:
Is it right to paraphrase you in saying we should leave asap, and deal with any negative consequences down the road? You've stated a couple of possible scenarios arising from our withdrawal that sound pretty bad. More (and more dire) come to mind. I would even say that some of them are more likely than not. You are making the same mistakes you accuse the war planners of by not considering 'what could happen if'. If as you say the Iraqis pull themselves out of the mire once they are off of the 'welfare state' great! I see no indication that that would be what would happen though.

And finally, how many Americans have to die until you're satisfied that we can leave Iraq? Why can't you or anyone else on this blog answer this question. Arguing that we must stay until the job is done is not an answer, but merely a way to evade the question.

Wrong metric and I think you know it, but I'll answer your question from my own personal perspective. Somewhere in the couple of millions. Probably more. No joke. To me it is that serious if the alternative is a few nuked out cities on our coasts and a crushed economy as we are constantly watching over our shoulders as the world economy and our standard of living spiral downhill. Chicken Little? Maybe. But unless you consider it in your equation of what we do now you aren't offering anything of real value in your forward looking plans. Leaving the region to the devices of fanatics who would love to do nothing more than than what I've outlined is not clear thinking IMO. Unless something changes that I can't forsee we will have to deal with the region's problems sooner or later. It looks to be a lot more dangerous later. Why not now?

Posted by: Dennis at November 27, 2006 09:03 PM

Wrong metric and I think you know it, but I'll answer your question from my own personal perspective. Somewhere in the couple of millions. Probably more. No joke. To me it is that serious if the alternative is a few nuked out cities on our coasts and a crushed economy as we are constantly watching over our shoulders as the world economy and our standard of living spiral downhill.

Couple of millions.

Wow. That's a pretty heavy price to pay for invading a country that had not attacked us and had no means of attacking us.

I give you kudos for your honesty, Dennis.

Posted by: nicrivera2002 at November 27, 2006 10:03 PM

Since you've tried to take me (and the entire situation) out of context again Nic, I'll not return the compliment.

Posted by: Dennis at November 27, 2006 11:00 PM

How many attacks did we suffer from Germany and Italy before their declaration of war, nic? We did not declare war on the "Axis," but on Japan. Which had attacked us. We did not declare war on the Axis, but we did--despite your denial--declare war on Germany and Italy under the claim that they were "inextricably linked" to war with Japan. And see also the Filipino-American war. Hey, you stated the terms, I'm just pointing out that you're wrong.

I even actually know when a president nominated in 1968 would have been sworn in, and that no one takes marching orders from a hopeless primary candidate when he sings what-I'm-gonna-do-if-I'm-elected policy tunes. (January 20th, 1969, BTW)McCarthy could not give an order without being in charge, and he wasn't. LBJ was. McCarthy was just another politician running for higher office. So even had he won the nomination and the election, he could not have issued a withdrawal order before January 20th of 1969.

Start by taking the 1969-on figure of 20,501, and to be fair subtract the January 1969 casualty figures of 986, as the order could not have been issued before then. 20,501 minus 986 = 19,515 best theoretical case scenario salvations. Assuming not one life lost after the end of January 1969, "ten[S] of thousands" could not be saved, as less than two tens were lost.

Had drawdown in Vietnam begun on or shortly after Inauguration Day 1969 (hey wait, it did) it would still have taken many months for all troops to be removed from the country, and they would have continued to suffer casualties the whole time, and at levels that make "tens of thousands saved" clearly hyperbole on even a superficial examination. Even if none of the deaths were enemy action. Even if many of them would have happened anyway had all those troops been at stateside bases.

So dig it: To achieve a savings of "tens [note plural] of thousands of lives" out of a total of 20,500 would have required saving at least 20,000. Which would have meant having portable Star Trek transporters and avoiding accidents and ambushes in the queue line. Oh yeah, and giving executive orders before being elected. Funny thing about that in a democracy. Gotta wait until after you're elected to give orders.

See? Math.

Posted by: Tully at November 27, 2006 11:20 PM

Great reading. Lots of good points on all sides. In terms of "math", What value do the lives of the people we're trying to democratize have ? I'll say it first, It's not 1 to 1. Curious on your perspectives.

Posted by: kilroy at November 28, 2006 08:07 AM

Is the poster being deliberately dense or does he actually mean to suggest that the conflation of Afghanistan with Iraq was somehow similar to the declaration of war by Germany against the US. Although his first post was accurate, regarding who declared war first, his second one suggests it was the US which is not accurate. Moreover, Japan, Germany and Italy were then in the midst of prosecuting a coordinated war on numerous fronts. It was not some phantom link to create a reason for the US to invade the other.

Similarly, the Philippine-American war was started after Spain sold the Philippines to the US as part of the conclusion to the Spanish American War. Unfortunately, the Philippine people didn't think their country was for sale. This is again not an instance of conflating a link where none previously existed.

I do see the parallels with the selling of the Indian wars. Similar to the case against Iraq, the brutal tactics of some native American groups were ascribed to all to justify what was basically a land grab.

Posted by: BobPM at November 28, 2006 10:40 AM

In the for what its worth category from another Austin lawyer, one of the points this conversation seems to miss is who it is we want to win. Indeed, who is it the US would be defeating in Iraq that is worth expending the 1 or 2 million souls? Secular Sunni's, Iranian backed Shia? The fact is it is a civil war and the side we claim to be for, the multi-ethnic pro-democracy party, is not even playing. Our current allies seem to be pushing a theocratic Muslim state aligned with Iran - not sure this is a great outcome. The Sunni's are generally better educated, pro-western and more secular in Iraq, but are currently playing ball with al Qeada.

If we pull-out, these foreign forces will have to take sides in a civil war and will likely alienate one half of the middle-east or the other. Pulling out may cut-off support in many areas and could potentially lead to the various terrorist groups turning against each other, e.g., Hezbolah is an Iranian backed Shia group that would have a hard time finding common cause against al Qeada, a Sunni backed anti-Shia organization working against Iranian interests in Iraq.

Posted by: BobPM at November 28, 2006 11:00 AM

Actually, al-Sistani, the most respected leader of the Iraqi Shi'ites, is pushing for a relatively secular government. He is not supporting an Iranian-style theocracy. We are having problems because there is some lack of agreement about how to handle al-Sadr, who is almost certainly deeply tied to the Iranians or their agents, but that's a different story.

Most Iraqis want peace. They don't want to live in a country where Sunnis and Shiites are blowing each other up or shooting at each other. A great many of them have risked not only their own lives but the lives of their families by openly joining up with the American-trained military and police forces in hopes of bringing some peace and stability to their ravaged country. These are the people we would be abandoning were we to pull out now. I'm not willing to do that. Those decent people already feel like they were betrayed by George H.W. Bush, who didn't come to their aid when they revolted against Saddam after Gulf War I. We cannot abandon them again, or we will truly become hated by the decent people in that region.

Posted by: PatHMV at November 28, 2006 12:18 PM

I even actually know when a president nominated in 1968 would have been sworn in, and that no one takes marching orders from a hopeless primary candidate when he sings what-I'm-gonna-do-if-I'm-elected policy tunes. (January 20th, 1969, BTW)McCarthy could not give an order without being in charge, and he wasn't. LBJ was. McCarthy was just another politician running for higher office. So even had he won the nomination and the election, he could not have issued a withdrawal order before January 20th of 1969.

Well, there you go, Tully! Those last few sentences are at the very crux of why the two of us are coming up with two different numbers.

Here is what I wrote:

In 1968, Eugene McCarthy challenged President Johnson, a man from his own party, over the Vietnam War. He demanded a withdrawal from the war at a time when virtually no other politician was willing to do so publically. If Gene had had his way, and troops had been withdrawn from Vietnam, things probably wouldn't have gone as smoothly as he would have liked, and the Communists would have come to power all that much more quickly.

But the thing is, his decision to withdraw our troops then would have saved tens of thousands of American lives.

In other words, Tully, I specifically was referring to a withdrawal of American troops in 1968--not 1969.

You've chosen to argue that since McCarthy couldn't have become president until January of 1969, his call to begin withdrawing troops would have saved no lives in 1968. But my entire point is that had LBJ listened to McCarthy's advice then in 1968, then yes, tens of thousands of American lives would have been saved.

If you want to argue that I'm being incredibly naive to believe that we could have completed a withdrawal within months as opposed to a year, then fine. That's a valid argument. But that's not what you did. You accused me of having my history wrong for daring to suggest that tens of thousands of lives would have been saved if we have withdrawn from Vietnam as McCarthy had been calling for since March of 1968.

The FACT of the matter is that tens of thousands of American soldiers DID die in Vietnam from 1969 to 1972, and those lives could have been saved had we withdrawn in 1968.

In accusing me of being wrong, YOU were, in fact, wrong, Tully. But as always, I won't expect you to admit it.

Posted by: nicrivera at November 28, 2006 02:19 PM

Nic,
You want a strategy? Well, as a civil war takes place we should certainly move some force to the borders, port and infrastructure. This will serve more than one purpose. We should be available to the government and consider directives it issues for our help such as going after bad militias/groups and protecting institutions. We can continue to help the wounded and supply resources to areas that are cut off. We had better curtail any Kurdish terrorism during this stage or Turkey will intervene, (which might not be such a bad idea in some circumstances).

We can fortify areas that want us there for protection and intervene when militias gather to attack. Insurgents will be more out in the open and vulnerable. With both sides locked in a deadly struggle more Intel will come forth from angry people to help identify targets. As the civil war unfolds, the world will be more willing to stop it than it has. Arabs will be more likely to act and get involved because of the Shia threat and attacks on their brothers and sisters. Iran and Syria will look as if they are fomenting trouble. Outright war between Shiites and Sunnis will work against Syria and Iran because it will be clear these partners ARE ARMING DIFFERENT SIDES. Ever think about that?

We have counter measures to mortars. We should use them. A humanitarian crisis might even make the UN do something for a change. It will be harder for our adversaries to say the US is killing people when it is clear Iraqis are murdering themselves over religious extremism.

So perhaps your fear of a civil war is a false fear. The Iraqis must decide if THEY want unity or war. This has been the problem from the start. To say that civil war is why we should retreat from the vital crossroad between Syria and Iran as they conspire to unite a militant Middle East is without supporting reasoning. Maybe things must get worse to get better.

Iran is hoping to barter their right to have nukes for a false promise to stabilize Iraq (which they cannot). Syria has shown it is trying to destabilize the region, not promote peace. I deplore violence and I am saddened over every human death. It is foolish to deny that Iran and Jihadists hope for our defeat and humiliating retreat. We are not part of this civil war. We removed a despised tyrant and now the Iraqis must decide what future they want. We can play a role in trying to avert this conflict or we can can enable a desire for peace once the Iraqis grow sick from death. This situation does not demand our departure, nor is our presence the reason for any civil war.

Your idea to withdraw troops does what? Yes, it may save some American losses now, but at what price later? If one believes we will honor our commitment to defend our allies and the commerce from the Gulf, how does allowing a new menace take shape save lives in the end, unless your end game is a total retreat? Then you must show how such a policy would not endanger us down the road. And you know exactly what I mean.

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 28, 2006 05:25 PM

Bob.
Perhaps you should read the various threads at this site and then reconsider your question. One must distinguish between Sunni and Shiite Jihadists and various regimes such as Iran and Syria which support them. One must also distinguish between the various "wars" these groups and governments are involved in. There is the war against Israel, the war against America, the war against Liberal Democracy, the war against each other...etc. etc.

The majority of Iraqis want peace. They have no arms to defend themselves. Al Anbar has been the deadliest area for Americans. Syria and Al Qaeda play a big role there. Perhaps we should send in Shia Iraqi army troops.

Syria and Iran should be seen as playing a game of risk with proxies. In Lebanon, Hizb'Allah and AQ are both working to defeat Israel. It is a complicated game that cannot be understood by simply seeing the region's problems as a Shia/Sunni conflict.

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 28, 2006 06:39 PM

The consequence of defeat

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 28, 2006 06:47 PM

Bob Lazar, the guy who claims to have been on a UFO at Roswell, sells radiactive polonium for $69.00

Sorry for THREAD INTRUSION, but I saw this site years ago and it troubled me then given Lazar's alien rant. I believe I posted this limk once before in a conversation about the availabilty of terrorist tools. Now DefenseTech posts the same link. In any case, the war over there, shouldn't make us blind to what we have to do HERE.

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 28, 2006 09:44 PM

Max:

Your comment shows that I failed to communicate the the point I was trying to make, i.e., that there are indeed numerous fights going on in Iraq, only one of which has anything to do with foreign anti-western jihadists. It is exactly due to that complexity, that I find the notion of victory so unlikely.

With respect to your contention that most Iraqi's are peace loving democrats, I haven't seen any evidence of it. The elections brought in a Shite government that is more closely aligned with the Muqtada al-Sadr malitia faction seeking retribution against Sunni's that it is to the ostensibly more peace loving Sistani faction. Moreover, even were it true that most Iraqi's want peace this is of little consequence. In almost any war or civil war most citizens want peace yet it has never stopped wars from happening. The problem is, as most political scientist recognize, that small groups with intense passion easily overwhelm majorities.

Again, the problem I see is with respect to who it is we are supporting. Basically, none of the groups are seriously promoting a unity government which leaves us with picking a side that will ultimately dominate and suppress the other to force a conclusion to this civil war. Unfortunately, the sides aren't very attractive.

With respect to my earlier point, a report came out yesterday that Hezbollah is helping the Shite militias in Iraq effectively turning Hezbollah against al-Qeada. An interesting outcome, and one that will limit al-Qeada's support from Iran, if it ever had any.

Posted by: BobPM at November 29, 2006 11:41 AM

The point I have been trying to make is probably better made in todays Washington Post:

“There's no other way to interpret the vote for the first Iraqi National Assembly ... Iraqis voted their sect rather than their nation. ... There was, to be sure, a national unity slate, a coalition of nonsectarian parties headed by former prime minister Ayad Allawi. It pulled down 8 percent of the vote. ... But if Iraqis had wanted Iraq to succeed, they would have voted for Allawi. Iraq, it turns out, was not the name of their desire, or their fear. And the civil war that has been growing relentlessly more horrifying since the election is ultimately just the continuation of their politics by other means.

Which is why the parallels to Vietnam are way too optimistic. In Vietnam, at least the United States could identify a government and some genuinely anti-communist constituencies with which it was plainly allied. But with whom do we stand, and who stands with us, in Iraq? ... In the face of escalating civil war, of an increasingly Hobbesian conflict of each against all, the calls still coming from the U.S. military, the administration and Capitol Hill to step up our training of Iraqi forces seem light-years off the mark. The problem with Iraqi security isn't that Iraqi forces are poorly trained. It's that, like the rest of their countrymen, like the very government whose uniform they wear, they're not really invested in fighting for a unified, nonsectarian Iraq. Why do we expect them to defend an ideal that their countrymen either never believed in or were compelled to abandon under pressure of civil war?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801279.html

Posted by: BobPM at November 29, 2006 12:55 PM

ROFLMAO. Even a blind nut finds a theoretical squirrel now and again, just by ignoring reality.

But nic, why would anyone other than a bunch of anti-war hippies needing an excuse to shave have listened to McCarthy in 1968? Hmmm? As a matter of fact, his own party did not. Even though Johnson was already starting up peace talks--which shut down immediately when North Vietnam demanded that South Vietnam simply be handed over to them, as in Right Now. (That was before they got their butts smashed during the Tet Offensive.)

Nor is there any evidence that the phased withdrawal begun under Nixon in January 1969 would have proceeded any faster had LBJ begun it--and almost the entire number of troops in question died during that phased withdrawal. You just wanna move the timeline to turn your rhetorical hyperbole into a factual statement, which it isn't, while ignoring the realities.

And BTW, McCarthy first called for an immediate pullout in 1967, not 1968, though even he admitted it would have to be a "negotiated settlement." And of course he voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in the first place, providing a fine tradition for John Kerry to follow by being for the war before he was against it.

Nixon re-started the Paris Peace Talks within three days of reaching office, and it still took years to reach a negotiated cease-fire. He started drawdowns as soon as he reached office, and it still took over three years to get all the troops out. During which time several thousand troops died of non-combat causes.

But I hear that we could have done even better and avoided tens of millions of deaths, if only Hitler's childhood playmates had been listened to! They said he was a right rank little bastard, and better off dead, but no one listened...

Posted by: Tully at November 29, 2006 04:32 PM

It just keeps getting better . How many troops do we have to deploy? And for how long?

Bob,
Perhaps I wasn't very clear. Syria is helping Sunni extremists kill Iran’s Shia allies in Iraq while Iran helps its proxies to kill Sunnis. Don't you think the increasing conflict will expose this obvious duplicity? Iran is funneling weapons from Iran to Hizb"Allah, which then helps Shia in Iraq to kill Sunnis as you noted.

Syria and Iran promote a civil war to eject America from Iraq and the region. The death of their own religious constituency does not matter to them. Meanwhile, Iran lectures the American people about justice, summoning us to accept Islam or die. We are dealing with some very dangerous ideologies and leaderships. Iran’s letter is clearly a warning to us and another direct threat to Jews worldwide.

When seen in a broader view, a civil war may expose this charade and the consequence of appeasement. Will anyone care? I don’t know. Iran wants to offer us help to stabilize Iraq (which they cannot) in exchange for us ignoring their quest for nukes. Syria tells Baker they will help us too and then murders another Lebanese leader. I suggest that we refuse to do what these regimes want us to do and provide as much help as we can to stabilize Iraq. We can secure Iraqi oil infrastructure (perhaps with Arab help), interdict more weapons and insurgents on the borders and protect enclaves of Iraqis who desire our help and provide security to their ports. We can be seen as about the only nation willing to shed blood so Iraq becomes a stabile nation. We need to do a better job at framing this issue as Muslims kill Muslims. One must ultimately weigh the dangers of our retreat against the benefits of showing more resolve. The bigger fish is Iran and the Jihadist quest that is taking shape in Africa.

There are no US forces in Gaza and yet there is civil war. There are no US forces in Lebanon and they are on the edge of civil war.

You are right that the Iraqis voted for sectarian leadership. We did not install a puppet. We were not as ruthless as we could have been. We are about the only ones defending the line. Perhaps the Arabs will wake up. Perhaps our allies will wake up. Just look at the effort in Afghanistan. Italy, France, Germany and Spain don't want their soldiers near combat. It is up to the Dutch, Americans, Brits and Canadians to fight.

So it make take more time for the world to stop blaming America and see reality. I think retreat is the wrong message now. Despite what the world thinks of Bush, history will show that America was willing to confront extremist madness before it expanded and threatened, or acquire WMD.

Who are we supporting? The Kurds, those Sunnis who want peace and a share of oil and those Shiites that reject extremism and violence. Perhaps the civil war will flush these people out.
We are also supporting the defense of moderate regimes and allies who will be threatened by the expansion of radical Islam. The outcome may be decided by how fast these people wake up and offer real help. The question is whether we can wait for this to happen.

Viet Nam did not have this strategic significance. The consequence of running from Iraq will be very different. We have a lot to lose. And I think we should remember that this last Friday, America spent almost a trillion dollars in holiday shopping. We need to ask how much we are willing to sacrifice and spend for the defense of our future security.

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 29, 2006 07:09 PM

I meant "Iran is funneling weapons through Syria to Hizb"Allah, which then helps Shia in Iraq to kill Sunnis as you noted."

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 29, 2006 07:10 PM

ahmadinejad's letter of warning to Americans

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 29, 2006 09:11 PM

another Max

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 29, 2006 11:49 PM

reasons why we are losing

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 30, 2006 12:14 AM

Max:

Thank you for your response. I believe that we are both seeing the same facts and just reaching different conclusions.

What I also have come to believe that the internal dynamics of middle eastern politics, the Shia/Sunni rift as well as the Arab/Persian tensions, have been held in check by the perceived external enemies of Israel and general western influence. This civil war, if it is inevitable, will drive some of the tensions to the surface and potentially lay bare the fact that the only ones who can move the Middle East out of the past are their own people.

Unfortunately, the only solution I now see is to separate the warring parties by dividing the country to the extent that is practical and letting the Iraqi's decide how far they want to take it. I have lost hope in the emergence of a middle that will create a civil society.

Again, I agree with the diagnosis regarding the overlapping and complex undercurrents driving middle eastern politics and influencing this civil war, I just don't see how our presence will do anything but give the participants a common enemy rather than forcing them to recognize that the enemy is within.

Posted by: BobPM at November 30, 2006 10:46 AM

Bob,
this is interesting

and another realistic view.

finally, an Aussie's view (again)

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 30, 2006 07:39 PM

Iran promotes civil war in Iraq?

Posted by: Maxtrue at November 30, 2006 10:44 PM

You just wanna move the timeline to turn your rhetorical hyperbole into a factual statement, which it isn't, while ignoring the realities.

The only one here who is guilty of wanting to "move the timeline" is you, Tully. Going back to my original comment, before you even commented here, I was SPECIFICALLY referring to a withdrawal of American troops in 1968. Yet you insist on pushing this date back to 1969 (or maybe later).

The argument that we couldn't have withdrawn in 1968 because "McCarthy could not give an order without being in charge" is silly. It would be like me arguing, "Congressman Ron Paul's decision to withdraw from Iraq after the fall of Baghdad would have saved thousands of American lives," and then you coming back with, "That's not true because Congressman Paul wasn't president." It's beside the point. The point isn't who's in charge but rather whose policies are being implemented.

If this country had heeded Senator McCarthy's call in 1968 (or 1967 if you like), then tens of thousands of American lives WOULD have been saved.

On foreign policy matters, you seem utterly incapable of admitting when you are wrong (WMDs in Iraq?) and are quick to attack anyone who is arguing an anti-war point of view, whether it is me criticizing the Iraq War, a politician calling for withdrawal from Iraq, anti-war protesters during 2005, or a bunch of anti-war hippies needing an excuse to shave during the Vietnam War.

You repeatedly resort to partisan rhetoric and catchphrases such as "cut-and-run" and "cut-and-jog" and label people who oppose Bush's foreign policies as "nutroots" and "bush haters." I've repeatedly pointed out that there are Republicans (i.e. Ron Paul, Lincoln Chaffee) and Libertarians that are also against the war (many adamantly so), but that doesn't stop you from trying to turn the war into some type of partisan battle. And now that I've posted that Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has called for a withdrawal from Iraq (in an op-ed piece, no less), you quibble over whether Hagel is a conservative or not, which is b1zarre considering Hagel's conservative voting record on BOTH fiscal AND social matters.

As said to me in an email by a Republican blogger who's supporting Hagel for President in 2008:

Senator Hagel is a fiscal and social conservative, but he is also one that thinks federalism is important so he often doesn't think the federal government should get involved. He was never accused of being anything but a conservative before he started taking a strong tone on Iraq (some of it even before the invasion).

But I guess in your view, any Republican who dares to challenge Bush on the Iraq War is no longer a conservative. Given your history on this blog (and at your other blogs) of denouncing advocates of withdrawal (or "cut-and-run", as you call it), can we expect you to start denouncing Hagel in the same manner that you have Democrats who've called for withdrawal?

I'm curious whether you'd care to respond to the points made by Hagel in his op-ed piece.

Posted by: nicrivera at December 1, 2006 10:24 PM

I'm curious whether you'd care to respond to the points made by Hagel in his op-ed piece.

I tried to do just that-- point-by-point-- but the website kept kicking back my post for some kind of error.

Posted by: Bobby at December 3, 2006 10:39 AM

I posted his ratings, nic. Hagel falls behind most of the rest of the Senate GOP in conservative ratings (he's 30th back in the Senate) and he's practically next door, so I'm quite familiar with him. He's more of a Mainstreeter than anything else. Of course, if you wish to call him a conservative, go right ahead. Under that standard, anyone to the right of a 50% rating is a conservative, everyone to the left a liberal, and centrists and moderates simply don't exist.

I'm not moving the goalposts at all. I'm pointing out that your claim is completely at variance with reality when ANY practical considerations at all are accounted for, like the joy of moving 600K troops out of overseas combat territory ASAP. Unless you've got that Star Trek transporter in your back pocket (well, dozens of them more like) you're just plain wrong. The numbers and logistics say you're wrong, and you refuse to examine that, simply sticking to the hyperbole and asserting your own obsessions about me as some kind of meaningful evidence.

Once again, you just wanna move the timeline to turn your rhetorical hyperbole into a factual statement, which it isn't, while ignoring the realities. You seem to think that ad hominem and magical thinking substitute for reality. They don't. Your statement was in the realm of fantasy. In the real world, it's at best hyperbole, and still false to any reasonable assessment of the facts.

But go ahead and rant, it's amusing.

Posted by: Tully at December 3, 2006 02:57 PM

Bobby,

My comments get kicked back to me all the time due to the filters put on this blog to screen out words that might attract spam. You might have to do what I do, which is intentionally misspelled "flagged" words. Other than the annoying spam-filter, I'm clueless as to whatever other glitch is hindering you from posting.

Tully,

You seem to think that ad hominem and magical thinking substitute for reality. They don't. Your statement was in the realm of fantasy.

Labeling people who disagree with Bush's foreign policy as "bush haters" is an example of ad hominem.

Claiming that we've found the WMDs that we went to war for is an example of fantasy.

I seem to remember you doing both.

Posted by: nicrivera at December 3, 2006 05:46 PM

Question: How does one know what the "flagged" words are? I see how people intentionally misspell some, but I don't know if there's a list somewhere on the net that has them listed.

Posted by: Bobby at December 4, 2006 01:26 AM