Steve, the purpose of our presence in Iraq is to be in Iraq.
All our greatest heroes have been sacrificial anodes.
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 7, 2005 02:24 PMJust how was Eisenhower sacrificed? What of Andrew Jackson? George Washington? Try again, Tobe!
As for the assurance of economic progress, read: Halliburton and Bechtel haven't finished plundering in Iraq yet! The torture will continue until we know where all of Saddam's cash caches are!
Posted by pessimist at December 7, 2005 02:38 PMToby is still posting on LC? Jeeesus!
Posted by Mal Feasance at December 7, 2005 02:39 PMA "gradual drawdown" sounds good but it could end up being pretty messy. Security for troops in Iraq is already stretched and the drawdown will result in a "gradual" increase in casualties unless the US is able to negotiate some sort of cease fire with a significant part of the insurgency. But "We" don't negotiate with terrorists, do we?
In my mind the war is already lost and all that's left is for the politicians to fight over how to frame the defeat. For some time now, our troops have been dying over domestic politics and this truly stinks. I'm not much in the mood to have this process dragged out for long.
I'm with Congressman Murtha who seems to be speaking for the commanders on the ground. Get out fast in six months.
This makes for an interesting read:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2005/12/clear_and_hold.html
Everyone is assuming it is the BushCo/NeoCon intention to leave Iraq. Given their designs on the oil reserves in the region, it's hard for me to believe they have any plans to do that, especially since they continually refuse to provide any metrics for success or progress. "Training the Iraqis"? Come on. These guys lie every time their mouths move. For all we know the private security contractors in country are there to protect the long term interests of Halliburton, Bechtel and the other participants in Cheney's energy task force at US taxpayer expense.
Posted by mutton at December 7, 2005 02:47 PMmutton, I agree with you, but I do believe there will be some kind of drawdown of troops to coincide nicely with midterm elections.
Posted by ann at December 7, 2005 02:52 PMAgainst my better judgment i listened to commander codpiece's latest weekly Major Speech. In referring to Pearl Harbor, He said "September" before correcting himself and saying "December 7, 1941" Then 2 sentences later, he actually mentioned 9/11. Cause it was a Major Speech about the iraqi economy, so he didn't have to mention september 11th until the third sentence.
Posted by benjoya at December 7, 2005 03:00 PMWhat I am most frustrated with is the continued talk about 'pulling out' or 'premature withdrawl' (which both have their own unattractive connotations) as 'admitting defeat.'
To redeploy would be to change strategy not to admit defeat. The war in Iraq cannot be won militarily. They do not want us there. We cannot kill enough people that the rest of the people would somehow decide to put down their arms. It does not work like that. The longer we are there and the more of us that are there, the more that people want to get rid of the 'murderers' and 'killers' that they see us as (from interviewed Iraqis who have lost family as a result of our troops - just by the f'd up nature of this war, not out of malfeacence, our troops shot innocent people.)
The insurgents are Iraqi. They do not want us there. Therefore it cannot work with force.
It must be solved diplomatically and now is the time. The only way that the insurgents can be appeased is 1) if we stop being occupiers 2) if they are brought into the political process.
In addition, this Iraq war is completely removing resources, time, energy, manpower, money away from tracking down and stopping the real 'terrorists'. All that this war is doing is creating a recruitment poster for al Queda.
Posted by Anjha at December 7, 2005 03:23 PMAnn - i think you're right. I can see them drawing down the reserves and national guard strictly for political purposes. Murtha mentioned something about an additional $100 billion dollar request so I wouldn't be surprised to see them end up being sent back after the elections are over. And if the GOP maintains their edge in either chamber, Bush is going to view that as approval of his actions anyway.
Posted by mutton at December 7, 2005 03:23 PMWatch for big "victory parade"next summer. Maybe big July 4th tie-in.
Posted by disgusted vet at December 7, 2005 05:13 PMVet:
Watch for big "victory parade"next summer. Maybe big July 4th tie-in.
And I suppose you'd begrudge the man even that ---even though one would think you'd want the troops home anyhow.
Remember: cynicism isn't much of a substitute for moral clarity.
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 7, 2005 05:17 PMPessimist:
Just how was Eisenhower sacrificed? What of Andrew Jackson? George Washington? Try again, Tobe!
I can't remember the term just now ---being happily happy that I'm home from work and will stay that way until I'm not--- but there's some part of speech or some element of logic that you've just violated with that rebuttal.
Help me out here.
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 7, 2005 05:21 PMs for Howard Dean, his statement that we cannot win in Iraq was wrong, in that although his position squares with Chuck Hagel’s, Dean should have mentioned that we probably cannot win militarily in Iraq, and that a political solution is essential.
I disagree Steve. Time is running out, and Murtha, Dean, and Hagel know this. Our bast option, is to pull out, re-group, re-arm and re-up. Its what the milatary says we need to do. When I say military I am not talking about the cocktail circut officers, but the operational ones.
The Bush apoligists are right about one thing. Its going to be one god-awful mess when we leave.
But that will just be a continuation of the god-awful mess as we leave, or for that matter what we have now.
Howard Dean cares deeply about this country and is not willing to keep catering to the American fetish of not wanting their leaders to tell them the truth.
Doesnt matter. What will be will be. But our ability to control the terms of our withdrawel grow worse with time. Thats why some of the big money boys are getting nervous. They can easily imagine what losing a lot of boys and girls, a few POWs to really ram home the implications of gulagworld(tm), and a fairly large loss of equipment would do to the stockmarket.
But heres a grimmer scenario. How about the interdiction of our supply lines make our position un-tenable. Recent evidence indicate there will be no coherent evacuation plan. So we have to try to supply our outposts by air. Imagine some player or another with the means slips a few sophisticated PADs across some now non-patroled border. A dedicated attack on a remote outpost, a well laid flack trap, a couple of C-130s, Close support Aircraft and C141s go down and resupply and support become impossible. The garrison is overrun.
Dead Americans displayed on TV, POWs tortured just to let America know how that feels when it happens to one of your own. Think old Howard will look kooky then?
Howard is one of those really decent guys that comes around only once in a while who truly believes some things must be said, and must be faced.
This is crunch time.
We institute a draft and re-enforce or we withdraw on our terms. Or we do it the rupublican way and stick our heads all the way up our ass and see what happens.
We can't get enough troops fast enough to win at this point. Not with the head-ass option certianly.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 7, 2005 05:30 PM>>>>>>>> This way to the egress! >>>>>>>>>
- P. T. Barnum
Remember also what else Barnum said. Now stop being one of those.
Posted by pessimist at December 7, 2005 05:32 PMWatch for big "victory parade"next summer. Maybe big July 4th tie-in.
It'll be on 9/11.
I was listening to the Diane Rehm show the other day and they had Wesley Clark on talking about Iraq, along with some other people. Wow, how refreshing to hear plans other than pulling out now or staying the course. He sounded so well-informed and sensible that I realized I had forgotten what it might be like to have a good president.
Posted by at December 7, 2005 05:52 PMRemember also what else Barnum said.
What, there's a sucker born every minute?
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 7, 2005 06:09 PM
oh, for christ's sake, steve soto!
"I tend to agree that it is counterproductive for nancy pelosi to step out and take a postion that is not supported by her caucus."
this from the verbal bomb thrower at the left coaster?
what you been drinkin' steve -- holy water?
nancy pelosi has inched her way through the last five years, criticized over and over, with daschle and then reid, for not taking a stand.
now she takes a stand and you write using words like "tend" and "counterproductive" and wax ineloquent about her decision "not (being) supported by her caucus". you write here (and only here to be fair) like you had just got a faculty appointment?
do you want your democratic leaders to be ahead of the pack, or behind the pack? did you want them to sniff butts or breath clean air?
i understand why every national democratic politician should be very wary of taking a public stand on iraq right now. it's called the "who lost china" tactic -- or vietnam or korea or nicaragua or iran. add you favorite to the list.
all a democratic politician has to do right now is make a statement now, any statement, and wait to be pilloried in the media and in ads 1 to three years from now.
so if nancy pelosi takes a genuinely courageous stance - yes, of course, like any competent politician, a stance that is nucanced, hedged, with less than pure motives--
are you going to slap her down?
or are you going to support her?
a right coaster like me is going to support her, even though i am completely confident i dont know exactly why she is doing what she is doing. but then i dont know exactly why john murtha is doing what he is doing either. i'm just glad they decided to stir the soup their way.
now if al gore would just weigh in about now. and sen byrd and sen kennedy. and maybe the ghosts of j. william fulbright, frank church, and george aiken. maybe we could have some serious national, public discussion. not the propaganda we have had to live with until now.
If Bush comes clean, the war could end peacefully tomorrow. As long as Bush/Cheney holds on to stealing Iraq's oil and privatizing Iraq, the war will go on. The troops and the treasury will bleed!!! Since Bush and Cheney are winning when the U.S. loses, they could care less.
Posted by smooth at December 7, 2005 07:29 PMThe sound bites I heard from Bush's speech sounded familiar: "unleash their creative energies...entrepreneurial people..." I remember these lines. He's going to give the Iraqis a TAX CUT and then everything will be okay. Thank God.
Posted by Lou in Raleigh at December 7, 2005 07:58 PMHe's going to give the Iraqis a TAX CUT and then everything will be okay.
Thats pretty much their only play in the playbook. Everything else are just press releases declaring their glorious Republican victories.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 7, 2005 08:14 PMThis is the most concise rundown I've seen yet on the current state of things in Iraq.
Posted by rlp at December 7, 2005 09:10 PMiraq for the u.s. is a lose lose situation..always was and always will be...when we leave..and we will leave.. we will take with us oil...nothing more...there will be civil war for a long time..more terrorists then ever and a destabilized middle east..we will be weaker militarily...leaving us more vunerable then ever..people who support this administration are stupid people ....the fraud in the white house is an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions and we will be paying for his folly for a very long time..
Posted by dennis at December 8, 2005 03:18 AMI have been argueing for weeks now for the Democrat to declare victory in Iraq and demand the troops be send home for victory parades.
We won, we accomplished all the original objectives.
Dean was right but used the wrong language. Redeploy the troops because Bush keeping them there is turning victory into defeat.
I expect the GOP to use this Victory language to get a big drawdown of troops before the election.
The DC Dems are either clueless or still polling and focus-grouping.
Posted by Easter Lemming Liberal News at December 9, 2005 12:39 AM