Comments on: Withdraw, then What?

By: Aparaty cyfrowe

Aparaty cyfrowe — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:19:28 +0000

I am very interested this theme, with attention I will read following informations.

By: Cernig

Cernig — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:51:10 +0000

C-Low, you still living in the cold war? There hasn’t been a WEST Germany for a while now.
All of the nations you name are capable of at least mounting some defense against an external threat — but even the tine UAE’s air force could destroy all Iraqi combat power in an afternoon.
I just want to know why no-one is asking this obvious question. You’ve given a definite reason that the neo-con Right isn’t, fer sure.
Still, nice to see a neo-con so proudly proclaim America as the custodian of the world. Quis custodiet ipses custodiens?
Regards, C

By: Sarge

Sarge — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:30:16 +0000

No, no NO!
The deck chairs look better like THIS!

By: Cernig

Cernig — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 04:43:30 +0000

I’m amazed no-one is yet talking about the non-existance of a true Iraqi national force yet, even on this site. There’s no plan to leave because without the US involvement Iraq could be invaded by two Syrian grandmas on pushbikes or three Iranian toddlers on trikes. Iceland is better armed. In real whole-world terms, the Iraqi military is a joke. No air force, no navy, only 77 old tanks. No plans to change that situation.
In the absence of some such component it isn’t an exit strategy. Its either a Soviet-style plan to create a satellite state or a true “cut and run”. Hawks and those who believe in America’s right to police the world on both left and right, such as Bush and Biden, want the former and are carefully concealing it as a “withdrawal”. Others would take the second option, leaving the Iraqis open to a new foreign invasion and unable to defeat al-Qaida even if the rest of the insurgency were to down arms. Both should at least have the gumption to call a spade a spade.
Anyone who thinks this administration intends any kind of meaningful withdrawal during the rest of its term in office should look at a comparison of forces — Iraq vs its two closest external threats, Iran and Syria — over the next five years.
There is no withdrawal plan, just a redistribution of forces and an Iraq dependency on the US for the forseeable future.
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2005/11/satrapy-of-iraq.html
Regards, Cernig @ Newshog.

By: Darrell Campbell

Darrell Campbell — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:05:34 +0000

Ok, my turn. For the record, I’m Nam period Marine vet. I’m hawk as they go. But I’m pragmatic about it. The reason why we are in the mess we are in in the first place, is because we have legal prohibitions against political assasignation.
Remove them! Put individual potential targets up to Legistlators to vote on. Get a simply majority vote, and send in a Marine sniper squad. A few million dollars and the job is done; instead of the billions of dollars and thousands of “coalition” military lives and countless civilian lives destroyed.
As to “getting out” The question,always, is: strategy or tactics?
Tactics.…forget it, the “war” is lost, only because we cannot control a guerilla enemy that percieves death of its fighters as tantamount to a reward, rather than a cost; and there are literally hundreds of millions of potential such fighters.
Anyone and everyone who argues this, is in denial up the Mekong.……
Strategy.…..Concentrate on the bigger picture. Iran as a big time space technology owner and nuclear power is A BIG TIME WORRY.
Strategic thinking would pull our military personnel out of Iraq, let them have at their civil war to create three nations for Sunni, Shite and Kurd.….
whilst we go to neighboring countries…not only close by, but surrounding the entire mid East boiling pot.…and cultivate these with real economic helps for their peoples.….India, Kenya, Egypt, Kazekstan, Azerbijan, Turkey.…contain the jihadists to their own turf as much as possible. Yes, we still have to deal with suicide bombers, but Isreal has managed for five decades so far.……
to much to write. I close.
This administration is FUBAR, period.

By: C-Low

C-Low — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:53:02 +0000

I sereously doubt Bush is going to do anything different than what he has been saying since the begining “we will stand down as the Iraqi’s stand up and the We will stay the course” but if you are right Noah and Bush cowers down to the peace-love-&-happiness crowd I will fully agree that Bush has lost it.
The problem I see here is that the Dems have politisied a active war effort, wether you agree or not with the Iraq battlefront Bush is the pres he chose Iraq as phase 2 and it must be won and the Dems should have simply after the choice was made stepped up and supported the war and worked for a win not slowly chipped away at the moral until it was weak enough to put up Murtha’s crap along with bringing up old issues like intellegence and re-living the choice to make Iraq phase 2 and then claim ohhh the debate is nessecary. No it isnt Victory is nessecary and whatever it takes to achieve that period. In WW2 I am sure not eveyone in gov was thrilled about Roosevelts choice of Germany as the primary front or hell for that matter spending our resources in N. Africa against a mainly Italian front backed by some german forces and even worse making landings in Vichey France territory a nation that was nuetral, after all it was the Japs that attacked us right. But they got over the loss of that disicion and moved on to make the path chosen successfull becuase it was more important for the US to win than for the small amount of personal Kudo’s they would have gotten by seeing the European front fail and proving thier point as Right that is imature at best and out right treasonist putting ones personal gain over the good of the country.
Beside all of these facts what scares the hell out of me is that this nation has become so broken that even in a war were short the most radical partisans can clearly see that we are in a war for the way of our lives yet we have tunrned onto eachother and are wringing and screaming in pain at just 2200 military casualties that I would remind everyone we lost 3000 civilians in one day on 9–11, and are looking desperate to the outside world for escape. This scares the hell out of me because the War is not over by a long shot Iraq was only one phase of the war it isnt over. Syria everyday is looking more and more like they are going to implode imagine for a minute a coup in Syria and the whole nation goes civil war with the AQ boys taking over a swath of Syria do we go in could we stomach it could we get the polititians to put personal agendas aside??? look over to Iran their new pres is a freekin nutbag I saw this today hat tip LGF now he thinks he is the Mahdi
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/11/184cb9fb-887c-4696-8f54-0799df747a4a.html
but to the point Iran is a huge phase if nothing else Iraq was a good training ground if we have to go into thier. Iran like any other nation we fight will be a short invasion then conquest however just like Iraq, Iran will be the occupation they have prepared thier martyrs in the thousands trained and supplied them for the invasion they are preparing for, while we over here cry about minor BS. Iran is not going to give in on the Nuke issue and our weakness over here is just encouraging thier propoganda that we are a paper tiger. When we go thier 2200 men wont get us half way into the first year of occupation if we even get through conquest on that. And if you think you can wait for the “Mahdi” to get their nuke insurance before addressing the problem imagine a situation were the Iranians are openly supplying and sending a steady flow of Jihadi Martyrs to punish the infedels and the Joooos how the hell in that situation could the pres send 200,000+ soldgiers to Irans borders to prepare for invasion knowing full well one nuke and we would lose over half our total military sure we could retaliate but would the “mahdi” really care after all he is protected by the light of Allah on a mission would he care??? This is a time in history where we need to at least make the impression of solidarity and unwavering will to do whatever it takes to win. Our politicians should be on TV bragging on how our losses are so low not politically begging for mercy and escape. The weaker we look the more likley that bloody phase called Iran becomes a absolute non avoidable.

By: Kurt Prigl

Kurt Prigl — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:55:20 +0000

I am not a person who votes or pays attention to politics but there is no way we should be pulled out of iraq at this crutial time. We are finally winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, we are finally making headwaqy into geographic safety, and we are finally at a good pace of training and implimenting a social technique in to the Iraqi military. If we leave now then all the time and lives that have been put into this war will be a waste and everyone who has died there will have been a marter rather than an ultimate sacrafice towads the developement of a better life for war torn civillians.
God Bless,
Kurt Prigl

By: Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:42:37 +0000

well. im confused. very confused. I fully supported Bush’s plan to stay the corse. But our President isn’t a skitzo. And last time I looked he had access to a hell of alot better intel than i do. so i guess i better just wait till the ‘official’ announcement and see what i see. Don’t think theres anyother way to play it.

By: Enchilada

Enchilada — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:12:56 +0000

Here’s the bottom line… there is no putting Iraq back together anytime soon. We broke it too well, and ignored the problem too long. The way the war was organized from the start has sealed our fate. It has been a situation that was past the point of no return from the beginning.
The future situation is this, no matter what we do or how long we take to do it this country is headed for civil war. The Shiites will come out on top, it will be a theocratic government, and they will be closer to Iran then the US.
There is no way the “terrorists” (Sunni’s) will win. The only thing holding them together right now is our presence in the country. As soon as we leave they will be more then occupied by fighting the Shiites. They will lose because they do not have the numbers, or the oil.
The only question is how many US lives do we want to spend in an effort to hold off this inevitable outcome. IMO I would rather it be less than more, and end sooner then later.
This is not a leftist view, this is a realistic view. Our problem is not that damage will be done if we leave too early. That damage already has been done. The way this war has progressed has ALREADY caused us gave harm, and emboldened our enemies. Will we look worse to the outside world if we pullback after 3 years or 10, only to have civil-war break out?
The only solution I see is to get the vast majority of our combat troops the hell out of the country as soon as possible (not more then 2 years, and hopefully much less), and still give military assistance and monetary support to the Shiite majority run government. We should have the US SF groups help them out and train them, but not fight their fight for them. Thats as much as win as were ever going to get out of this mess.

By: Jesse Clark

Jesse Clark — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:51:56 +0000

First of all, the 'death squad' report is hardly earth-shattering. I suppose it depends on your definition of 'death squad', but when you're waging a guerilla-type war in a largely urban environment, those are the tactics that work. One example is Task Force Black, the SAS/Delta team that's been taking out suicide bombers before they can strike. As for the 'exit strategy' of Iraq, I hate to parrot anything the president is saying, but I think a good shot of patience is needed. We've been in Iraq a little over two-and-a-half years and we've accomplished a great deal, especially considering the geography of the region and the cultural differences between our troops and the Iraqis. It hasn't happened quickly and it hasn't happened as well as it could have, but war never does. The fate of Iraq lies solely on the shoulders of the Iraqis themselves. The training of ISF troops, while belated, is radically changing the dynamic of US responsibility. In the short term, the Iraqis will continue to inch their way to competency. In the long term, say ten years from now, consider the strength and combat prowess of an Iraqi military shaped and refined from a decade of urban guerilla warfare. Much like the Israeli expertise in counterterrorism developed under fire, the ISF has potential to become one of the most experienced and battle-hardened militaries in the world. Finally, concerning the widespread--and mostly sincere--desire to 'bring our boys home', we must remember that there are things we don't know. I am 100% positive that the government has some sort of plan for withdrawal from Iraq. Hell, they probably have five! In a country that has a military plan for every imaginable scenario in any possible theater, we certainly have strategies for Iraq. They just aren't publicized, and for very good reasons. Whether those plans are any good or not remains to be seen, but remember that our troops are well-trained and extremely well-equipped to do their jobs. Sometimes that job requires dying, but that's what makes them heroes. Yet even to save the lives of additional soldiers, it would be a disaster to undermine the excellent work they've done so far with a hasty feel-good half-strategy.