Gradual withdrawal is dangerous for our troops. A quick exit is safer.

[bigtree]

I can't help but think when I listen to our political leaders in and out of Congress that they know very little about the missions that our soldiers are tasked to do in Iraq and what it takes to make their job safe and effective.

Right now the troops are being tasked to patrol with Iraqi troops in search of 'insurgents', or anyone who is predisposed to violently oppose the new government. That is not going to change, not by any legislative mandate from Congress or because of any political pressure Democrats are exerting now. Bush is determined to do what he wants in Iraq with the soldiers. There is no legislation pending that would moderate his ambitions in Iraq in any significant, enforceable way.

Yet, included in many Democrat's plans for withdrawal from Iraq is the presumption that the reduced force they advocate would still be expected to defend the Iraqi government against 'insurgents'. This seems to me incredible folly. The force we have in place now is suffering attacks daily and losing soldiers almost as fast. How do our political leaders expect these soldiers to operate safely and effectively with a stripped down force? There has been talk from some Democrats about limiting the mission of the soldiers and putting a halt to the search and destroy missions. But, in the same breath as their exit strategy, they go out of their way to assure that they would not leave Iraq unprotected. The most talked about 'solution' is to leave special forces in Iraq or nearby to respond to some unspecified external threat. Does anyone really believe our soldiers can accomplish that defense with up to half the troops we have in there now?

The most rational option is a plan that quits Iraq all at once. Everyone home as soon as logistically possible. Any plan that envisions a reduced number of our troops left in Iraq after the pullout of the majority is a recipe for open season on those remaining. All of us here want our troops to come home as soon as possible. 80,000 troops back home would be an incredible relief. But, we shouldn't contemplate abandoning the other half to the altar of politics.

I think political fear's the reason so many of these well-meaning exit strategies on our side include some form of assurance that we won't stop fighting 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' in Iraq even as we withdrawal. They make these proposals professing to be concerned that Iraqis are 'back on their feet' before we completely exit. I think they're more concerned with making sure they have political cover from the juvenile taunt, 'cut-and-run'. Theirs is a political gamble that relies on potentially sacrificing American soldier's lives to help them save face in their political debate.

It's naive to expect that these plans that have been presented in a flurry of activity this week are going to make their way into some form of enforceable legislation, not with the republican Congress in place. If this is a political gambit by our side, then it is a weak one that still sees a role for our soldiers in Iraq, much like Bush. If they aren't being used to further the political situation, then what are they still doing there?

I hear the exit plans from some Democrats that state clearly that our soldiers should not be used to solve the political problems in Iraq. But that is preciscely what they are being asked to do now, and outside of some clear definition, they will be used for that purpose in the future: assisting the Iraqis in routing political opponents of the new government, rejectionists, as Bush calls them.

It make no sense to me why some who clearly support withdrawal from Iraq feel they need the caveat of dribbling troops out of Iraq to appease those who would claim that a precipitous exit would devastate the new government and expose our country to an increased threat from 'terrorists' there. Iraq has been devastated by every military action we have taken. Our soldiers can only aggravate the situation, and their heavy hand can only prolong any reconcilliation between the political factions. They need to get out now. Calls for anything less either aren't leveling with Americans about the risks of a drawn down force, or are incredibly naive and uninformed about the missions and roles that Bush has in store for these soldiers who will be left behind after their units are stripped to support more military misadventures elsewhere.

[savemefromdumbya]

1. why can't we throw it over to the UN?

The UN are better at peace keeping. Trouble is that Bush is frightened it will be considered as a defeat.

[enigma000]

2. Who do you have in mind?

The French? The Germans? Canada?

I don't think they can assemble 100K troops for this mission. How do you think they will sell it to their public? Now that the Americans have messed up, now is the chance for thousands of our troops to die for this mistake.

[Karenina]

18. Bingo!

[Toots]

22. No I disagree

The UN has some legitimacy and would use a weapon this Administration knows absolutely nothing about. Diplomacy. They would bring in Arab neighbors and once Americans were out the great great majority of killing would stop. Americans are driving the killings not the Iraqis. A contingent of a few thousand UN personnel with Arab assistance would do more in a few months than the US has done or could do period.

[enigma000]

23. I'm not sure Iraqis want an Arab occupation

It is not in the interest of the leadership of the Arab World to have Iraq evolve into a peaceful and free society. Besides, Arab governments tend to look down on Kurds and Shia Arabs.

[dfgrbac]

29. I completely agree!

It is the very presence of our troops (seen as an occupation army) that is stimulating the violence. Any UN force would be seen as an aid to reforming an Iraqi government. The government we hear about now is being formed by mainly us and Iraqi officials who we support. We are not permitting them to set up the constitution they really want because that would interfere with our corporate takover of their resources.

If they were truly allowed to vote freely and decide their own constitution, the violence would end.

[bigtree]

6. Heard anything from Annan these days on Iraq?

I still hear him in my head proclaiming our invasion and occupation of Iraq an "illegal war". These other countries probably realize that we are deep in it in Iraq and are content to leave us there to rot.

[savemefromdumbya]

13. I think as a "United Nations" we should think of the Iraqis

one cannot leave these poor people in the lurch.

I expect Dick Cheney has put his invasion of IraN on hold?

[bigtree]

16. We provide aid to plenty of countries, we can do so in Iraq

without soldiers.

The Bush administration has not, so far, demonstrated any moderation of their manufactured mandate to conquer the world.

[AZBlue]

19. We should absolutely think of the Iraqis.

We created this situation - we didn't add to it or increase it, we solely and totally created it. We can't just leave them with what we created.

The UN or a separate group of international countries needs to be involved. That's the only way to end this without further bloodshed of US troops or Iraqi civilians.

[bigtree]

20. The U.N. clearly won't touch Iraq with Bush in charge

Bush will have to remove all fingerprints before Annan sticks a foot in Iraq.

[AZBlue]

27. True. And I can't blame them for that. Can't blame anyone for it.

He needs to go. That's clearly the first step (on this issue as well as many others!). Or, at least his "control" needs to go - we can't afford to wait until '08, so we have to take back the power and make him a truly "lame duck" president.

[savemefromdumbya]

32. Other countries have to take the lead - Back Off Bush

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. Not defeat so much as he doesn't want to share the 'wealth' with

other countries. It's all about the war and oil profits and not having to share them, imho. bushco is stealing left and right from both the U.S. taxpayers and the Iraqi citizens and getting away with it. That and he isn't going to let anyone tell him what to do, the arrogant little worm that he is.

[Coastie for Truth]

9. A "gradual withdrawal"

enables to US to establish a "constabulary force" and "defensive perimeter" around the oil assets.

That's all this aggressive war of choice was ever about anyway. See

[savemefromdumbya]

12. How did I forget the oil?

[wtmusic]

3. Yep

I remember making this point in the spring when Wes Clark said to expect troop reductions by the end of summer (and was promptly attacked by the WC volunteer militia).

It would be suicide. We would be overrun, and suffer many more casualties. Then again, I've given up on crediting this administration with any foresight.

[bigtree]

4. I hate to speculate too much about casualties. I'd hate to be proven right

But, I do know that outside of the pursuit of 'insurgents' the search and destroy patrols are a necessary component in a hostile occupation like ours. They have to project their military power outward into the population to create the illusion of overwhelming force. The day they start to hunker down is the day the routing of the infidels begins.

[endarkenment]

5. I agree.

The theory that substantial withdrawals can be made without putting the remaining forces at risk is nonsense predicated on a combination of force substitution through airpower, force substitution from the shiite militia posing as the Iraqi Army, and a utopian delusion of peace breaking out. It is nonsense. Our leadership, collectively, has not come to terms with our mission defeat in Iraq.

[bigtree]

11. I've heard nothing about the increased risk to our soldiers from the pols

I understand political posturing, but I can't help feeling patronized by the lack of specificity about what they expect the remaining troops to do after the bulk of their units leave for whatever new round of military meddling they have in mind. There is entirely too much militarism in the posturing of some of those on our side who are calling for withdrawal.

I don't want to start a rhetorical attack here on any one of them in particular, but, along with some of their plans for exit some envision withdrawing soldiers being diverted to Afghanistan, or stationed nearby to intimidate Iran. It seems that some haven't learned anything beyond their belated realization that Iraq is a disaster. Interventionism, expansionism, imperialism, are not ambitions restricted to republicans. Some on our side still see a need to posture themselves as would a general or a force commander instead of exercising their roles as civilian checks on misuse and exploitation of our forces by the chief executive.

[endarkenment]

14. Once again, I agree.

This is another example of 'framing the debate' to exclude reasonable choices. The discussion of the whole imperialist world view within which our attack on Iraq was possible, and in fact received overwhelming bipartisan support, is not even happening.

[lonestarnot]

7. I couldn't have said this better myself!

[HereSince1628]

10. How we can get down to the permanent force to be left in Iraq

without really getting down there.

Starring my guesses.

The Res/NG force about 50-69K will be sloted out at about 10-15k per month beginning in Jan or Feb. This will mean processing a reasonable 400 to 500 troops per day.

However I don't expect that force to return with most of its equipment.

In exchange for this equipment and other considerations of continuing support, the Iraqis will declare that they have given us 6-9 permanent air force and ground force bases (something I think has already happened) including some sort of naval support facility.

Ostensibly the Iraqis will use the equipment to stand-up their poorly developed battalions. When that is done, maybe by June or July, 20k or so of the US forces will be redeployed to friendly neighboring territory, from where they can support Iraq if things get very dicey.

We assign 30-40 thousand to our "new" bases, and the withdrawl is done.

Rummy and company get to create the illusion of having reached the "end" with a reduction in sw Asia of only from 60K-80k troops, mostly national guard and reserve.

[bigtree]

17. they really have no intention of moving any troops out as of today

They need more direct pressure to move their asses, more balking from our legislators.

Doesn't Bush want a Supreme Court Justice? That shouldn't be handed to him without some concession on Iraq withdrawal.

[HereSince1628]

21. Don't believe it. There is a big problem facing the Nat. Guard

Guardsmen can only be active for two years, most of the 69K currently in Iraq are on their second deployment.

In a politically more favorable year this would be solved with some sort of legislation or rule that keeps the NG on active duty. But, BushCo is out of chits to play. The guard units can't meet their recruiting, and the lack of their presence at home has interferred with planning and conducting state emergency operations. Tolerance for the absence of the guard is running out.

The administration either has to institute some type of conscription in addition to the call up of the (not) ready reserve, or it has to down size the committment. This administration no longer has the national support needed to restart the draft.

It should also be plain that we are going into an election year and there will be increasingly political pressure to get out of Iraq.

[enigma000]

24. I agree

Pressure will mount for withdrawal. Elections in November, this long deployment of National Guard units, the need for this new Iraqi government to look independent, the cost of this whole adventure.

I agree with your timetable Mr. 1628. I suspect by this time next year, US troops will be down well under half of what it is now. This could be used to convince several insurgent groups to stand-down.

[bigtree]

28. Half a force with the same tasks that the larger force couldn't handle

What you describe is a reduction of troops by Bush to solve overdeployment of Reserve forces and the overdue rotation of others. That's just about right. There will be pressure from many fronts to begin to bring the troops home, for pragmatic reasons as well as a response to public sentiment.

But Bush is still tied to his rhetoric about "total victory", along with some naive calls for 'success' from our side. So, it will be just to appear to be exiting Iraq while still determined to control Iraq militarily, but with a smaller, inadequate force.

Bush won't stop the soldiers who are left behind from assisting the Iraqi troops in knocking down doors and hunting down 'insurgents'. He'll carry on with a reduced force, and at the same time, he'll take some of the steam out of the anti-war sentiment among Americans by pretending to moderate his ambitions.

That's why I believe we should reject a policy of gradual withdrawal. Bush will use the redeployment of troops overdue for retirement or rotation to appear to be exiting Iraq while digging in as much as he can with an inadequate, vulnerable force. Our call should be for an immediate, unconditional withdrawal. How many soldiers have to die so that these politicians can posture?

[bigtree]

26. well, that's the political wild card for our side isn't it?

We hope that Bush will take one figleaf or the other, declare victory, and leave. The uncertainty is that he is so wedded to his original plan to control Iraq's oil, and his plans to use the country as a base of operations for more Middle East military meddling, that he will do nothing substantial in withdrawing forces.

There almost certainly has to be some sort of enforceable legislation enacted, or a Congress which will withhold funding (not likely), to move Bush beyond posturing and rhetoric. He revealed himself this week as more intent on twisting and distorting the intentions of his opposition than actually moving to hasten the troop's withdrawal. In fact, Bush seems to have dug his heels in with his calls for "total victory". The only thing that will move him is direct and constant pressure between now and the 2006 elections. If nothing else, we should be able to compete for control of the Senate of the House by offering a stark choice between Bush's obstinacy and a clear call for immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

I wouldn't allow Bush to get credit for relieving overdue Reserve units at the expense of leaving in place a smaller, more vulnerable force. He should be made to account for his intentions for every soldier left to do his bidding.

[endarkenment]

15. K&R - this is an important discussion topic.

Our leaders are not even having the right debate.

[blm]

25. In military timing, 6-12 months IS quick withdrawal.

.

[bigtree]

30. We won't have the White House, we may not have the Congress

For at least a year we will have Bush directing whatever forces are left there. The issue of remaining troops might not be so important if there wasn't a whole load of horseshit that Bush has on the plate for a reduced force. He's joined, btw, by some on our side in giving lip service to a combat role for the remaining soldiers against 'insurgents' and 'terrorists'.

What happens if we don't succeed in getting a Congress that will legislate him out of Iraq? We've then got a skeleton force there and no enforceable limit on his authority. He only has to weasel his way through the 2006 elections to control events in Iraq without any electoral threat for years until his term expires.

That's why he needs to be confronted directly, now, with a stark contrast to his muddling approach to "victory". Before he gets any political traction from appearing to exit, or any credit for having surrogates say he wants to withdraw. We need to offer voters and Americans who have become increasingly anxious about our involvement in Iraq a clear admission of failure and a pledge to seek immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

I think that any plan that is short of immediate and unconditional withdrawal needs to spell out precisely what they expect our soldiers to do. To leave that question open is an invitation for Bush to use them to achieve whatever his version of success might be. Also, advocating or contemplating the further use of our troops for anything other than packing up their gear and weaponry is an invitation for Bush to justify using them for his own interventionism.



There are other exit strategy debates about the length of time that should be allowed before the US troops withdraw. But none are as important as clarifying that the peace movement exit strategy should call for end of the entire occupation, not guarantees for a Walmart in Baghdad before the American troops leave.

-Tom Hayden, from his "THOUGHTS ON EXIT STRATEGY'
http://www.tomhayden.com/war2.htm

[EVDebs]

31. Back to Operation Eagle Pull

David Butler's Fall of Saigon book and also Decent Interval by Frank Snepp show how it's NOT done.

[bigtree]

33. Thanks for these

I needed some anecdotal analogies.

[EVDebs]

36. Who will end up being our version of Amb. Graham A. Martin

Who lost his adopted son Glenn Dill Mann (KIA Vietnam, Central Highlands after Ia Drang late Nov. '65) while he was Amb to Thailand...Then later Nixon appoints him Amb to So. Vietnam and he basically turned into the last Hawk, fighting to get $500 million more from Congress, all the while guys in the Pentagon were having trouble getting gas to fill their tanks with to get to work.

Needless to say, while Martin dithered and tried to keep the war going, Operation Eagle Pull was getting short shrift. Snepp may have been too close to the story also perhaps, but Butler's book is very good also.

It looks like the whole SE Asian adventure was mainly to shore up the CIA's heroin and moneylaundering operations, with the money ending up in certain Congress people's hand, at least that was the speculation about what was behind Watergate (See Renata Adler's Dec. 1976 Atlantic article on Searching for the Real Nixon Scandal).

[bigtree]

38. Don't forget the 'decent interval' strategy employed by Nixon's gang

" . . . we’ve got to find some formula that holds the thing together a year or two, after which—after a year, Mr. President, Vietnam will be a backwater. If we settle it, say, this October, by January ’74 no one will give a damn." -Henry Kissinger, Oval Office Conversation with Nixon August 3, 1972

Bush's recent operations against insurgents underscores his stated quest for a 'victory' in Iraq. Watch for an attempt at a final military push that will hope to create a buffer of security for the new government long enough for the lame-duck Bush to exit his throne.

[EVDebs]

39. In that case expect Saudi gobetweens to contact Sunni and Baathists

holdouts to 'come aboard' on the new government before the civil war starts up. Possibly offer Shia/Sunni accords if both go after say Mr Zarqawi & Co.

No matter, in under 32 yrs, with 1 trillion barrels of oil left in world reserves divided by world current daily usage of 85 million barrels ... in under 20 yrs the Arab world will be asking the West for a new souce of power along with an olive branch. Unless they want to go back to breeding camels instead of smoking them, of course. Time heals all wounds, as long as you can survive.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. "gradual withdrawal" trans: CYA for "moderates" who voted for the war.

They're still hoping for a miracle that will give them "peace with honor" and justify their caving to Bush.

[bigtree]

35. inncredible 'aint it?

either they're blind or they think we're incredibly stupid.


As this long and difficult war ends, I would like to address a few special words to … the American people: Your steadfastness in supporting our insistence on peace with honor has made peace with honor possible. -Richard M Nixon

[EVDebs]

37. What about the '14 Enduring Bases'...who'll man those ? eom