Do you support the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?

[welshTerrier2]

in answering the question, please use the following definition of immediate withdrawal:

removing all US troops from Iraq as quickly as their safety allows

now, if you do not support immediate withdrawal as defined here, please explain why ...

i'm especially interested to know whether the position you hold is primarily for domestic political considerations and/or do you believe another policy is preferable?

if you oppose immediate withdrawal, is it reasonable to conclude that you believe that there is something positive to be gained by remaining in Iraq? is it also reasonable to conclude that not only do you believe there is something positive to be gained but that it CAN be gained even with bush and rumsfeld running the show?

if you believe we should not immediately withdraw, please explain what you think can and will be achieved by remaining ...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Yes

they should never have been there to begin with.

[Get_A_Life]

2. Yes

Lets send the Bush family over to finish his war in Iraq.

[welshTerrier2]

7. glad we agree!

welcome to DU, Get_A_Life !!!

actually, maybe we should send bush to the World Court instead of to Iraq ... or maybe you're right; he could be a co-defendant with Saddam for killing so many innocent Iraqis ...

[Get_A_Life]

15. Lets put Saddam and Bush in the same cell

Saddam would win the fight because Bush is all mouth.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Yes

I see no future in the republican course we are staying:

MORE AMERICAN KIDS MUST DIE TOMORROW SO THE KIDS WHO DIED YESTERDAY DID NOT DIE IN VAIN.

There may be consequences if we withdrawal now, but in the long run it will be the right thing to do. Me thinks of Vietnam. Hell, if a pnacer were president then we'd still be in NAM.

[mike_c]

4. yes-- immediate withdrawal, no "timetable" for future redeployment....

U.S. out of Iraq NOW!

[Totally Committed]

5. Yes

"removing all US troops from Iraq as quickly as their safety allows" is what needs to happen.

TC

[winter999]

6. Have we withdrawn from

Germany or Japan? We must face reality in that we're NEVER going to leave Iraq. Besides it makes a great place to stage an Iranian invasion.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Yes.

[mtnsnake]

9. Yes, but ONLY if we can be assured that immediate withdrawal won't

cause countless thousands or hundreds of thousands of more Iraqi civilians to die than have already died because of Bush's lies that got us into this horrible situation. I would love to give a definitive yes to your question, but there's so much gray area, it's hard to know if immediate withdrawal is better than withdrawal a half year from now and so on. At the very least, I'd like to see them announce a plan with a definite timeline, something within 6 or 9 months from now of getting all the troops home...if not immediate withdrawal.

[welshTerrier2]

12. well, let's poke at that a little ...

thanks for being the first to call for staying ... the point of the post is to examine what you hope to achieve by remaining ...

first, you said that we should immediately withdraw "ONLY if we can be assured that immediate withdrawal won't cause countless thousands or hundreds of thousands of more Iraqi civilians to die"

well, i think it's a given that no reasonable person can give you any such assurance ... of course, the same could just as easily be said of leaving in "6 to 9 months" or at any other time ...

so, if you're hesitant about immediate withdrawal and look towards a definite timeline in something around 6 to 9 months, it seems like the implied message is that, by remaining a bit longer, something positive will be achieved ... but what? do you believe that something positive has been achieved over the past 6 to 9 months or the 6 to 9 months before that?

my view is that US presence in Iraq has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives and critical injuries ... it's caused a devastating loss of American prestige ... it's been a bonanza of profits for Big Oil and the military-industrial complex ... it is likely leading us to war with Iran ... the whole thing is not just looking at what might be gained by remaining; we also have to factor in the devastating costs ... and frankly, i just don't see how anyone, especially with bush and rumsfeld running the show, can believe anything positive can or will be achieved by the US remaining in occupation ...

do you really see something positive coming from our continued occupation even for the short time you called for?

[mtnsnake]

41. "Do yu really see something positive coming from our continued occupation?

No, I don't see anything positive at all. I'm all for immediate withdrawal as long as it doesn't make a horrible situation even worse for the Iraqis, who have suffered the most from all of this. If staying another few months would make a difference for THEM, I'd say stay, but I don't really have a clue if it would make a difference or not. The experts leave very little of this open to any kind of dialogue, so who really knows? If I had to make a life or death decision on whether to stay or whether to pull out immediately, I wouldn't hesitate to pull out immediately.

Good reply, BTW, although I didn't really call for staying. :)

[Pithy Cherub]

10. Yes.

The depths of moral craveness were reached when our troops were sent there for the wrong reasons to occupy a sovereign nation without proven WMD's and asked to police without the right equipment, no brave political leadership and no way to win a lasting Peace.

[uppityperson]

11. yes, and thank you for the definition.

I get so tired of talking heads that say "but it will take time, cannot all be done immediately".

[LincolnMcGrath]

13. YES!!!!! As quickly as their safety allows!

[OneBlueSky]

14. absolutely! . . . it'll come to that eventually, so the quicker we act . .

the more lives -- both American and Iraqi -- we can save . . .

[JuniperLea]

16. Yes, no question

The longer we stay, the worse it gets. We know that will continue and there is no doubt it will continue as long as we remain. It's now worth the risk... whatever it takes for the people of Iraq to do with their country what they choose. We should never have gone there; we've made it hell for the people and it will get worse before it gets better. We must leave NOW! The longer we stay, the harder it will be for the people to take back their country.

[Patchuli]

17. Should leave now, should not have been there

but there is a concern about ensuing total chaos. We should have gotten out when the Shrub claimed "Mission Accomplished." I liked John Murtha's idea of some immediate withdrawal and some redeployment to the periphery, to see what happens which will hopefully be the country getting itself together. We do owe the Iraqi people getting their infrastructure back together. Perhaps it's time for those war profiteers to get it done and get out. They are making the big bucks...let them provide themselves with their own protection for those big tax bucks. Why should our soldiers which are paid crappy combat pay have to be in danger for the carpetbaggers that Rumsfeld and Cheney hired? My reasons are not for politics however but for human lives at risk, both ours and the Iraqis.

I think as long as Rummy, Deadeye Dick and the Shrub are in charge, we'll have problems. They caused this mess and it is painfully obvious that there was no plan to manage it one they 'brought it on' with their 'shock and awe' bs.

[abburdlen]

18. "...even with bush and rumsfeld running the show?"

There's the rub isn't it? Those that are running the show are no more likely to safely remove US forces as they are to ratchet down the rhetoric against Iran or Syria.
I don't want our troops there, but it seems to me the quickest way to get that done would be removing this administration from power.
Once that's done there can be a discussion on how best to restore some stability to the entire region.

[welshTerrier2]

20. "once that's done"?

i'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "once that's done" ... are you saying that we need to successfully impeach bush AND cheney and remove them from office before we can even think of withdrawing ... and how likely is it that we could remove them from office?

or are you saying that we have to remain in Iraq through January, 2009 when the next president takes office ... and then we still could not withdraw because it would take time to "establish" a new, better policy ...

are you calling for keeping US troops in Iraq until January, 2009 and beyond? is it in the best interests of the US OR even the Iraqi people to do that? i don't think the Iraqi people will tolerate our presence for much longer ... and why should our troops continue to sacrifice their lives for perhaps another 2.5 or even three years? that just makes no sense to me ...

[abburdlen]

28. I simply don't understand

I don't understand what our calls for removing troops accomplishes. The majority of Americans think it was a mistake to go into Iraq. The majority of Americans want some sort of troop reduction. Hell, the majority of Americans didn't want Bush to be in the Oval office in the first place yet here we are...

Impeachment would be nice but I'd be happy with some sign of any accountability for this administration. Right now the Congress and the Court are doing little to stop the White House from trampling over the Constitution and even if they did raise objections Bush would just continue to ignore them. Perhaps after the mid-terms with the House and the Senate not rubber stamping something will change.

[welshTerrier2]

32. "what our calls for removing troops accomplishes"

that's a very interesting statement ... in fact, one might extend that thought to all political speech ... why say anything to anyone about any issue?

this would be especially true when the opposing party controls the entire government ...

but isn't political speech about more than just immediate outcomes? isn't it important for us to speak out on what we believe?

what calling for troop withdrawal or any other position we might take on any issue accomplishes is that it sets in motion a process of educating other citizens about our beliefs ... we stand up and make our case ... what's the alternative?

the hope is that we inspire people who agree with us to see that a constituency exists and that perhaps they, or we, should seek office to bring about the vision we have for a better world ... the hope is that we will eventually put sufficient political pressure on our current "representatives" that they will finally decide to actually represent us ... isn't lobbying for a position and building political muscle a major part of what democracy is all about?

do you really see standing up and speaking out on issues as accomplishing nothing? is it not clear that the online political community is rapidly increasing its strength and is being taken more and more seriously by the traditional political community ... don't underestimate the power of speaking out on issues; the results we're seeking may be slow to arrive but with each voice we are gaining power ... and "they" know it ...

[abburdlen]

44. You are right.

It is important to speak out on our beliefs. And there are times it hearing someone (or millions of someones) stating a truth before others are comfortable saying it aloud.

I suppose I'm just becoming terminally pessimistic about the whole situation. This administration has turned the entire region into a mess and I'm not sure even the most gifted minds on our side can help turn situation around.

[Upfront]

19. I do.

End it now!

[w8liftinglady]

21. yes...maybe 2 years ago,I wouldn't have...but

this has become a clusterf^ck,and our troops are sitting ducks...and now they want to send MORE to baghdad!?Get these kids out of there now.They've had time to get their act together.

[rock]

22. "immediate" is a little late, but "now" would be good

[win_in_06]

23. No.

I believe an immediate withdrawal would not support the best interests of the US. I think it is best to maintain a presence there.

Having a permanent military presence in the middle east will provide leverage in our future dealings with Iran, Syria, et al.

[Totally Committed]

24. So, will you be enlisting, then?

They've upped the enlistment age to over 40 now for most branches of the service. I'll be looking forward to hearing from you how your tour of duty goes, and how you feel when it's over. Good luck.

TC

[Exiled in America]

31. I'm not sure what it is, but something about your response bugs me

I support the immediate withdraw of troops from iraq.

But something about your response to a fellow DU'er who is concerned that perahps an immediate withdraw isn't in the best interests of the United States really bugs me.

Maybe its the fact that we have an all-volunteer army, so the people serving in Iraq right now made a free and volitional choice to join that Armed forces, know what that would entail.

Maybe its the fact that I cringe every time someone on our side takes a "either you're with us or your with the terrorists" attitude towards an issue, rather than being at least a little bit open to the idea that someone with another point of view might raise a valid point...

Maybe its the fact that such a glib response seems to deny that this is a pretty complicated issue. Immediate withdraw, though I support it, would have some potentially very ugly consequences. Staying in Iraq, or even a phased withdraw would also have some potentially very ugly consequences associated with it too. It's not a simple or easy cut-and-dried thing.

I and think its rude to treat it as such.

[Totally Committed]

38. I'm tired of people having these responses to a subject as serious

as this with absolutely no thought as to what the people actually there are going through, what it means to be in a war zone, and how easy it is to say we should have permanent bases in a place from the comfort of their easychairs. I'm sorry, it's not a glib response at all -- it's visceral and it's angry. I'm fed up with armchair worriors who are "concerned" about our presence in the region, and what that means for this country, with absolutely no intention of being present there themsleves. Republicans do it all the time, and it is no less infuriating when it comes from another Democrat.

We no more belong in the Middle East than Dubai belongs owning our ports.

So, sorry for the tone (I was and am fed up to the teeth with this mind-numbing violence) -- THAT I will apologize for, but the sentiment stands. If you want a military presence in a place we don't belong in the first place, enlist and go there yourself. It's time our kids came home. Period.

TC

[Dr Fate]

49. Yup. I agree. n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

48. Siging up for service is indeed a "simple or easy cut-and-dried thing."

There is a recruiting office in every town.

Sorry, but anyone who supports war needs to be physically willing to be killed or have his genitals blown off.

The time for being considerate of people's feelings is LOOOONG over- this is not Mr. Roger's Neighborhood or a garden party- this is a war. An illegal, multi-billion dollar war based on lies & propaganda.

It's a complicated issue, sure- but if someone advocates sending others off to illegal, propaganda-based wars, its a fair question to ask them when they too are going.

[Exiled in America]

81. Not really.

It would be a fair question if the people who were going were going against their will.

They're not.

They volunteered. We have an all volunteer army. We don't have a draft.

So someone saying, I don't think the people who volunteered to do this stuff should come home immediately because I think it might be better to do that anyway, while not volunteering to do the stuff yourself isn't contradictory at all.

If you didn't want to be there you shouldn't have joined the army.


(I keep waiting to see if anyone is going to bring up the only argument that beats this, but so far no....)

[Dr Fate]

82. What is this "wants to be there" crap?

I thought that up to 90% of the population, depending on the poll, supported invading Iraq. That means they support the notion that they too, may be needed for the war effort. Well over half of the population "wanted to be there"- they said so in polls & at the vballot box.

Of course we know, if most folks had REALLY thought about whether they had to support the war effort, we would not be at war and we would pull out.

Whoever said that any given soilder "wants to be" in a war that he finds out is based on lies?

Your argument helps absolutely nothing- who is stopping supporters of the war from volunteering just like the others?

It is indeed contradictory for able bodied adults to "support" a war that they refuse to volunteer for.

[Exiled in America]

84. nope, that's not the argument...

We have an all volunteer army. Period.

When you volunteer, you know that part of what you volunteer for is the potential that you'll be sent to war. The reasons for war have LONG been suspect, and that's really irrelevant. What's relevant, is that when you join, there's no illusion that somehow being sent into combat isn't part of what you're signing up for.

When "90%" of the population supported invading iraq, they supported the people who volunteered for the job being sent to do the job. Of course they didn't want the job for themselves, that's why they didn't enlist. But those who DID did so of their own free will.

So, when someone who is not in the army says he thinks the army might need to stay deployed for a little bit longer for the good of the country, there is nothing hypocritical about the fact that he doesn't run right out and enlist. They people who DID enlist knew what they were signing up for.

(Now, again - I'm 60% behind this argument, but 40% of me recognizes that there is one HUGE counter-argument to this reasoning that no one has yet to make. I continue to be curious to see if anyone will...)

[welshTerrier2]

29. some questions for you

first, thanks for responding ...

you cited as your reason for remaining in Iraq "future dealings with Iran, Syria, et al" ...

question one is: does the US have a right to continue occupying a sovereign nation as part of its non-Iraq geo-political objectives? in other words, if your argument is NOT that we should stay to benefit the hosting country, what right do we have to remain there?

second, why remain in Iraq as opposed to either an "over-the-horizon" force or in terms of beefing up our troop strength at the many non-Iraqi US bases throughout the Middle East? you talked about a permanent presence in the Middle East but didn't clarify whether you're included Iraq as a location ...

third, based on your username, do you believe the policy you're advocating, i.e. a permanent troop presence in Iraq, would be politically beneficial for the Democratic Party?

[win_in_06]

30. some answers

one: We should only remain there as long as the duly elected govt requests our prescence, which I believe is a benefit to them.

two: Having boots on the ground in a country that is adjacent to both Iran and Syria is preferable to having air bases in Qatar or Turkey.

three: Yes, I do believe it would be beneficial for the democratic party to hold this position.

[Dr Fate]

50. We still want to know when you will be heading for desert.

Or is that just for "those other people?"

[citizen snips]

25. yes

n/t

[electron_blue]

26. yes, this is easy, i've been against this from the beginning

[patrice]

27. Yes.

Iraqis can't "stand up" because they are too factionalized. In other words, there will never be enough to "stand up" to make a difference. This is not our fault. We should go home.

[Exiled in America]

33. Yes, though I do so with a heavy heart

I don't believe our continuing military presence in Iraq is ever going to make things better. I also believe we were wrong to invade Iraq in the first place. I also believe our interests have never been seriously about improving the lives of the people there. For all of those reasons, I think we need to get out now.

But unlike some people here, I don't believe that after the US leaves Iraq will suddenly become this beautiful utopia where everyone lives in peace and happiness. No, I believe its a catch-22. If we stay its going to lead to civil war, when we leave its going to lead to civil war.

So, and not to sound curt or selfish, better to at least get our boys and girls out of there rather then continue to let them come home in body bags.

[welshTerrier2]

35. "this beautiful utopia"

i agree with everything you said except the part of some people here believing "Iraq will suddenly become this beautiful utopia" ...

truthfully, i've never seen anyone make that argument on DU ... the argument i do see all the time is exactly the one you made: there will be civil war in Iraq and throwing US troops in the middle of it will not help either the Iraqis or the Americans ...

[Stinky The Clown]

34. I used to think there was something to be gained by staying .....

.... but no more. Out now. Period. Under the terms you laid out .... as soon as the safety of our guys allows.

Let me go back and explain my earlier view and my intellectual journey to my current position.

I was never, ever in favor of the invasion of Iraq. Not ever. But, once Il Dunce got us there, we had a different set of real facts to deal with and I changed my thinking to 'what do we do now'? I may not have endorsed being there, but the reality was, my opposition notwithstanding, there we were. I pretty much held the view of Colin Powell with his 'Pottery Barn' thing. I saw us having an obligation to fix what we broke. Now this was very early in our occupation ... when there still seemed to be hope and before it totally turned to shit. (Mind you, through **all** of this time, memories of Viet Nam were with me pretty much constantly.)

It **very** soon became clear to me that our presence there was not part of the solution, but rather, a HUGE part of the problem. And that led me to my current views on the whole thing.

I still feel some level of obligation to the citizens of Iraq - of **all** persuasions - to return to them their lives and livelihoods and way of life. But since we're only making it worse by being there, I'm not at all sure what we can do to make things any better.

Of one thing I am VERY clear. ****WE**** need to work toward impeaching and then criminally trying the members of this administration that put us into Iraq and then set the world aflame.

The short list, for me, includes, in order, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush, Gonzo, Powell, and Tommy Franks. (There are many more who had supporting roles and need to also be tried.)

That last one may surprise some folks who know me to be a pretty die hard military supporter. In my view Franks failed in his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and to refuse to follow an illegal order. He HAD to know what they were up to. There is a very tiny outside chance he was duped, and that's why we have trials. So we can know if he knew or if he didn't.

[welshTerrier2]

36. no '08 Dems?

squirreled in some remote corner of the DU archives, and not asking for any details not yet disclosed, do i, who possesses a memory that could readily be stored on one small piece of grape sliced to accommodate a sellout crowd at a Yankee game, recall that you had a "secret candidate"?

i raise this because i do NOT see any of the FMC's (frequently mentioned candidates) who support the POV you, or frankly any of the others who responded to this thread, hold ...

perhaps better in its own thread, the question is something like: what the hell is going on in our party when the prominent candidates seem to refuse to represent what is clearly a large (majority?) and growing segment of the Democratic Party's constituency ... it seems to me that something has gone horribly wrong for this "un-representative" situation to have occurred ... the question then becomes: exactly what has gone wrong and how do we, as a party, remedy the problem?

as for all the trials you called for, my response is that we may have more pressing business right now as a nation ... my view is "let the executions begin" ... we can try them when we "get a moment" ...

[Stinky The Clown]

42. "let the executions begin" ... we can try them when we "get a moment" ...

I can get behind that!

As to your serious question ...... I think I'm likely a bit more forgiving of our 'potential candidates' than you might be (I don't know that to be fact and you can answer it or not .... doesn't matter.), but I'm still willing to give them a bit of slack. To be sure, there are some who are pretty hawkish sounding with lots of 'stay-the-course-lite' sentiments, but there are others (the ones to whom the benefit of my slack is extended) who have had evolving views. I have no idea if my views are correct or not. I have no idea if they know more of the details than me or not. Unlike some on our side, I do not necessarily hold early votes to fund the IraqAdventure against them out of some knee jerk reaction or hardened view. I have had my own views change, so why not give them the same right to change their views?

I also think that we fail to hear all they have to say on the matter. I can't honestly say what, let's say, John Kerry thinks about all aspects of it. Or what John Edwards thinks about all aspects of it. I **do** know that both men (and most of the other 08 hopefuls) feel *today* that we need to find a way to get out. Further, while I may want them out now, some of the candidates are more nuanced than that. Clark has been pretty clear that we can't just leave, but thinks that we *do* need to get out. That would make my differences with him a matter of timing, not intent.

So, while I hold certain views, its easy for me. I don't have to (potentially) implement them and then deal with the aftermath. That's not to say that I'm willing to compromise my personal views to suit thiers. But it is to say that I will judge them not by a single statement, but by the totality of their careers; therin lies the *best* clue as to what they would likely do if they actually could do something.

[welshTerrier2]

45. forgiveness: i'm afraid i used up most of my stash

I think I'm likely a bit more forgiving of our 'potential candidates' than you might be

there's a couple of responses to this ... one is that i generally focus on the "now" ... it troubled me very, very deeply to see so many Democrats vote for the IWR ... i pleaded with Kerry's staff to have him vote against it ... i saw it as a failure to understand just how evil bush and the neocons are ... it was very poor judgment ... but i have "forgiven" those who voted for the IWR ... they were wrong; it was a vote for war no matter how much others spin it; it was very poor judgment ... but we need to focus on who's with us today ... so on this, i am quite forgiving ...

i am less forgiving of the overall party in a more global sense, however ... it is deeply, deeply troubling to me that so many Democrats want "out now" and yet not a single, prominent Democrat represents our views ... whether they are more informed or not, something is wrong when views on the most critical issue facing our country don't find prominent representation in either of the two major parties ... exactly what kind of democracy are these people running?

as for judging on a single statement versus the totality of their careers, i think both are appropriate ... perhaps unlike yourself, i will eliminate candidates based on a single position if that position is on a critical issue and i strongly disagree with it ... absent that situation, i do look at the full record weighting priorities on an array of issues based on my beliefs ...

at this point, it is completely beyond my comprehension how any reasonable person can call for more occupation in Iraq ... i've listened to all sorts of idiocy from both parties for almost 4 years now (back to a time just before the IWR vote) ... i've heard Wes Clark's "brief window of opportunity" something like two years ago - he was talking about a few months ... i've heard John Kerry's "benchmarks" ... i've heard from a handful of pottery barners ... that's worked out real well ... "we broke; we have to fix it" - yeah, how about "we broke it and then we broke it some more and then we killed most of the Pottery Barn employees and blew up the store" ...

there's not much room for forgiveness anymore ... the whole bunch of them have tap danced and twisted and equivocated and revised their views and apologized for their votes and still, they are nowhere ... it's time to get out ... those who think we should remain so bush and rumsfeld and their puppet regime in Iraq can make things better are truly delusional ...

[Totally Committed]

47. I couldn't agree more:

i am less forgiving of the overall party in a more global sense, however ... it is deeply, deeply troubling to me that so many Democrats want "out now" and yet not a single, prominent Democrat represents our views ... whether they are more informed or not, something is wrong when views on the most critical issue facing our country don't find prominent representation in either of the two major parties ... exactly what kind of democracy are these people running?

TC

[ShortnFiery]

37. Yes, but NO re-deployment to Lebanon, no way! eom

[Sparkly]

39. Under this administration, YES

Had there been a Kerry (or other Democratic) administration who might have been able to use the military effectively -- for example, disarming militant factions, maintaining security on the streets, training Iraqi forces, bringing in international oversight, sending in lots of diplomatic advisors, etc. -- then MAYBE the military could serve the purpose of enabling a real political solution and establishing peace.

BUT...

Under this administration, no matter how many "plans" Democrats keep coming up with, it's not going to happen. At this point, I don't even think these clowns have the credibility to get other leaders to do anything. Nobody wants to deal with it, because they know the people of their own countries would have their heads.

The only question left is what a Democratic president can do in 2009, if anything. God knows what the situation will be like by then.

[bemildred]

40. Hell yes. Start driving South today. nt

[AtomicKitten]

43. Immediate withdrawal.

Bush has changed the ME alright. It is more unstable now than ever. Iraq has turned into a nightmare that will only be exacerbated by our continued presence.

[Dr Fate]

46. As immediate as physically possible. Yes. n/t

n/t

[Recursion]

51. What do you mean by "immediate"?

As in, everybody out in the next 24 hours? No. It needs to start soon, but it needs to be done in an orderly and disciplined fashion that leaves as much of the infrastructure in place as possible. Given the size of our deployed force, that could take weeks to plan and months to implement. So, if by "immediate" you mean "put them all on planes today", I'm not for that. If by immediate you mean "start concrete plans to phase them out as soon as possible today", I'm for it.

[welshTerrier2]

55. "immediate"

did you read the entire OP or just the subject line? i provided a very specific definition of "immediate" ...

[Recursion]

60. "As quickly as their safety allows" is more vague than you think

And entails a lot of questions about how much interior security you're willing to give up for each day you move a deployment home forward, and how much infrastructure you intend to leave in place. This occupation is a logistical nightmare to begin with (we supply them by land from Kuwait, for pete's sake...) and a "hot" withdrawl is never easy.

Would you want to establish a heavier security cordon along the north-south highways before the withdrawl, for instance? That could delay the withdrawl for several weeks, and could cost dozens of US lives (and no telling how many Iraqis) but might save hundreds if it prevents attacks on withdrawing troop transports. That's just one example.

[welshTerrier2]

63. "their safety allows"

if your point is that there are numerous complexities involved with determining the pace and strategy for withdrawal, that's fine with me ...

my view is that the military experts on the scene should be given the directive to "withdraw all the troops as quickly as their safety allows" ... i am not a military expert and would defer to the military's technical expertise as to methods and pace ...

my concern is focused on the directive they should receive; implementation details, as i've specified, should be based on their judgment as to how to best protect our troops ...

[SaveElmer]

52. No...need to be phased...

Not only for the safety of US troops, but to prevent a revenge bloodbath of huge proportion...

Those that aided the US in any way will be slaughtered if we just up and leave...

We should not have gone in in the first place, but since we have we have to attempt to mitigate the damage. And some semblence of an operating government needs to be in place.

George Bush is not competent enough to do this, so unfortunately I believe until we get a Democrat in there, things will remain as they are for another 18 months...as sad as that is.

[Dr Fate]

53. Were you in support of the invasion initially?

???

[SaveElmer]

56. No I was not...

I felt like Howard Dean did, and he has turned out to be correct, that we would just attract every terrorist in the middle east to Iraq. Last time I checked btw, Dean was not for an immediate withdrawl either.

[Dr Fate]

57. Okay- I wanted to clear that up. Thanks for responding. n/t

n/t

[SaveElmer]

61. No problem...actually

Colin Powell's presentation at the U.N. gave me pause...but I ended up being persudaed that even if they did have some weapons it still wasn't justified...

And as we now know, Powell's presentation was all Bullshit!!!

[welshTerrier2]

59. 18 months?

i'm assuming you meant 30 months? is that correct? from July, 2006 to January, 2009 is about 30 months ...

and then the question remains, does the continued US occupation of Iraq during that timeframe "prevent a revenge bloodbath of huge proportion" or aggravate it?

and what about the cost to the US and its troops and the troops' families? what about spending another $300 BILLION or more? what about keeping our troops there as a civil war rages? and what exactly are we doing to help suppress the civil war? and how weakened is our overall military preparedness should other needs arise?

i completely support your concerns for doing what we can for the Iraqi people; i just can see how more of the same does much of anything ... most reports have indicated our troops have already disengaged and are squirreled away in remote bases inside Iraq ... i think they're there to guard the new Big Oil ventures ...

[SaveElmer]

62. Yeah sorry about the math...

You are right....

No matter what this is not gonna be good...I just think we have an obligation to those in Iraq who put their trust in the U.S. To abandon them now to slaughter would jut be unconscionable...

Perhaps if we take back COngress we can mitigate this somewhat by at least providing the troops what they need, and making sure the money that is spent is going to the correct places...and not into Halliburton's pocket!

[welshTerrier2]

64. the problem i have with this is ...

i just can't see how US troops are, or could be, making a difference ... i don't believe we can prevent the inevitable full-scale civil war in Iraq ... whether we leave now or in a year or in 10 years, the road to stability in Iraq does not and cannot rest with the presence of the American military ...

i agree with your statement that To abandon them now to slaughter would jut be unconscionable...

unfortunately, to do the same in 30 more months is equally unconscionable ... that's the fundamental problem ... you can't get there from here ... that's why i think we have to get the hell out of there now ... i see NOTHING positive that can come from continued occupation ... i think nothing positive has happened and i think nothing positive will happen ...

[SaveElmer]

65. Well that is the crux of it...

I think with competent leadership here it can be done...I think a Democrat can provide that. Someone who sees the world as it really is, not the juvenile black and white pollyanna image of those now in control.

I do think U.S. troops are keeping the lid on, and we have to ask them to hang on until we get someone in there to do the job correctly!

And thanks for the civil conversation on this...it is relatively rare on this topic! I appreciate it!

[welshTerrier2]

67. "civil conversation"

appreciate that, SaveElmer ...

i noticed they stuck one of those "flame" icons on this thread ... i always find that so frustrating ... just because one or two sub-threads got a little heated doesn't mean the entire thread should be characterized as a flamewar ... once in a while i try to set a good example ...

i noticed you have a Hillary icon ... one of my little DU campaigns is to try to push for reforms in the party ... one of the very significant problems i think the party faces is that we really are badly divided, especially over the war, and we lack adequate communication and forums to try to find some common ground ...

our elected representatives are doing a miserable job getting out to their constituents and 1. listening to the people and 2. explaining their views and their votes ... the result? poor democracy, a divided party and a failure to be adequately inclusive on issues ... this really stinks and nothing is being done about it ... i would like to see every elected Democrat hold regular forums in their districts to really hear from and speak to us common folks ... the rift in the party may not cost us this November but it is going to kill us sooner or later if things don't change ...

[SaveElmer]

71. Yeah I think you are largely right...

Money does need to be taken out of politics...especially corporate money...and I think most politicians (Democrats at least), would love to not have to constantly be raising money. I think most (not all) politicians are basically decent people stuck in a system with alot of inertia behind it. And since Republicans are less anxious to reform the system, as they are the primary beneficiaries of corporate dollars, Democrats can't unilaterally disarm themselves.

To my mind public financing would solve all these problems.

In the meantime, we have an election to win. My gut tells me Hillary is the toughest candidate we have, and the only one really , who has successfully fought back against the Republican sleaze machine. However, that does not mean I would not happily support any of the Democrats so far mentioned if they got the nod. We have an excellent field actually.

It does suck that threads on the war turn into flame wars so quickly...I think more common ground could be arrived at with a more civil tone!

[Stinky The Clown]

77. "i noticed they stuck one of those "flame" icons on this thread ... "

In all fairness, that happens when any thread hits 50 replies. It has nothing to do with the content of the thread and is not a mod-controlled function.

[welshTerrier2]

78. who knew?

thanks, H2S !!!

[Stinky The Clown]

76. Elmer ..... My thinking used to be right along side yours ......

.... so while I'm disagreeing strongly with you, I hope you'll take it as being respectful.

We can accomplish exactly **nothing** by staying. That bloodbath of US supporters will happen. That civil war we all fear? Its already started. That last little hope for some good to be accompished? There's simply no way - our troops can't even go out among the population without drawing fire; and even the so-called pacified areas are regressing.

I also feel an obligation to make some effort to fix what we broked. But our being there does nothing but make things worse. I truly cannot see one iota of good that can come from our staying.

And all of that is said without even addressing the cost to us in lives and money.

[SaveElmer]

79. There is one thing however...

There has never been competant leadership in the U.S running the Iraq "war." It hasn't been tried.

Right now because of their guts and fortitude, U.S. troops are keeping the lid on...barely. Of course there are the suicide bombings etc, but if we were to withdrawl quickly, those would look like minor incidents compared to what would happen.

I think we need to ask the troops to hang on until we can get competant leadership in there - someone who does not have a juvenile, black and white, view of American power and its uses. We get a Democrat in there, and I think any of our candidates could do the job, to actually engage this problem head on, in a mature and intelligent fashion, I think it is possible to mitigate the damage that has occurred, and leave there with some semblence of stability.

I respect what you are saying, and I know our presence there is the root cause for all of these problems. However, while I was against invading in the first place, now that we are there and have caused this mess, I think we (as a country) have an obligation to try to at least give the Iraqi's a chance before we leave.

[Stinky The Clown]

80. Here ....... take a sip of this .......

---> imagine picture of Clown Elixir here <----

Just keep reading and absorbing. That's how my view was changed. That and a healthy dose of critical thinking. Not to say you're not concerned - I believe you are at least as concerned as anyone - or to say you're incapable of critical thought. Having walked too many miles in the same shoes you're wearing, I know **exactly** where you're coming from.

[theanarch]

54. an unequivical "yes"...

...and the sooner the better; in fact, seeing American's hanging on to the pads of helicopters taking off from the Green Zone building tops minutes ahead of the bullets (a la our paniced flight from Saigon) would have a most salutory and sobering effect on the hopelessly enerverated US public. Thanks to Junior's short-sightedness and incompetent bungling, Iraq was condemned to a civil war the moment the invasion began. There is absolutely nothing that anyone--Americans, Iraqis, the UN, etc--can do to stop what has been an established fact for the past two years (that anyone can still ask IF a civil war MIGHT occur is idiocy beyond belief); like a fever or illness with no known medical cure, it is something that simply has to run its course. The best the international community can do is establish safe zones for refugees and support those who will fill them, to a degree far beyond the neglectful, inadequate compassion shown the millions of victims of Israel's many aggressions.

[The Count]

58. Yes.

[LaPera]

66. NO! I think people are making a very fine living, thank you, from the war

and I think it should continue for even more profits AND to help our economy...also it gives our poor kids a chance to see the world...Now, if they would simply learn to duck!

[welshTerrier2]

72. nice!

well, you got me with that one ... that's the problem with all us lefty extremists - we hate to see anyone make a buck ...

[bugbones]

68. Yes

[welshTerrier2]

73. wow - a one word first post!!

welcome to DU, bugbones!!!

you've said very little but you've said it all!!

[alvarezadams]

69. No

Believe it or not this very progressive peacenick needs a caveat before agreeing.

We made the mess. It is impossible for us to clean it up but we cannot let the country become Balkanized without at least an effort to provide some stability.

It is a pity that we've alienated most of the world and that most of our misadmin considers the Arab League as the enemy. Ideally we should admit to our mistake, apologize profusely, offer aid to the Arab League for them to provide peacekeepers - and get the hell out.

So the caveat is that we leave once we can have something other than a vacuum in place. Alternately or additionally, if we got off our high horse and stopped insisting on a united Iraq, the problems could be solved PDQ - even if it means massive displacement. It couldn't be worse than what's happening now.

[LaPera]

70. So let's keep occupying for say what another 50 years...Think that might

do the trick? (At least until the oil runs dry, anyway).

Then things MIGHT get better if we stay and agree with Bush's lies and filthy imperialism and each day your kid dies or mine?

For what, again? .........to stabilize.......for how long is enough?

How long?

And what inevitable are we going to prolong to give YOU some piece of mind that our occupation in this far away land we have no business in except only for business, is long enough? While each day yours & my children DIE! (So what..... they are only poor kids who couldn't afford college).

This is NOT a movie, it doesn't just get better and a happy ending comes with the ticket.

[alvarezadams]

74. Of course not

I'd rather have our troops out YESTERDAY. Yet two wrongs don't make a right; how would you feel if the actions of our "elected" government resulted, not in the death of 100,000, but perhaps 2 million because we irresponsibly left a vacuum?

Again, my caveat is more "theoretical" than anything else. Considering our misadmin's incompetence in foreign policy matters we have little chance of being replaced by an acceptable coalition.

There is not going to be a pretty solution to all this, no matter what happens.

Anyways, I'm surprised that you seem to place more value on children from one country than of those of another.

[LaPera]

75. Thank you, your words are my inspiration....

"There is not going to be a pretty solution to all this, no matter what happens."

Support our troops,

Not the occupation,

Bring our troops home,

NOW!

Fuck the excuses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ndcohn]

83. Nope, not immediateky, i don't support that.

I'll start by saying that i was/am absolutely opposed to this war. the extent or my knowledge on military affairs told me 150k wasn't enough to secure the country, my studies of history told me that we were only going to cause more violence, my understanding of international affairs said that this would ultimately detrimental to American foreign policy and our standing, and most importantly my conscience was deeply troubled by the precedent of preventative war and the horrors it would cause on such a shaky basis.

That said, I fear the consequences of precipitous u.s. withdrawal. I think that the already horrific situation in Iraq would be drawn to total chaos if u.s. troops were immediately withdrawn. I think that total dissolution, Iranian intervention, and perhaps genocidal conflict is possible if we immediately pull out. Here is the way I think about it – Iraq is a potential Sudan that WE CAUSED. Just as we were, and still are obliged to contribute to a solution to the Darfur crisis, we are absolutely morally bound to doing everything we can to prevent that scenario in Iraq.

The reason why I wonder if perhaps there is the potential for us to be beneficial in Iraq is that we have had NO strategy. The only way I would support further occupation of Iraq is if we developed a series of benchmarks which would constitute the conditions necessary for a more stable Iraq. Talk to the Iraqi government, how many Iraqi security forces would be necessary, what does unemployment need to be at, blah blah blah. Then I would further demand a concrete strategy as to HOW we will achieve that. Bring in the NGOs, focus HARD on infrastructure, spend the money – its worth it if maybe it worked. If the government did this – by 12 months we should start drawing down if we haven’t already, and we damn well better be gone by 18.

However, since that clearly won’t be happening in the status quo…
I think that we need to pull out over a few months, gradually, but rapidly drawing down our troop numbers. I would REALLY hope that this would coincide with MASSIVE support to the Iraqi government in those 6-9 months to do EVERYTHING we can to create conditions for atleast a semi-stable Iraqi state which might be able to hold together in the absence of u.s. forces.

I really hope that people understand why this is such a difficult issue. I know that its really clear for some who say we should just pull out now, and others who support indefinite occupation; unfortunately, for me this isn’t clear. It confounds me both morally and practically, and this really is a difficult issue. I am very progressive across the board, particularly on foreign policy, but my liberal internationalist humanitarianism which says we should massively support anti-poverty/aids efforts, peacekeeping, etc. also tells me that we can’t just pull out immediately. I think that we should be more respectful for other peoples opinion on this issue because I think that there are reasons completely consistant with our ideological and progressive positions which stand opposed to rapid withdrawal. This is not simple. If it was, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.