thanks for all your help; we'll take it from here???

[welshTerrier2]

they used to tell us we could leave Iraq when a sufficient number of Iraqi troops were adequately trained ...

now, merge that idea with the idea of a fortress ... if we said the Iraqi troops had to be able to guard the whole country, some would quickly point out that some areas are still "a bit troublesome" ... but one would expect a military base turned over to the Iraqis to be secure ... even if they couldn't quell the sectarian violence that is killing scores of Iraqis everyday, at least the great fortresses should be secure ...

well, forget it ... yesterday, the US turned over an entire military base to the Iraqis ... one would hope this was done in recognition that the Iraqi forces taking charge of the base had at least obtained some reasonable level of competence ... one would hope ... as i said, forget it!

the article below describes a pathetic inability to even guard their own military base ... they have no proficiency ... they have no competence ...

if this is the best they have to offer, what exactly are we doing over there? after three and half years of this insanity, what is it we can point to? when can we leave? forget about even answering those questions ... ask yourself this: what does anyone who thinks we shouldn't leave immediately honestly hope to accomplish and what possible basis do they have for believing that it can be accomplished ...

i see no US contribution being made ... i only see the costs ...

and think of this ... some believe we must remain to prevent an all out civil war ... let's not argue here about whether an all out civil war is already in progress ... let's accept, for argument's sake, that US presence is preventing an all out civil war ... the fact is that the current state of affairs is, nevertheless, totally unacceptable ... the death rates of Iraqi civilians is already totally unacceptable ... it seems to me a better approach is to withdraw now with a warning to both sides ... the warning would be that if one side gains control and the killings of innocent civilians continues, the US will view that side as an enemy unlike the neutral position we seem to have today ...

so, if the Shia overrun the Sunnis and mass killings of civilians occur, the US will return to Iraq and crush the Shia ...

to be clear, i am not necessarily advocating that the US should return at all ... what i am saying is that this approach seems to make more sense than the current untenable stalemate ... what the US is doing now cannot be tolerated and it cannot improve ... that is an absolutely unacceptable situation ... so, something has to change ... either we withdraw NOW and let the chips fall where they may OR we withdraw NOW with a threat of returning ... picking either of those seems eminently preferable to the "we can't get there from here" situation we are mired in today ...

comments?

source: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15363243.htm

Military base turned over to Iraqi forces is looted the next day

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Hours after the British turned over a military base to Iraqi control, looters picked it clean, driving up in trucks and making off with roofing, windows, and plumbing after clashing with outnumbered Iraqi soldiers.

About 1,200 British forces withdrew on Thursday from Abu Naji, a camp near Amarah in southern Maysan province. The base had been targeted repeatedly with mortar fire, and shortly after the British left, members of the Shiite-controlled Mahdi Army passed out pamphlets claiming credit for the British retreat. The camp had been targeted for mortar and rocket fire almost daily.

Looters arrived at the camp within hours after the final British soldiers left at noon on Thursday. Iraqi soldiers put up resistance and later fired on the crowds who had gathered. There were reports of some injuries for both Iraqi forces and civilians but no fatalities. <skip>

Spokesmen for the Iraqi Defense Ministry and the British military said the departure was part of what was a planned relinquishing of control to local Iraqi forces. <skip>

"All I can say is that the British forces left the place to the Iraqi army according to a deal with the Ministry of Defense," Askari said. "The deal dictated to deliver the camps to the Iraqi forces whenever these forces reach the needed level of readiness and ability to handle the security responsibilities. More locations and camps will be delivered in the coming two months."

[SeaBob]

1. leaving Iraq

The US will leave Iraq they same way it left Korea

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Has anybody ever told you you're smart?

I would expect you've been told that. Let me just echo the sentiment.

I think that's as good an idea as any I have heard from either side of this debate - our side and the 'stay the course' side. I'm not sure how, exactly, we would reenter the country to kick the ass that needed kicking (the side that over runs and kills civilians on the other side) and then get out, but that's what military planners are for. As a broad policy, I like this a lot.

[welshTerrier2]

4. "as a broad policy"

yeah, well, it's not exactly a new idea ... the "over the horizon" idea has been pushed by Murtha, Kerry and others ...

i think what may be new here is that i'm suggesting we SHOULD NOT "just leave" without a clear warning and we SHOULD NOT just return in a neutral manner should the bloodbath worsen ... as some have very appropriately asked, "if a civil war breaks out, which side will we be in favor of?"

what is not working is a neutral (i.e. neutered) US position ... the role we're currently playing does not and cannot make any sense ... again, it is not at all clear that the US could play any positive role in a civil war ... i would not advocate for a return to Iraq under any circumstances unless a clear strategy for success could be defined ... this might very possibly require a much larger ground force than we currently have and it would be much less a peacekeeping role and much more a vanquishing role ... i couldn't say whether i would support such a policy at this time ... it's not at all clear, either, that we could muster the necessary forces to overcome whatever force ultimately prevails in Iraq ... our military is badly stretched already and the American people have had more than their fill of American military exploits in the region ...

in the end, the most important point is that we have to leave NOW because we just can't get there from here ... you gotta know when to "fold 'em" ...

btw, in addition to issuing a warning to both sides about killing civilians, i would also hold out a few carrots in the form of reparation support and other forms of non-military support for those who seek a peaceful resolution ... i have to say that i see the toppling of Saddam as the worst US military blunder in history ... Saddam was a bad guy; we needed him to be there for now ...

[Sparkly]

3. First I'll echo what Stinky said above

What I've really come to respect about your posts is how thoughtfully and honestly you grapple with the real difficulties of the situation. I think any really honest, thoughtful debate has to recognize what a completely screwed-up situation it is, and assume that we on DU all want to minimize further tragedy from it.

So thank you for that.

I think the issue is about the government. There needs to be security on the streets in order for the government to hold. The people need to accept the government in order for there to be security on the streets, to allow the government to hold. Apparently, there isn't a unified faith in that government among the people (or at least the people who want to fight it out violently -- because no doubt there are families staying in their homes, and refugees staying away from their homes, who only want SOMEthing to take hold so the fighting will stop).

Among BushCo's many blunders in this fiasco is the continued assumption that everything can be fixed by military force. They are STILL assuming that. As for Iraqis handling the military force, some generals here have said that can take many, many years. Meanwhile, I don't trust our brilliant leaders even know who they're training. They're so eager to get the numbers up, and perhaps believe they can break new recruits' other alliances, I suspect they're going lax on scrutiny. And, we're inadvertently training MANY others simply by fighting against them for so long.

So no, this "we'll stand down when they stand up" isn't going to work. Your idea is as good as any, but at this point there are more than three sides fighting. There are influences from other countries, from groups that weren't even in Iraq until BushCo turned it into a free-for-all of chaos, and perhaps from groups that didn't even exist until their streets were on fire.

I don't even think our leaders KNOW who our soldiers are fighting. I've seen this reported (I believe by the BBC or other): there are factions within factions; families fighting families; old religious or territorial or "tribal" sorts of battles; and much of the time, our people there don't know who's fighting who or why, who's supporting who or why. (So it seems we just shoot at everybody who's not clearly on OUR side -- our side being the one supposedly saying, "Stop Shooting." Crazy.)

At this point I wonder if ANYthing can hold the government together.

If we leave, yes, I expect the government to be decided upon by force. Some group -- probably supported by Iran -- would wield the deadliest force and take charge of a government. The process would be bloody, and the results would be terrible. And those who've learned to fight would continue to wage battles for a long, long time and/or seek power through terrorist acts.

I'm not sure we could identify who's doing what and go back to fight them into peace. However, this is something along the lines of what Murtha's proposed, as I understand it: redeploy to the outskirts where our troops are ready to jump back in a quell violence if need be. I'm not sure what'd happen in the meantime, other than letting the strongest warlords prevail. So I'm not sure the government would hold that way, either.

I think there's something in the PROCESS of what you're suggesting that gets to the heart of it. You know, if you're trying to get street gangs to make peace with each other and stop fighting, it helps to get some of their leaders to trust you, to find out what they want, to show them why it's better for THEM to make a compromise and stand down, etc. That's what's never happened. Supposedly, explosions alone were going to "shock and awe" them into submission. Or, we'll just kill them until only the nice, happy people are left!!

This is a process of political diplomacy on a street level, I think. It's figuring out WHO the power-holders are and digging in on various levels to persuade them that they've got something to gain if they trust and support this government. Same applies on a regional level -- TALK to Iran and Syria and persuade them that it's best for THEM to see the new Iraqi government succeed. That's the only hope I see. Military force, in a situation like this, can only support efforts like that -- not substitute for them.

But it looks like we're there to stay until BushCo is out of office. Frankly, I was surprised to hear Chimpy say that we won't leave at all "as long as he's president." Perhaps he went off script, and was supposed to say we won't leave "before the mission is complete, as long as he's president." I thought for a long time their "plan F" was to HAVE their Iraqi government "ask" us to leave, redefine "success" (for a while they were making noises like that), claim a great victory and get out, and then play down the aftermath, as if we'd left it all stable and what a pity they're screwing it up for themselves... You know? Their own "cut-and-run." But as the violence continues to escalate, they can't play it down enough to make that work.

So I don't know. But I think we can't do much of anything until January of 2009, and Heaven only knows what the situation will be like then.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. About getting out quickly. I posted this the other day

February 5, 2007. The Dem Congress votes "NO" to Iraq Funding

I never got a good answer. But as a plan to get out sooner than when Il Dunce leaves office, its about all we've got, really. Or we can use defunding as leverage to make something in the middle happen, like maybe the plan in the OP.

[welshTerrier2]

7. leverage ...

i think the defunding idea is excellent ...

here's an old post on the subject (brief though it was): http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/35

the objection i always get on DU is that it would hurt the troops ... my response to that is that all funds should be earmarked for specific operations ... this is not a declared war by the Congress ... and Congress holds the power of the purse ...

funds should be allocated to safely withdraw all Americans forces and should go for additional line items such as medical support, military family support, etc ... no monies should go to the building of permanent military bases or for sustained offensive military operations in Iraq ...

the issue of "it would only hurt the troops" is absurd ... what is hurting, and killing, the troops is remaining in Iraq ... shut off bush's budget to continue the occupation ...

the other leverage i think Democrats have is "political pressure" ... i think that's being totally squandered ... with the elections around the corner and a public way beyond sick of the endless war and occupation, Democrats should be asking for much more than "a little diplomacy" or "some kind of plan" ... that's just way to wimpy for my tastes ...

combining political pressure with Congressional reclaiming its power of the purse, a power that's been foolishly handed over to the Executive Branch with no questions asked, might be the leverage we need to change the policy ... i'm not holding my breath ...

[Sparkly]

10. "Hurt the troops" would at LEAST become a huge retail issue in 2008

I agree there's more political leverage than they're using.

I'd like to hear "fix your mess or get out!"

I'd like to hear a cry for OVERSIGHT.

Recently someone on some talking-head teevee show said something like, "Congress gave Bush everything but the one thing he REALLY needed: oversight."

But withholding funds for the mess? It's like having pigshit everywhere and determining to clean it up by withholding soap. Let's deal with the pigs and their shit. While the pigs are in charge and shitting, there's no power gained by denying soap to deal with the mess they're making.

[welshTerrier2]

6. i think Iran has the upper hand

that's a truly perfect analysis, Sparkly ... i've been warned you're the policy wonk in the family ... you've convinced me! ... although that clown ain't too bad either ...

it pained me to read your last line ... "But I think we can't do much of anything until January of 2009" ... it's not clear that's the case if the Dems take back the House and/or Senate ... if we really can't do anything until 2009, i have to think that even with a Dem president, unless the path were immediate withdrawal at that time, implementing any sort of process for progress would take 6 months to a year or perhaps much more to yield any results ... that means possibly staying in Iraq at least another 3.5 years (which means we're only at the half-way point) or MORE ...

if i'm voting on that idea, count me out ...

i believe as we increasingly fight against the will of Tehran, we are seeing the early stages of new anti-US alliances between Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela and perhaps other states ... the US has lost tremendous prestige ... the whole issue of oil and a cartel united against the US is a truly frightening prospect indeed ... all that and a government filled with oilmen ...

the point is that i believe Tehran has ZERO interest in seeking peace in Iraq or anywhere else ... and more militarism will be a devastating path for the US to follow ... i have to be honest; i just cannot "get" the "we need to involve the regional players in negotiations" ... it really sounds great ... who in their right mind would oppose "talks"?? i just don't see any possible way for talks to be productive if they could even take place ... and that's the reality: they can't take place ... bush isn't going to talk to anybody ...

my "intolerant" push for immediate withdrawal sits directly under the "yeah, but neocons are running the government" umbrella ... all the other stuff is just a bunch of "if we were in charge" ... but we're not ... of course, people keep saying the exact same thing to me about my call for immediate withdrawal ... they tell me it's meaningless because we have no power ... they say it's all just talk ... i disagree ... the difference between pushing for immediate withdrawal and pushing for things like regional diplomacy, with a focus on having no real power to control what the US does, is that putting immediate withdrawal on the table BEFORE THIS YEAR'S ELECTIONS, would create a very significant risk for the republicans ... they would really have to make a hard choice ... i don't think the same could be said for other policy changes like regional diplomacy ... immediate withdrawal gets the voters' attention; regional diplomacy, while always an idea worth trying, just can't carry the same political clout and doesn't make the differences between the parties adequately clear to voters ... at least that's how i see it ... one is clear opposition; the other "appears" to be "wonkier" and sends a fuzzier message ... it says: "bush is right to remain in Iraq but we think he should try a few new ideas we've kind of thought up" ... the problem isn't necessarily the merit of the idea but rather the perception of it by the voters ... perhaps by calling for immediate withdrawal we could, even being out of power, create the necessary political pressure in the Congress to bring about a change in course ... yeah, i know, that's all speculation ... it's really all i've got ... that and a big heap of frustration ...

[Sparkly]

9. Speculation and Frustration

Oh boy, do I hear THAT!!!

Great discussion. Interesting that you picked out my sentence, "But I think we can't do much of anything until January of 2009" -- I'd first written "we can't do anything" and then went back to add "much of..." Because I agree, the elections this year could yield something. A new commander-in-chief (and SoD, SoS etc.) is the main thing, though.

In 2009, I'm not sure what the change would or should be. When you say "immediate withdrawal," do you mean "immediate redeployment" a la Murtha, or actually bringing all of them home?

In any case, unless my notion of "Plan F" was right, I DO think we'll be there for at least 3 more years in some fashion. It'd take months logistically just to get them out of there, as I understand it.

And again, the questions to me are: what can we do, and how can we do it, to MINIMIZE bloodshed in the long run? In this case, that equation includes weighing "combatant" casualties against the HORRIBLE civilian casualties this reckless invasion has caused. (If one strategy saves 1,000 "combatant" lives while risking 10,000 more civilian lives, while another risks 10,000 "combatant" lives while risking 1,000 civilian lives -- you get the idea. God knows we ALL want a solution where the risk to civilians, in fact to ALL, is absolute ZERO.)

I agree with you that the longer we're in Iraq, the more we're weakened globally and yes, other countries have plenty of clout against us, especially regarding oil, but also increasingly economically, militarily and even politically. It's literally like watching the potential fall of an empire, from within.

I believe there's still leverage with Tehran -- with allies, via the UN. It's carrying a BIG stick, and offering a carrot as an alternative. Same even with North Korea, although with a different equation of allies and sticks and incentives.

You get back to where I am. Bush isn't going to talk to anybody anyway. And even if he tried, his credibility is SHOT -- it's ZERO. Our former allies are NOT going to go along with this Boy-King. He has nothing left to deal with. (The scary thing is that until he's replaced, that is the status of our whole nation. We are hated, weakened, devoid of credibility, and have used power not as a force for good, but as a force for greed. As you say, it's left us vulnerable and will bring us straight down -- and others we support with it -- if this kind of regime continues.)

To your contrasts between pushing for immediate withdrawal vs. regional diplomacy, I think your arguments are about retail politics -- "perception of it by the voters." I think the GOP wants to make the choice between "standing up to terrorists" and "cutting and running." That doesn't mean WE need to offer a choice between "continuing this illegitimate, costly, reckless, unproductive occupation" and "immediate withdrawal." Most are as baffled as we are about how best to deal with this debacle. "Out of Iraq now" translates, in many minds, to "Cut and Run" and let's face it: FEAR is VERY operative here.

Now I do admit, I am a bit of a "wonk." I have a great (impractical) tendency to think that if we just EXPLAIN the TRUTH to people clearly, they'll get it, and there you go! (As I've said elsewhere, I loved Tsongas and Dukakis and Mondale, and never saw Gore or Kerry as "stiff and wooden," etc. I guess I LIKE wonks, so I'm not a good judge of that as a negative. And while I'm at it, I see General Clark as something of a nerdy wonk -- in other words, honest intellectual -- not a sex symbol or John Wayne jerk -- and that's what I like about HIM.)

So I think we CAN offer an alternative in Iraq that doesn't make voters think of "cut and run" (the slogan "out of Iraq now" unfortunately, DOES do that, and it taps into people's fears as well as their sense of responsibility -- that we broke it, and need to fix it; or that if it gets worse when we leave, it's our fault, etc.). We can't offer complete success from this situation without lying. But we can still offer a stark contrast.

We've seen Democrats take positions that Republicans later adopt, as positions (without actions to back them up). Bush's stated positions echoed Gore's and Kerry's in debates -- from campaign finance reform to the assault weapons ban to which historical military ventures were/weren't mistakes to the question of what the greatest threat to our national security is to what to do about Iraq. So whatEVER Democrats say right now, the RNC will doubtless pick up and usurp as their own (doing nothing about it).

And, they paint their opponents with their own weaknesses. Bush a military weakling, Kerry a war hero: Paint Kerry as a military weakling. Bush a lying phony, Gore a record of accomplishment: paint Gore as a lying phony. They have no ideas about Iraq, Democrats offer proposals: paint Democrats as having no ideas about Iraq. You get the idea. That's their main MO.

I think the fight, retail-wise, needs to be on our terms -- offense, not defense. Play up THEIR obvious weaknesses with nothing barred.

From there, we can offer the alternative of the very POTENTIAL to get out. A "new direction" that will enable our allies to TRUST us again, with new leadership. A solution that will deal DIRECTLY with the actual problems, STOP relying on US military personnel to solve a political problem, STOP the bleeding artery to our economy, AND leave us stronger in the "War on Terror" as a result. That's what would sell, if I could be un-wonkish enough to put it on a bumpersticker.

People want to balance leaving (saving lives, money, strength) WITH being "safe" (fear of "terrorists here") AND being "responsible" (fixing what we broke).

If Democrats can assure voters that this party (or candidate) can move us rapidly in a new direction, focused on a "responsible exit strategy" that strengthens the "homeland" and can "defeat terrorists" (realistically, I don't think that's completely possible, but at least "weaken terrorists"), that's the position for winning.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. I doubt if it's a competence issue. They have no interest in dying for the

puppet government which is really the U.S. government.