By bob

April 12, 2008 4:18 AM | Link to this

NO TIMETABLES. YOU ARE HELPING THE ENEMY WHEN YOU SET A TIMETABLE.

By TRS

April 11, 2008 11:36 PM | Link to this

Alice - I think announced timetable is the “dirty word”. If we want to sit down with the Iraqis and put together an informal time table (and I imagine that might even be happening), I see no problem with that; but, to announce it to the world is fatally flawed in my view. I believe a presence in the area would be beneficial. We had a base in Libya for years before Kadafi and considering the dangers Iran poses, a role similiar to bases we have had in Europe and other areas would seem a reasonable thing to do.

By Alice

April 10, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

A timetable has become a dirty word - as if it tells our enemies when we will be gone so that they can take back over the Iraqi government. Any plan in business or war requires a timetable in order to set goals. In this case, we want to be clear to the Iraqi government that we should be taken seriously and that their independence from us (and the terrorists) is in the best interest of their country, but also it gives US an idea of what we should be working towards and when. For example, we decide that we would like to have 50% of our troops out by Spring 09 (only an example), then we can plan for what we need to do by Spring 09 in order to achieve that goal. If, however, circumstances have changed by then and it isn’t possible or would have negative results for Iraq, then we adjust the timetable. As far as the open-ended argument, how do we define open-ended? Do we resist an open-ended war or are we talking about a presence during peace time (I refer to the 100 years argument)? Personally, eventually I would like to see us responsibly pull out 100% - there shouldn’t be any reason for our troops to stay for 100 years in war or peace.

By TRS

April 9, 2008 11:50 PM | Link to this

I don’t believe the commitment is open ended. The plan was to build up to regain control and continuing to train the Iraqi troops. To a large degree that has happened. The next step to to draw down troops and see if the Iraqis can hold their own. Thats being done, perhaps not as quickly as some would like; but, Malaki is beginning to step up to the plate. Simply put I am not as pessimistic as others - I still believe there a chance to succeed and question why we shouldn’t pursue that to a logical conclusion, not in an open ended way, but one which doesn’t pull the plug precipitiously either. Keep the pressure on the Iraqis but a timetable makes no sense - it would be like the Allies telling the Germans about the D Day plans. As I understand it, the Iraqis are now footing the bill on their rebuilding projects and I would agree they should put up any surplus they may be carrying to buy some of the equipment we are furnishing them.

By Alice

April 9, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

Our goal (after the first goal of eliminating wmd went south) is to help the Iraq government be self-sustaining without us. How is increasing our presence a success or considered to be “working”? If I were to increase police presence in Dayton, I would probably decrease crime. That’s common sense, but it can’t be considered a success when our goal is to have less presence. It seems to me that the differences in sides are being blurred for political reasons - some want you to believe that it’s either pull out tomorrow or stay forever. The question is do we stay with no plan to pull out, we’ll just see how things go, or do we set a timetable for the Iraq government and pull out gradually? You can’t have a plan without having some type of timetable in mind.

By susan

April 9, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

i agree, trs, this is a decision point about the future. will we support the rebuilding of iraq as our economy goes off a cliff? will we send our sons and daughters into harm’s way so that ahmadinejad can be given the red carpet treatment by the people we are fighting to keep free? will we continue to keep vigil over a fractious tribal culture now fighting within their sects for control of oil? will we watch our military continue to degrade making us more vulnerable to attack even as we pour more money into the black hole of iraq? i wonder if it was like this when the former soviet union clung to the belief that they could continue to spend resources they didn’t have to keep up with us and still be a viable world power? ronald reagan was wise enough to recognize when he was putting the country in a position that did not serve its interests and got out. he was courageous enough to accept responsibility for a blunder and stop the losses from piling up. ronald reagan is turning over in his grave, not solely because of the damage being done to a country he loved but to the party he served. this isn’t a discussion about the past but, as santayana said best, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

By TRS

April 9, 2008 12:33 AM | Link to this

This is a discussion about the future, not the past. The surge, for whatever the reason, has lowered the violence in Iraq. There has also been political progress, albeit slow. Malaki is trying to address the Shite militia issue. The Iraqi Defense force had some desertions and demands for more money as Susan noted (about 1000 out of 15,000). Far more fought than not. That being said, their efforts required British and American support. Still, their capabilities have significantly improved and they are beginning to take on the fight rather than Americans. Worth noting, as recently as March ‘08 Bin Laden called for Jihadists to come to Iraq. A precipitious withdrawal would lead an renewed Al Quada presence in Iraq and a claim of victory when we leave. Much as I would like to emtomb Bin Laden in eastern Pakistan, for political reasons, that doesn’t look likely. As General Petraeus noted, the Iranians are up to no good. It is a reasonable assumption that should we leave at the wrong time, the Iranians would fill the power void giving them great influence over the Iraqi government and its oil. The consequences to the economy would be significant. Think $3.50/gal hits hard now? A recent Pugh poll reflects that folks are tired of the war; but, they desire any withdrawal been conducted carefully and judiciously, again as Gen Petraeus suggests. I don’t see that as open ended nor “circular”; rather, prudent and careful so as not to throw away 5+ years of effort and sacrifice. No matter who is elected, there will remain troops in Iraq. McCain will want to finish the job and neither Clinton and/or Obama would want their actions seen as causing the collapse of Iraq.

By mwm

April 8, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

The two main reasons given for this war were as follows; 1. The existence of WMD’s, specifically of the nuclear variety. 2. 9-11 and some sort of link to Iraq. Obviously, these two reasons were lies. Perpetrated by the Bush administration and the neocon agenda. And, with the use of the media and a propaganda machine, Bush and the neocon were able to convince Americans that war was the only option. Perhaps, the only person with some sense within the Bush inner circle during that time was Gen. Powell. As we remember his words, “you break it, you bought it.” Well now, the Bush neocons essentially have another tactic. They now use blackmail on congress and the American public. “If we pull out now, all H* will break loose.” Any “so called” reduction in troop strength will only happen after a buildup in troop strength. So if troop numbers go to 130,000 and it drops for a short period of time to 100,000 then, the Bush neocons can falsely assert that there is a reduction of force. In reality, numbers are being played with. And, human beings are being played with. Or, the Blackwater Mercenary company will hire more people to offset any military reduction. Bottom line is oil. And, the control of said oil. And, since oil is the primary objective, we will see something called imperialism. Iraq will have permanent American bases. And, more of our military members will either die or be scarred for life. For oil. The troops should come home. Bush and his partners in crime should stand trial.

By susan

April 8, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

currently, any draw down of troops is blocked by the circular logic that if violence is up, we have to stay but if violence is down, we have to stay. if the decision to deploy troops away from iraq to fight the war on terror someplace else is founded in circumstances on the ground then we need to identify what those circumstances are and hold the iraqis to account. the iraqi government is in budget surplus with soldiers who threaten to change sides if they aren’t paid on time. does this look familiar? this is the strategy we used to defeat the former soviet union. bankrupt them into submission. bin laden and al quaeda need never launch another attack. they are successfully using our our own strategy against us. don’t bring the troops home … put them in a fight that truly makes us more secure. afghanistan and the tribal regions of pakistan offer shelter to those who mean to do us harm. i want to see bin laden marched through times square in shackles. what is the price of that?