US Forces to Pull out of Iraq

10-13-06 | Scott Malensek

[Blackrain4xmas]

The 1990-2006 War in Iraq might soon be over. The head of the British Army is calling for the removal of his nation’s troops. Other members of the Coalition of the Willing are preparing to leave this year as well. The Iraq Studies Group headed by former Secretary of State Baker is putting together a report to be released in December, and it will either suggest pulling American forces out of the fight and positioning them along the border of Iraq or pulling out all together. Even the Iraqi government is working to divide the nation politically along ethnic lines in preparation for the chaos to follow.

How did it come to this? Since the May 2003 “Mission Accomplished” speech declared an end to fighting with Saddam’s forces. That speech also warned of a long fight against holdouts, dead-enders, terrorists, and other forms of insurgents. Since then General Casey and other military leaders have testified before Congress several times. In their testimony the generals often said that the military had done all it could and that victory or defeat would be determined by diplomacy and politics. Make no mistake about it, the lack of victory and the likely defeat of American forces will be the result of failed diplomacy and politics.

The war in Iraq is an awful thing to watch, and incalculably worse if one is fighting it or has friends and family doing so. While there has been a clear anti-war movement since June 02, there is no pro-war movement. Instead, there are people who simply don’t want to abandon Iraqis again and then drag the war out for another 16years or more. No one WANTS this war, but some understand that whether the ship sails straight or not in the fog, at least it’s moving forward, not sitting still, and not moving backwards.

American and other Coalition forces have never lost a battle in Iraq. They never even lost a fight! So if they come home in 2006 or 2007, they will be yet another generation of Americans who were never defeated in the field, but lost yet another war. They will have lost a war to insurgent forces that were outnumbered 10:1, outgunned at least 10,000:1, and (again) they will have lost to insurgent forces that who defeated them in battle.

If the Coalition of the Willing was never defeated in battle, then how did they lose the war?

It will end with the stroke of a pen, and the click of a single mouse button. Somewhere, sometime a pen will sign an order to redeploy US forces to the periphery of Iraq where they can serve as geopolitical deterrents to Iran and Syria while being much less susceptible to insurgent attacks. Then, the order will be typed up into an email, and sent with the click of a mouse. That’s it.

It will not be a defeated American general sitting at an enemy’s surrender table who orders the removal of American troops at the demands of an insurgent leader. Instead, it will be an American politician who writes the order, and an American general who carries it out. In effect, the pullout will not be due to a defeat in the field, but due to the political decision of an American politician-President Bush or Congress.

Many will read this and recoil by saying, “Oh come on! Bush will NEVER pull out US troops from Iraq!”

He will. President Bush is an elected leader and while he is Commander in Chief of American forces he is not omnipotent. He’s accountable to a chain of command. American generals get their orders from the President, and the President will be forced to make his decision by the will and demands of Congress and the American people.

Most people “support the troops.” More than 60% of the nation no longer supports the mission. Instead polls suggest that they support the removal and/or redeployment of US forces from Iraq’s combat zones. Since that is the same objective as the insurgents, they are supporting the insurgents’ mission while “supporting the troops,” and this is where the great national divide becomes emotional to everyone.

On the one hand those who “support the troops” by supporting the insurgents’ mission goals are not bad people, but they’ve become convinced that the loss of American blood and treasure in Iraq just isn’t worth the vaguely defined victory as presented by the President. For those people victory is: an end to the loss of blood and treasure, it’s an end to the ugly scenes on their TVs every night, it’s an end to the yellow ribbons on trees in their neighborhoods, it’s an end to flag covered coffins of 20yr old men and their 18yr old widows.

The mission or objective of those who do not support the war (who support the pullout of U.S. forces and effectively support the same objective as the insurgents) is not to support the killing of Americans, but to just end it regardless of cost since they no longer see the bad effects of a redeployment or retreat. They just don’t see the point of the war anymore (if they ever did).

”Stay the course” is not a strategy if people don’t understand or see that course. It’s like sending a ship into the fog without a compass and then saying go straight. People don’t see any sort of light at the end of the tunnel because even though everyone knows what light looks like, there are those who can’t help asking, “Are we there yet?!” After fighting with, in, and over Iraq for 16years…that’s not at ALL unreasonable! “Stay the course” should be replaced with “We broke it, we bought it, and let’s not leave it in a way that makes it so our kids and grandkids have to come back yet again.”

Opposite of the “Stay the Course” theme is the “Bring the troops home” idea. It’s an idea that calls for an insurgent victory because it’s just like saying, “Let the insurgents win.” Just as “Stay the course” is a flawed sound bite, so too should “Bring the troops home” be replaced by a more accurate, “Let’s get the hell outta there, let the insurgents win, abandon Iraq to chaos, and leave the problem for the next generation to face.”

President Bush Sr. could have removed Saddam in 1991. He was afraid to do so for fear of its results. When he made that decision, the soldiers and Marines currently fighting and dying in Iraq were only 2 years old. Now, they’re 18 years old and fighting a war that should have been fought and ended 16 years ago. Back then, President Bush Sr. followed the post-Vietnam American populist strategy, “Let’s get the hell outta there, let the insurgents win, abandon Iraq to chaos, and leave the problem for the next generation to face.”

Congress and the President get their orders from me-either through my vote or through polling. If I say, “Let’s get the hell outta there, let the insurgents win, abandon Iraq to chaos, and leave the problem for the next generation to face” then Congress and/or the President will do so and accomplish the insurgents’ mission of removing U.S. forces from Iraq. If I say, “We broke it, we bought it, and let’s not leave it in a way that makes it so our kids and grandkids have to come back yet again.” Then I am supporting the American forces and supporting their mission; their efforts to bring freedom, democracy, and security to a place where-if there are none of those things-will certainly be calling my 2 year old son to don beige and brown, to carry a rifle, and to return in 16 or so years.

Some will say that the mission just can’t be accomplished-that Iraq can’t be left in a condition where the US will have to come back and fight again. I submit that 150,000 American forces have faced far tougher enemies than 20,000 Iraqi insurgents, but then again the defeat, retreat, redeployment, or cut-and-run from Iraq won’t be the result of a battlefield defeat at the hands of 20,000 insurgents. It will be at the stroke of a pen, and the click of a mouse button both of which follow my will, and your will, and the will of the American people in general. It is WE who will order the defeat of American soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen. Does our resolve for the ugliness of black ribbons on trees match that of Marines dug in and fighting in Ramadi as you read this?

“Let’s get the hell outta there, let the insurgents win, abandon Iraq to chaos, and leave the problem for the next generation to face” OR “We broke it, we bought it, and let’s not leave it in a way that makes it so our kids and grandkids have to come back yet again.”

That’s our choice.

“Now, more than ever, with our soldiers in harm's way, we must stand together and succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror.” -Senator John Kerry 11/3/04

[Blackrain4xmas]

I do not think that the Iraqis or the world are prepared to watch what happens when Dems and insurgents accomplish the mission of getting US troops out of Iraq asap.

If they think the TV is ugly to watch now...just imagine watching Baghdad turn into 1980's Beirut. Imagine watching tens or even hundreds of thousands of people dying. Imagine watching hundreds of thousands or millions fleeing. And imagine trying people trying to convince themselves that abandoning the Iraqi people to terrorist insurgents was a good thing to do.

This is the difference between chess players and checkers players.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

One person is calling for a British troop pullout and suddenly the war's over and everybody's going home? Yeah, right.

[.cnI redruM]

Nice article. Where's the link?

[HostileTerritory]

No kidding. This article is going to have the most undeserved clicks of anything on FR today.

[huck von finn]

Link?

[jrooney]

The British General in question is known to be too political and left leaning in his politics. The British soldiers in iraq are said to be very upset with his comments and disagree all the way up the chain of the command. It is being rumored he is going to be replaced because of playing politics.

[capitalist229]

IBTZ

[SF Republican]

The 1990-2006 War in Iraq might soon be over. Bill Clinton had our troops there for 8 years? News to me.

[Antoninus]

Should be in blogs...

[Alberta's Child]

President Bush Sr. could have removed Saddam in 1991. He was afraid to do so for fear of its results. When he made that decision, the soldiers and Marines currently fighting and dying in Iraq were only 2 years old. Now, they’re 18 years old and fighting a war that should have been fought and ended 16 years ago. Back then, President Bush Sr. followed the post-Vietnam American populist strategy, “Let’s get the hell outta there, let the insurgents win, abandon Iraq to chaos, and leave the problem for the next generation to face.”

This is an overly simplistic view of the issue. Bush #41 didn't "fear the results" at all -- he knew the results . . . which is why his position was thoroughly consistent with the strong public stand (adamant opposition to the use of military forces to engage in "nation-building") taken by Governor George W. Bush when he was running for the White House in 2000.

As far as this issue is concerned, Bush 41 looks more brilliant by the day.

[Blackrain4xmas]

http://www.securitywatchtower.com/archives/004168us_forces_to_pull_out_of_iraq.html#trackbacks

[OESY]

"Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight - wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and never will lose a war, because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."
-- George S. Patton, Speech to the Third U.S. Army, March 24, 1944

[dfwgator]

So do you think we should have just gotten out of Germany once Adolf put a bullet in his brain?

[Blackrain4xmas]

read the entire article

[listenhillary]

I would recommend reading the article. Sounds as if the writer is disgusted with not finishing the job.

[dfwgator]

I was responding to #11's comments, not the article.

[listenhillary]

Read the article. It will be the whim (however short sighted) of the US voter that pulls the plug on the war.

[Yo-Yo]

According to Johns Hopkins University there already has been 650,000 deaths in Iraq since 2003. That's over 600 people a day, every day, since the invasion.

How much worse can it get?

</sarcasm>

[RobbyS]

We did have troops in Saudi Arabia. The major problem is that we really don't have a competent ally in Southwest Asia, except for Israel. Now we hear the anti-war crowd turning on Israel, our only certain ally in that region.