Posted on 10/13/2006 10:50:20 AM PDT by 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
There was an article posted here some time ago, where a brit politician was unhappy and called Pres. Bush a name. He was upset, he said, because they (the leftists) had been promised 'the road map' in exchange for support in iraq.
WAYR?
Occupying a nation that has faced an overwhelming military defeat is a lot different than sending a glorified version of the Peace Corps to maintain law and order in a Third World sh!t-hole.
A closer parallel would be Korea. Did we pull out in 1953? How much has it cost to provide a shield over South Korea and Japan (and Taiwan)for fifty-six years? The flaw in Nixon's plan was not leaving a trip-wire force along the 17th Parallel as we did along the 38th parallel in Korea and in West Berlin in Germany, as a guarantor of good faith.
This author knows absolutely nothing. What a fool
Bush 41 caved to the UN.
There's also been an intervening event (on 9/11/01, I think) since the first Gulf War that rather altered the landscape.
That was my first question.
There is abolutely no discussion about this on the ground that I've heard.
More leftist speculation and wishful thinking, I imagine.
I'm just a tad skeptical of an article with no link that ends with a quote from John Kerry.
150,000 men is hardly a peace corps contingent. The Russians, of course, had a much larger force in Afghanistan with less result that we have in that country, and still have not pacified Czechen despite a much higher butcher's bill than we have paid.
"Imagine watching hundreds of thousands or millions fleeing."
If it follows the Vietnam model, many Iraqis will be deemed too close to Americans.
They will flee to America for permanent resident, then citizen status.
My area of Orange County is home to the largest Vietnamese population, outside Vietnam. Largely Christians and Buddhists; more conservative than otherwise. Good and proud Americans.
Therefore someplace else gets the muslim Iraqis.
From the article and it doesn't smell like leftist spew, but I have a cold so...
“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.
we defeated germany and japan - decimated them. did we do that in iraq? OK, you can make the case that this wasn't required as part of the initial invasion. But then even after that, we were reluctant to use acute US force as needed. not indiscriminate carpet bombing mind you, but a hell of alot more force then we've seen so far, especially in the sunni triangle. even to this day, we don't do it. we know material (IEDs, weapons, people) is coming in from iran and syria - do we bomb the border region? no. and on and on.
I don't know who made these decisions - my own sense for some time is that Bush has been poorly served by the decisions of the pentagon generals - Abizaid, etc. He should have been replacing them some time ago, but for whatever reason - he hasn't done it.
we've placed all out bets on the iraqis being able to come up to speed on security and political agreements. and they haven't done a very good job of that. they've made progress, but its slow, and with the american media grinding a negative message into the sheeple everyday, the political clock on being able to sustain our efforts in iraq is running out.
Enjoy things while we can. In a few years we'll cherish the memories.
On the transcripts of those interviews Mr Blair said: "I agree with every word of it."
"He sets in proper context what he is actually saying. What he is saying about wanting the British forces out of Iraq is precisely the same as we're all saying. Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq when the job is done."
Mr Blair said when Sir Richard talked about the troops' presence exacerbating problems in Iraq, he thought he was "absolutely right".
"I've said the same myself, in circumstances where the Iraqis are ready to take over control of areas and we're still there."
In places like Basra, the presence of British troops was still "absolutely necessary", he said.
Mr Blair told the press conference he had received a "report" about the Daily Mail article on Thursday night, and Sir Richard was "plainly not" saying that troops should be withdrawn from Iraq now.
A spokesman for the Iraqi president said the departure of multi-national troops now "would be a disaster".
Mr Blair said he "suspected" Sir Richard had given a long interview with the Daily Mail, and that some of his comments had been taken out of context.
And so they had.
Ivan
Pissant,
you shoulda read the entire article
:)
The premise of the article is still B.S..
Sorry - DON'T READ THE ARTICLE! FreeReign says the premise of the article is B.S. !
I bow before your superior reading comprehension skills. It won't happen again your majesty.
No, he didn't. By insisting that a coalition of dozens of other nations get involved in the war, he basically guaranteed that nothing would really get resolved. The larger a coalition gets, the more "inclusive" its objectives become . . . and the more incompetent/ineffective it gets.
Bush 41 had no choice but to do whatever the U.N. wanted to do, since the U.S. had no formal (note that I did not say "legitimate") reason to even get involved in the first Gulf War other than to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions. When you go to war on the basis of enforcing resolutions by an international body that has no standing in U.S. law, you have no right to complain when things don't go your way.
There's also been an intervening event (on 9/11/01, I think) since the first Gulf War that rather altered the landscape.
It only "altered the landscape" in that it gave the current Bush administration the political support to do something (i.e., invade Iraq and topple the Ba'athist government of that country) that it had every intention of doing anyway.
Idiotic
Sorry - DON'T READ THE ARTICLE! FreeReign says the premise of the article is B.S. ! I bow before your superior reading comprehension skills. It won't happen again your majesty.
You offered your opinion on the article and I offered mine, to which you feel the need to respond with hyperbole.
LOL, whatever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.