Out of Iraq

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Tex is right, Harlan. He certainly is as far as I'm concerned. I voted for the last option because I oppose setting a timetable. But I'd support a draw down in troops without a timetable (or at least without an acknowledged timetable) and with the flexibilty to halt the draw down at times to quell uprisings. In other words---what we've been doing recently since the surge.

Maybe that's what you meant by the last option, but I read that option as withdraw no troops and establish a long-term presence in force. I think there's a difference between that and a gradual drawdown.

Everybody hopes to withdraw troops. What you described is condition-based withdrawal.

These should be separate options in the poll: delay withdrawing and dig in for the long term vs. slowly draw down troops, but without a set timetable.

I see what you're saying, but I assumed there was no support for the dig-in position. I don't hear anybody suggesting it would be desirable to tie-down 130K troops plus an equal number of contractors in Iraq.

It's possible we will keep smaller but significant troops there longterm if situation calms greatly, but that's really hard to predict and sort-of a seperate issue. Question on the table is whether we'll keep >100K troops there in coming years.

[MJZiggy]

I heard a talk on Iraq today by people doing humanitarian work there. Their work is impossible without the military's protection and ability to move supplies and equipment. I've always thought that since we went and took out their government, we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made and now I'm even more convinced that we need to be there at least a while longer.

[hurleyfan]

Oh crap... here we go..

A "political sensitive" poll / thread, and Tex.

This could get ugly

[texaspackerbacker]

What is that supposed to mean, Hurley? I'm not familiar with your politics--left, right, whatever.

Harlan, I would have worded it something like this:

Do you favor:

A. Getting our troops out as soon as safely possible regardless of the consequences

B. Setting an artificial timetable to withdraw the troops without regard to the situation on the ground

C. Having an event-driven withdrawal in the negative sense--if the Iraqis don't perform, we give up on them

D. Having an event-driven withdrawal in the positive sense--when landmarks are met, we withdraw except for a residual force

E. Keeping all or most of the troops there indefinitely to prevent any backsliding in Iraq and be prepared to take on Iran if necessary to change the regime there

The last one is mainly the result of my just watching Dennis Miller on the O'Reilly show. That guy is an excellent pro-American commentator.

[Partial]

Pulling out is a necessary evil

[MJZiggy]

Leave your birth control methods out of this.

[Harlan Huckleby]

A. Getting our troops out as soon as safely possible regardless of the consequences

B. Setting an artificial timetable to withdraw the troops without regard to the situation on the ground

C. Having an event-driven withdrawal in the negative sense--if the Iraqis don't perform, we give up on them

D. Having an event-driven withdrawal in the positive sense--when landmarks are met, we withdraw except for a residual force

E. Keeping all or most of the troops there indefinitely to prevent any backsliding in Iraq and be prepared to take on Iran if necessary to change the regime there

A & B amount to the 2-year timetable. D is the conditional withdrawal I had in the poll.

C is more of a disaster case than a plan. If things spiral down significantly, we would withdraw ASAP, regardless of intentions.

E - that's an option outside of my liberal imagination, similar to what Idle_Threat suggested. I don't see any political support for such a policy, but perhaps it should have been in the poll.

[texaspackerbacker]

A. could be done in a month or two--the ONLY consideration would be guarding our own rear (save the jokes) as we withdrew.

B. yes, that probably would be your 2 year thing, although it is unspecific enough to be more or less time

C. is something a lot of liberals have actually talked about

D. yes, that would basically be your C.

E. throws a bone to good gung ho Americans who like the idea of pre-emptive war and asserting American dominance--something that would be a wonderful scenario for just about everybody IMO, but in the context of public opinion skewed by leftist mainstream media propaganda, probably not very popular

[hurleyfan]

What is that supposed to mean, Hurley? I'm not familiar with your politics--left, right, whatever.

Tex, I was just remembering how passionate you were on some of the ol' JSO threads..

What was the thread that seemed to live forever

[texaspackerbacker]

In the immortal words of Pee Wee Herman, "That's what I am, but what are you?" BTW, it was FYI.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think a big part of the Iraq debate is people wanting to be right. Many on both sides are emotionally committed to their position from back in 2002. Some who were against the war want the effort to end with a humbling withdrawal to vindicate their position. Some who supported the war are unwilling to fully digest the damage that has been done to Iraq and the U.S., and they aren't willing to consider costs going forward.

I didn't appreciate Barack Obama reminding everyone that he knew the war was a mistake in the first place when he was supposedly interviewing Patreaus & Crocker about our future choices.

It is by far better if we can make lemonade out of this lemon. It's really hard to evaluate what is going on over there. The recent fighting in Basra has been analysed and portrayed as a fiasco and a hopeful sign, and I honestly can't figure which is true. I can respect either point of view about the future, but the decision ought to be based on current trends. It really doesn't matter what we have invested in the past. I see political progress in Iraq in the past year, I can't see it being correct morally or strategically to give-up as long as that continues.

[Gunakor]

I always have and always will continue to support our troops. But I haven't supported the war since early March 2003.

If our government had kept the focus on bin Laden I'd be fully supportive of the war. When they switched the focus from bin Laden to Hussein they lost my support. Hussein may have been a horrible dictator responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, but he was not our problem until we made him our problem. Then they took it a step further and made Hussein not only our problem, but even moreso our PRIORITY. That was the last straw. Hussein didn't attack American soil. He didn't conspire with bin Laden - in fact, the two men had a sincere dislike for one another. He didn't kill several thousand American citizens. How on earth we could make him a priority over bin Laden, who was our problem and did attack American soil and did kill innocent American citizens, I'll never know.

What I do know is that they'll never find bin Laden in Iraq.

Now, in 2008, there have been more Americans that lost thier lives trying to capture Hussein and create stability in Iraq than that who've lost thier lives trying to capture bin Laden and bring him to justice. Even after Hussein's capture there are more troops in Iraq than there are following bin Laden. That tells me that our government has it's priorities mixed up. Have they forgotten why we are at war in the first place?

Here's why: If they kill/capture Osama bin Laden, how supportive would the average American citizen be of prolonging this war? If bin Laden were captured, how many more lost American lives would be tolerated before we said enough is enough? Not very, and not many.

Besides that, if not for this war, what would George W. Bush's presidency be about anyway? He hasn't done a great job with domestic issues, or foreign relations, or anything else not related to the war...

Now, 5 years later, we've reached a point where we really CAN'T pull out until we've achieved stability in the region. Though Al Queida didn't exist in Iraq until we got there, they are there now. If we leave before that problem is dealt with they'll find a way to get us again. On top of that I think we need to work on foreign relations again - and leaving Iraq prematurely only to watch it fall into civil war certainly would not look good to the international community. So while I do not support the principals of the war in Iraq, I concede that it isn't so simple as just packing up and leaving. Certain objectives must be met first. I support our troops in accomplishing those things, and hope they can do so quickly so they can all come home safely.

[texaspackerbacker]

I didn't mind at all the fact that Barak Obama pointed out his position back in '03 or whenever it was, because that just highlighted the fact that he was WRONG IN A GROSSLY ANTI-AMERICAN WAY THEN, JUST LIKE HE IS NOW!

The media can twist and spin things any damn way they want to twist and spin them, but at the end of the day, the bulk of the American people have a helluva lot more sense than to side with the rotten cut and run crowd--so let Obama spell exactly his position. Let him spell out his positions on all the issues, and it will only serve to put on display for everybody how extremely much out of the mainstream of American views and values he is.

Gunakor, exactly what good would it do to capture Bin Laden? Even killing him--which would be FAR SUPERIOR to capturing him--would do nothing except give us some feel good revenge. It's highly unlikely that Bin Laden has done much operationally with al Qaeda ever since he's been holed up wherever he is.

Committing major forces to hunt him down would be making the same mistake the Soviets did in Afghanistan--and would undoubtedly mean a lot more casualties than we have had in Iraq if we deployed a similar number of troops. And for what?

As for the comment about Bush's presidency without "the war", does that assume 9/11 happened, or not? If you are assuming it did--and Bush prevented any repeats--either with or without "the war", then THAT is a pretty monumental achievement, wouldn't you agree?

Furthermore, if you assume 9/11 did occur--with the horrendous economic hit it brought us, the magnificent comeback from it and economic boom which is only now subsiding, resulting from Bush's tax cuts, is another HUGE achievement. I shutter to think of how BAD things would have gotten if 9/11 had occurred in a Gore or Kerry presidency. Either almost certainly would have STUPIDLY raised taxes and driven the country rapidly toward third world status--which probably would have delighted the imbecile, Gore, as it would have transitioned perfectly into his horrible tearing down of America to feed the idiocy of his global warming crap.

[hoosier]

I didn't mind at all the fact that Barak Obama pointed out his position back in '03 or whenever it was, because that just highlighted the fact that he was WRONG IN A GROSSLY ANTI-AMERICAN WAY THEN, JUST LIKE HE IS NOW!

The media can twist and spin things any damn way they want to twist and spin them, but at the end of the day, the bulk of the American people have a helluva lot more sense than to side with the rotten cut and run crowd--so let Obama spell exactly his position. Let him spell out his positions on all the issues, and it will only serve to put on display for everybody how extremely much out of the mainstream of American views and values he is.

An April 2 CBS/NYT poll shows that over 60% of the American public feels that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Sounds to me like the "bulk of the American people" precisely agreeing with Obama's position.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I didn't mind at all the fact that Barak Obama pointed out his position back in '03 or whenever it was, because that just highlighted the fact that he was WRONG IN A GROSSLY ANTI-AMERICAN WAY THEN, JUST LIKE HE IS NOW!

The media can twist and spin things any damn way they want to twist and spin them, but at the end of the day, the bulk of the American people have a helluva lot more sense than to side with the rotten cut and run crowd--so let Obama spell exactly his position. Let him spell out his positions on all the issues, and it will only serve to put on display for everybody how extremely much out of the mainstream of American views and values he is.

An April 2 CBS/NYT poll shows that over 60% of the American public feels that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Sounds to me like the "bulk of the American people" precisely agreeing with Obama's position.

Those people have been duped by the duplicitous liberal media.