Out of Iraq

[Harlan Huckleby]

Assume we can agree on some mimimum standards that are acceptable to us in Iraq. Say, "stability", meaning a government that is able to contain the insurgency, and the various parties cooperating enough to prevent a civil war.

[texaspackerbacker]

If there ever is a timetable of any sort, it better be at the highest level of top secret. What we really don't need to do is to motivate the enemy by letting them know that if they can only hold out until whatever time, we will cut and run, giving the enemy the success that our troops have fought and in 4,000 cases, died for. As simple and clear cut as this concept his, neither Obama nor Hillary seems to comprehend it.

The way things have been going lately, it seems highly probable that the bulk of our troops will be out in less than 4 years, maybe less than 2. However, the WORST thing we can do is to tip off the enemy to our intentions, as the politicians of the left seem intent to do.

[Deputy Nutz]

If there ever is a timetable of any sort, it better be at the highest level of top secret. What we really don't need to do is to motivate the enemy by letting them know that if they can only hold out until whatever time, we will cut and run, giving the enemy the success that our troops have fought and in 4,000 cases, died for. As simple and clear cut as this concept his, neither Obama nor Hillary seems to comprehend it.

The way things have been going lately, it seems highly probable that the bulk of our troops will be out in less than 4 years, maybe less than 2. However, the WORST thing we can do is to tip off the enemy to our intentions, as the politicians of the left seem intent to do.

I agree with this statement, although I wish at some level Americans knew an agenda with Iraq, and I don't want to hear about stability, because if troop withdrawls were based only on a 100% stable Iraq it is never going to happen unless another sadistic totalitarian ruler was brought back.

I wish it were the case that troops could be withdrawn in two years, I wish their wasn't terrorism, I wish college education was free, I wish I never had to spend another dime on health care.

[texaspackerbacker]

That's why McCain and even a military advisor of Obama (although Obama himself denies it) are talking about a residual force similar to what we have had in Germany and Korea for so long.

The bad guys jumped all over McCain's "hundred year" comment, but as he said, it's casualties that count. and if we get to the point where our troops are not the ones doing the dirty work, why oppose the idea of keeping some there?

We are getting very close to that minimum level of stability right now, and as you say, Nutz, we'll never reach 100%.

The whole Iraq issue WAS the primary thing the Democrats were demagoguing. Now with the degree of success there, they have switched to demagoguing the economy.

However, it was NEVER really about Iraq, just as it is not about the economy now. That is just a means to an end for the Democrats to get in power and to inflict a lot of things on the American people that they could never talk about and get elected--as well as to appoint another bunch of leftist judicial appointees that will ram through an even more sinister agenda against the will of the American people. If you don't think this is true, just think about the changes in our society in the last 50 years--mostly for the worst, and mostly against the wishes on an issue by issue basis, of the American people. Tell me that hasn't happened.

[Freak Out]

Troop levels need to start being reduced now. I'm not talking about pulling 140,000 soldiers out instantly but the Iraqi police and military need to start doing the job and now is the time. If they stumble so what. Large numbers of our troops are not the solution any longer.

[red]

i actually agree with tex and nuts

you definately can't give a definate timeline, or the iraqis are just going top wait for us to leave before all hell breaks loose

i also agree that things are never going to be "suitable" over there. so why prolong it?

we made a massive mistake by swatting the giants hornets nest, and opening pandoras box. we need to admit our mistakes and get the hell out of there asap. quit wasting american lives, and dollars we don't have.

pull all out troops out and send bush and his fucking asshole buddies over there with a case of beer and empty guns and tell them to fix their own fucking mess

[Deputy Nutz]

That's why McCain and even a military advisor of Obama (although Obama himself denies it) are talking about a residual force similar to what we have had in Germany and Korea for so long.

The bad guys jumped all over McCain's "hundred year" comment, but as he said, it's casualties that count. and if we get to the point where our troops are not the ones doing the dirty work, why oppose the idea of keeping some there?

We are getting very close to that minimum level of stability right now, and as you say, Nutz, we'll never reach 100%.

The whole Iraq issue WAS the primary thing the Democrats were demagoguing. Now with the degree of success there, they have switched to demagoguing the economy.

However, it was NEVER really about Iraq, just as it is not about the economy now. That is just a means to an end for the Democrats to get in power and to inflict a lot of things on the American people that they could never talk about and get elected--as well as to appoint another bunch of leftist judicial appointees that will ram through an even more sinister agenda against the will of the American people. If you don't think this is true, just think about the changes in our society in the last 50 years--mostly for the worst, and mostly against the wishes on an issue by issue basis, of the American people. Tell me that hasn't happened.

It is tough to compare the occupancy of Iraq to that of Japan, Korea, and Germany. We conquered and destroyed the oppressive governments in the case of Japan and Germany, We fought governments and military there was a sepration between the civilians and military, in Iraq and Vietnam the majority of the people are probably thankful to the US, but the select minority that have taken arms against us are the worst kind of enemy because they are undetectiable, we can't distiguish, it makes it tough on our soldiers.

[texaspackerbacker]

Troop levels need to start being reduced now. I'm not talking about pulling 140,000 soldiers out instantly but the Iraqi police and military need to start doing the job and now is the time. If they stumble so what. Large numbers of our troops are not the solution any longer.

WHY? For now, the new Iraqi military is still shaky, and the progress of the last year could easily be undone. Why risk that when our own casualties are down as it is? Why not just follow what the military professionals say about when and how to draw down the number of troops?

The comparison to Korea and Germany indeed IS valid, because after the first few years, our troops there were basically a "trip wire" preventing the enemy from messing up the whole situation. The presence of some American troops in that same role for an extended period of time in Iraq would serve the same purpose against a resurgence of al Qaeda or the Iranian-backed militias--or civil war started by any of several factions.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Interesting that nobody wants to draw-down over 4 years, which is probably the course we're on.

I was for withdrawing in 2006 and 2007. Now I see enough political progress that it looks more hopeful.

I don't blame people who want to completely withdraw as quickly as possible. But it's hard for me to beleive that we could just stand aside and watch if things unraveled as a result. The world will blame us for the consequences, and we might very well feel the consequences if the fighting spreads.

[LL2]

I think there will always be troops in Iraq. The gov't wanted a presence in the middle east and now they have it. It will be like Korea like an above poster stated, where the U.S. maintains a base. I would also like a reduction in troops, but it has to be a slow and rational reduction. Almost as if no one really notices it.

[texaspackerbacker]

The way you worded the poll, Harlan,--using the word timetable--you're only going to get the two extremes, the cut and run people--who will take the lowest time amount, and the sane and normal people, for lack of a more fair and balanced description, who can see that ANY timetable hurts America and helps the enemy.

LL2, I agree with you. I'm wondering whether you are say that like it's a good thing--which it is--or not.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The way you worded the poll, Harlan,--using the word timetable--you're only going to get the two extremes

It seems to me these are the options available. How would you word it differently to draw out other responses? I have a hunch that people simply are bunched at the extremes.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think there will always be troops in Iraq. The gov't wanted a presence in the middle east and now they have it. It will be like Korea like an above poster stated, where the U.S. maintains a base. I would also like a reduction in troops, but it has to be a slow and rational reduction. Almost as if no one really notices it.

We already had a big presence in the Middle East. In fact, our presence in Saudi Arabia is something that Bin Laden has used as a partial excuse for his demented agenda.

[the_idle_threat]

The way you worded the poll, Harlan,--using the word timetable--you're only going to get the two extremes

It seems to me these are the options available. How would you word it differently to draw out other responses? I have a hunch that people simply are bunched at the extremes.

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---almost unnoticable, as LL2 puts it.

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.

[3irty1]

I don't think much good could come from giving up now. Its possible we shouldn't even be there in the first place, but either way we gotta finish.