The End of Battle in Iraq
November 27th, 2007 at 01:42pm Matt Margolis
With the eyes of the world focused on the Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., President Bush’s war tsar, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, quietly announced that the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush’s presidency.
The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty.
“The basic message here should be clear. Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own. That’s very good news. But it won’t have to stand alone,” General Lute yesterday told reporters in the White House.
Since my lunch hour is just about ending, I’ll give my thoughts on this later. In the meantime, please discuss.
HAT TIP: Right in a Left World.
UPDATE: Press briefing.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
63 Comments
1. Diana Powe | November 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
One question that leaps to mind is what happens to the idea of permanent bases in Iraq if the democratically-elected Iraqi parliament, under the authority of Article 58, Section 4, of their Constitution which stipulates that Parliament shall ratify “international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority,” rejects such a plan? In May of this year 144 of the 275 members signed a petition seeking a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. While the President may have spoken of a model of our permanent presence in Iraq as being like our presence in S. Korea, it is up to the Iraqi government as a whole, not just the Prime Minister, to decide if they want such a situation. This also leads aside the open question as to whether any such proposed agreement requires two-thirds approval by the United States Senate.
2. Joe | November 27th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
The question that comes to my mind is what happens to the Middle East when we leave “by the end of Mr. Bush’s presidency”?
Isn’t that what the Democrats have been trying to do? End the occupation by the end of next year???
All Republicans have been screaming that withdrawing by the end of the year would cause all kinds of pain and suffering. The terrorists would be emboldened and take over. Iran would overrun Iraq… blah blah blah blah.
Oh wait… now it is ok. As long as it isn’t the Democrats saying we should end the occupation by the end of next year, and it is someone ELSE, then it must be ok.
3. Kahn | November 27th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Diana - Then we would have to leave.
Joe - Yes. But that was before the tipping point.
4. Joe | November 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Kahn,
Did the tipping point happen in the last week???
The bill that the Republicans blocked set a goal to have the troops coming home by the end of next year.
5. Retired Spook | November 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
The bill that the Republicans blocked set a goal to have the troops coming home by the end of next year.
Joe, you just can’t be that @$#*&!% dense. Virtually every Dem bill has been to get the troops home because the war was lost (John Murtha, Harry Reid). The GOP has been pretty clear that we should start bringing the troops home when they are no longer needed. The two strategies send entirely different messages to the enemy. Or to look at it from a different perspective, the Dems desire to bring the troops home had everything to do with MoveOn.org and nothing to do with the situation on the ground in Iraq.
Maybe an analogy involving something closer to home will make it clearer. Let’s say you and your family have received anomymous death threats, and the police provide you with protection in the form of a squad car in front of your house while they attempt to find and apprehend the person or persons making the threats. They agree to provide protection for two weeks, whether they catch anybody or not. You want them to stay until, either the threats stop or they catch some one. Which is the correct strategy (from your viewpoint)?
6. Dasein Libsbane | November 27th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
The Purple Finger votes; and, having done,
Moves on; nor can your Bush Dementia shun
Its Power to launch Iraq arising,
Nor all your lies wash out the Battle Won.
—The Rubaiyat of George W. Bush
(Saw this at Gateway Pundit)
7. Bigfoot | November 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Joe, there really wasn’t a single tipping point, just all that progress from the surge that even some on the left are starting to acknowledge, such as sharp decreases in insurgent attacks on our military and in sectarian violence. What has changed is that we may soon have a chance to withdraw in a position of perceived strength, whereas before, the “cut and run” withdrawal advocated by the anti-war crowd would have been perceived as weakness, and likely resulted in an increase in terrorism, with even more dead Iraqis.
The reason that the GOP and conservatives oppose the bill to withdraw by any certain date is that we generally believe that it would be a strategic mistake, because it handcuffs our military commanders and broadcasts our intentions to our enemies.
I would think that leaving Iraq in the manner reported by the NY Sun is something that both supporters and opponents of the war would welcome. For supporters, it would mean victory, which if I remember what Matt and Marc have previously stated, may be defined as enabling Iraq to fight its enemies on its own, or “standing up”, as Bush puts it. For opponents, the withdrawal that they have so vehemently demanded would finally be getting under way.
8. neocon | November 27th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Liberals -
Face it, you lost on this issue. And it may come back to haunt you.
9. Joe | November 27th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Spook,
To answer your analogy…
They agree to protect me for 2 weeks. After 2 days did they proclaim that the major part of the investigation was complete? After the 4th day, did they say they are close to solving the case? After the 6th day, did they say the person giving the threats were in their last throes? Just curious.
I don’t subscribe to MoveOn and I don’t like MoveOn, so don’t try linking me with them.
“to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush’s presidency.”
We know when the end of Mr. Bush’s presidency is. Isn’t that basically telling the terrorists when we are going to end the occupation??? The motive behind the statement doesn’t make it different. You have been telling us that we are winning, we are winning… on and on. So if we are winning, why can’t the Dems say to make a plan to draw down?? The bill the Repubs blocked didn’t put anything in stone, it was a “GOAL”.
So now it is ok to broadcast when the occupation will end, or at least make it a “GOAL”? I guess it really is in who says it.
It’s ok to admit it… you are ok with this report because a Democrat didn’t propose it. Go on. We all know it, you might as well admit it.
10. KCJ | November 27th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
the difference is generals on the ground are making the judgement based on the reality of the situation. Democrats didn’t give a hoot about stability or the effects of premature and arbitrary withdrawal.
Oh, and I am pretty sure dens were proposing total withdrawal by the end of THIS year.
11. Brian Gregory | November 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
God, I hope this comes true. How wonderful would it be to leave Iraw in victory, the way we meant to?
I’m not sure Iraq will ever be “stable.” I just don’t think those people, with their ingrained religious biases, will ever be capable of peaceably governing themselves. I hope I’m wrong.
Rest in God’s grace, Sean Taylor. #21. Superman. The Grim Reaper. My hero.
12. neocon | November 27th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Joe,
It never was the Dems place to call for a withdrawal or draw down. It has always been, and always will be, the Iraqis decision for us to leave. When they feel they can protect themselves then we leave.
Secondly, since the UN and the Iraqi government have mandated our security presence in Iraq, it IS NOT an occupation. Why can’t liberals figure that one out, I thought they were smart.
And since AQ in Iraq has suffered major setbacks with more to come form the Iraqis, it doesn’t matter now if they know when we’re leaving.
You never understood this battle and you never will. It is, and always has been all about politics to you. To others, it was always about doing the right thing.
13. Joe | November 27th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
kcj,
read before making that assumption.
the last couple of bills that the republican senators blocked never said anything about THIS year. The most recent blocked bill (a week or so ago) called for a GOAL of pulling out troops by the end of NEXT year.
So you can believe what you want, but that was not in any bill.
14. Joe | November 27th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
neo,
I don’t expect you to understand this, but you say it was about doing the right thing.
Was doing the right thing removing Sadaam because he was such a brutal dictator? I know you love to bring up those rape rooms and all.
If that was the good thing we did, why do we not go into so many other countries with brutal dictators? Saddam wasn’t the only one.
Was the good thing bringing Democracy to a country that doesn’t have it? If so, there are a lot of countries that could use out nation building.
I’m just confused of the good thing we did.
15. searp | November 27th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
50,000 troops is a lot of troops, I estimate at least 5 BCTs plus support troops. It is an abuse of language to call that leaving, it is simply downsizing. I seem to recall that we have 25,000 troops in Afghanistan, about 30,000 in Korea.
This announcement is just bull hockey, and will be perceived as such in the ME. We are simply changing the legal basis for our presence, we aren’t going anywhere.
16. searp | November 27th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
As for “The End of Battle”, is that the same as the end of major combat operations? If the battle is over, why keep such large combat formations in Iraq?
The commentary here is silly: 50,000 troops says it all. This administration is planning to stay, and fight, in Iraq indefinitely.
17. neocon | November 27th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
You just mentioned the good things we did. And it is never about individual men. It is about mankind. Removing tyrants and dictators and other oppressors, will always result in unfortunate loss, but always benefits mankind.
Now that the decent people of Iraq realize that they do not have to live in fear and oppression, maybe that will encourage others around the globe to muster the courage necessary to democratize. And wouldn’t you want to help them?
18. searp | November 27th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Neocon: have you ever been to Iraq or talked with Iraqis? Your projection is, well, incredible.
Why is it that the good and decent in Iraq realize that they don’t have to live in fear? Is it because nobody is being killed? Because they no longer have to fear sectarian violence?
I guess those 2 million refugees can return to their homes? Did you read that silly WAPO article on the returnees? They can return, sure, as long as they don’t go back to their homes on the wrong side of the divide, because then they would be killed.
Go to Iraq. Nuri Al Maliki means absolutely nothing to people outside the IZ. Tribal sheiks and militia types mean a lot.
I wish somebody with some real experience of the country would actually contribute to this blog.
19. Joe | November 27th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
So Neo,
I guess we will be in perpetual war until we defeat every brutal dictator in the world.
Boy… we better start a draft and soon!!!
20. Kahn | November 27th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Joe,
Actually, troops are coming home now. The point of resisting the insane bill was to maintain the flexibility we need. It is about winning you know. The war, not the election.
21. DougH | November 27th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
“I just don’t think those people, with their ingrained religious biases, will ever be capable of peaceably governing themselves. I hope I’m wrong.”
People make too much of the sectarian violence in IRaq as if Shites and Sunnis are incapable of living in peace in the same country, totally ignoring the fact that is exactly what is happening in most ME countries.
THe reason there is conflict between the two groups in Iraq is obvious.. after decades of being brtualized by Saddam and his followers.. Shite’s are basically perfroming retribution.
When you gro up watching your father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, freinds being taken away.. tortured.. killed and never to be seen again…. when you do all of a sudden have the opportunity to seek redemption.. you do it.
What do you really think would happen in the US, if all of a sudeen the USA government, military and police where no longer in place..
White vs Black Vs Hispanic vs Asian vs….. and yes, there would be just as much if not more deaths in one year in the USA then there will be in the entire Iraq conflict.
(Please not I did leave out liberals involved in any conflict , as they would simply move to another country)
22. Casper | November 27th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“What do you really think would happen in the US, if all of a sudeen the USA government, military and police where no longer in place..
White vs Black Vs Hispanic vs Asian vs….. and yes, there would be just as much if not more deaths in one year in the USA then there will be in the entire Iraq conflict.”
Thank God we have the government. Otherwise my White daughter would be trying to kill her Hispanic boyfriend and my Hispanic, Black and Asian students would be trying to kill me. Heck, the government is all that’s keeping me (a Catholic) from killing my wife (a Mormon).
23. neocon | November 27th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Searp,
Many of the refugees are returning, in fact an article the other day stated how the authorities are having a hard time with the paperwork of all the returnees. And mant may not return, because they’ve probably been trying to get out of Iraq for quite awhile and finally had the chance. If you were so concerned with people leaving their own country, why are you not concerned with all the Mexicans leaving Mexico?
I have nephews in Iraq, one soon to return, that paint a much better picture of Iraq today then you may want to realize.
24. CallMeTeach | November 27th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
1) Goals are not binding - it was a GOAL to come home by the end of next year.
2) Anytime you are in a country that doesn’t want you, it is an occupation - S. Koreans want us to leave, Japanese want us to leave, and I’m sure the expatriates of Diego Garcia would like their island back - UN declarations matter not.
3) As long as we occupy the Middle East and support tyranical regimes we will always be a target - ask those boys stationed at the Saudi National Guard headquarters and Prince Sultan’s AFB how many days out the year they go without being attacked by small arms fire, IEDs, and car bombs- not to damn many.
4) Pride and arrogance- the reason why this harsh distinction is being drawn between a Republican and Democratic withdrawal goal
5) If you believe anyone wants to withdrawal (dem or rep) without concern for our safety and the safety of the Iraqi’s - YOU ARE AN IDIOT
“You never understood this battle and you never will. It is, and always has been all about politics to you. To others, it was always about doing the right thing.” - neocon
I find it funny that you think you understand this battle. Wake the hell up - the reason we are over there is because a few people thought it would be in our best interests to do so. I won’t even go into the lies we were told to get us over there. The simple fact is that there are tons of regimes far more brutal than Saddam ever was, some of which are our closest allies. The reason we didn’t “help” the people under those regimes is because there was nothing in it for us. Darfur doesn’t concern us because there is nothing of benefit for us there. I won’t pretend to know why we inserted ourselves into the Middle East the way we have but for craps sake stop pretending it is because we are such great humanitarians.
I’m sure Iraq will calm down some day and be fairly stable. We have yet to even begin to deal with Afghanistan which is where the real heart ache will be.
I’m glad we have decided to bring our troops home even if many will have to stay. Though I find it a little odd that the two things Bush was adamant about (keeping Guantanamo open and staying in Iraq) his entire presidency are now being recanted on. Oh, I forgot because he was able to fix everything before he left. Whatever.
25. james allegro | November 27th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
God bless our brave soldiers and God bless President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.
26. LewWaters | November 28th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Bush has always maintained, “as the Iraqis stand, our Troops will stand down.” Looks like he is true to his word, again.
As the violence is ebbing in Iraq, Iraqis returning and the negotiation of a permanent cadre of Troops to dissuade major attacks by Al Qaeda, we can only hope this comes to fruition and our Troops return home Victorious, with their heads held high.
I’m surprised this doesn’t please the left, isn’t it want they want? Or, does it have to be the Troops return, embarrassed in defeat, to satisfy the left and the Democrat party leadership?
I remain cautiously optimistic, but at the same time, wonder and hope it works out.
27. Kahn | November 28th, 2007 at 12:21 am
CMT - The expatriates of (UK owned) Diego Garcia would like their Island back? South Korea and Japan want us to leave?
But saying we are idiots for disagreeing with you sure is strong persuasive medicine - numbnuts.
28. Kahn | November 28th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Does the fact that the Iraq issue may be greatly diminished by NEXT November worry you liberals? It should.
What does your party stand for without that issue?
29. searp | November 28th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Neo: either read my posts carefully or don’t comment on them. I know lots of Iraqis are returning, my point was that they aren’t returning home if home happens to be on the wrong side of the sectarian divide.
It is a truly marvelous contortion to bring Mexicans into the discussion, Go only knows why that appeared.
As to why your nephews would be more versed and better able to comment on Iraq, well, why? I too have been there, recently, and been in the hot zones. I won’t trade bonafides with your nephews, but it seems to me that you may be hearing what you want to hear.
Go ahead, ask a random Sunni how much support there is for Nuri Al Maliki. Then ask a random Shia. Then ask a random Kurd. Ask them each if they think the fighting is over. Ask them if they think the US will help Iraq. Don’t ask me, or your nephews, ask them. After all, we are there to help them, right?
BTW, I also have a nephew who has been to Iraq. I also went. They are accepting all sorts, of all ages - I’m nearing retirement age and they took me no problem. I highly recommend it. If the fact that I went in spite of thinking like LTG Odom doesn’t cause your head to explode, then Iraq will.
30. lordo | November 28th, 2007 at 12:40 am
None of it’s about oil, or course; however, of Iraq’s 86 oil fields, Iraqis will only own 17 and the rest will be controlled by American and British oil companies.
Simpering Bush blood-lusters should really stop with the (Ed. Note, slanderous statements about the members of the United States Armed Forces deleted)
31. LewWaters | November 28th, 2007 at 1:24 am
lordo, obviously you haven’t gone through basic Training or AIT. Your claim of our Troops is what I have come to expect from the kook fringe left, even the left disowns ya’ll.
I can’t do anything but feel sorry for anyone who dislikes those who stand between our enemies and us, as you apparently do.
Do us all a favor. If and when the Jihadists start up here, don’t call the military, call a protester and both of you sing kumbaya to them.
32. Kahn | November 28th, 2007 at 1:30 am
searp - Too bad the Sunnis boycotted the constitution elections - isn’t it?
But fact is Sunnis and Shia are NOW helping us catch or kill Al Queada and they’re fighting each other as much. The country still has factions and wackos (hell, so do we). But it is getting better.
Why not embrace it? Hope for it? Nurture it? Or what is the alternative plan?
And lordo - F*CK YOU. You are watching too much Hollywood military hate film. And your ignorance shows.
33. Mark Noonan | November 28th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Diana,
Of course it is up to them - and if the Iraqis vote us out, then out we go; its their country.
As it is, however, I think that they’ll agree to our remaining…it is a decade before Iraq is entirely self-sufficient in matters of defense, and until that time comes, Iraq will want to have an ace in the hole against the ambitions of Iran, Syria and Turkey.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in that supposed move to have us leave on a timetable…most Iraqi lawmakers who signed that thought they were signing something else entirely. Gotta remember, 75% of what you read about Iraq in the MSM is utter BS…
34. Dittohead4Life | November 28th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Oh wait… now it is ok. As long as it isn’t the Democrats saying we should end the occupation by the end of next year, and it is someone ELSE, then it must be ok.
Finally, Joe, you’re waking up to reality–never trust what the Donkaroaches say.
In reality, and Spook, neocon, you probably already know this, but ever since the 2004 Election campaign, almost every time the Donkaroaches in Congress started harping about doing something, foreign or domestic, it meant that the administration was already working on the very thing the donks were harping about.
So, Joe, this was probably the plan all along, and the Donkaroaches are attempting to get credit for “finally getting Bush to come around.” They’ve done it with his nominations, and other domestic issues, and they’ve got you bamboozled into thinking they’re getting results. You poor, brain-dead lemming, you…
35. Dittohead4Life | November 28th, 2007 at 5:38 am
OT,but speaking of MoveOn and DailyKos, did anyone here realize that these two “fine” organizations claim to be mainstream, middle-of-the-road?
Great, kooks in the middle of the road…
36. Dittohead4Life | November 28th, 2007 at 5:42 am
Thank God we have the government. Otherwise my White daughter would be trying to kill her Hispanic boyfriend and my Hispanic, Black and Asian students would be trying to kill me. Heck, the government is all that’s keeping me (a Catholic) from killing my wife (a Mormon).
Yes, Casper, anarchy is usually very bloody, very lawless. Look it up. You’re a teacher, albeit a public school teacher, so you should have no trouble doing research.
Yes, it would be nice if everyone in the world could just get along, as the libs think, but it ain’t happened yet, in how many centuries? Look that up too, Casper, and let me know when “peace” reigned…
37. Joe | November 28th, 2007 at 5:48 am
James Allegro,
Either you are, in fact, George W. Bush in disguise or you must be related to him.
For cryin’ out loud, enough with the “Greatest President Ever” bull crap.
If you believe it, believe it. You crazyness is getting old.
“Go sell crazy somewhere else, we are all full here”.
38. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Khan,
searp has no alternative plan, in fact he has no initial plan. searp is just another angry, under-priveledged, negative human being that wants to bring everyone else down to his level. He has either failed, or marginally succeeded, at things he has attempted in life and views the world through that failed paradigm.
Couple that along with his full investment in losing the Iraq war, and what else do you expect to hear from him?
39. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Joe,
Are you trying to stop James’s free speech? A liberal wouldn’t do that would they?
40. liberalT | November 28th, 2007 at 8:40 am
the simple fact of the matter is that although the situation in iraq has improved - it is still horrible. Violence is down - but still horribly and unacceptably high. Further - it is not because there was some sort of realization or the battle to end all battles but rather very simple. The US paid off the parties and armed them to the teeth to be their allies. Its a recipe for more disaster and even Kissinger realizes that. Its just sad that you guys are so obsessed with “winning” that you forget what it really meant. Iraq is a disaster and everybody who doesn’t have their heads firmly planted up their ass realizes this.
41. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Keep talking the talk libT, you’ll end up going down with the ship. Even the NYT acknowledged significant improvement.
And the violence rate is unacceptably high by whose account? Yours? Wouldn’t that be imposing your viewpoint onto the Iraqis?
The Iraqi government and the US are now in talks about bringing the troops home in large numbers, isn’t that what you want?
As security conditions improve, as Iraq begins to stand on it’s own and as troops start heading home, it will be interesting to hear the narrative from people like you libT.
42. searp | November 28th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Neo: wow, you sure know a lot about me! I wish you’d address my points directly rather than simply impugning my character. Since you ask about policy:
1) We won the war in 2003/2004. No need to argue about winning, we got rid of Saddam and determined there were no WMD years ago. We won, should have declared victory at that point and left. Read the AUMF.
2) I have a real simple message on Iraq and the ME: don’t talk about it unless you advocate an Apollo-style effort for energy independence. We have been involved in the ME since Roosevelt’s meeting with Ibn Saud. It started with oil and it ends with oil.
3) By advocating military intervention in the ME, you endanger our national security. Armies kill people and break things. Making friends is way down on the list. If we had our security priorities straight we’d focus on those extremists (Qutbists) that advocate attacking us. This is a tiny, tiny group of people that mostly reside in Pakistan, although thanks to our stupid policy this group is undoubtedly growing again.
43. searp | November 28th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Mark: of course the Iraqi government will agree to our remaining! If we weren’t there they’d be dead, and they know it.
I’d say the bigger issue is that we won’t stay anyway, because it is dumb. What will 5 BCTs do in Iraq in, say 2010? Not enough soldiers to fight the militias and too many to be training-only, so I guess we’re thinking we will provide the Air Force or something.
44. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 9:14 am
1) - Completely asinine assertion. Did we leave Germany when we killed Hitler? Have we left South Korea? Why do you want to abandon people and leave them to fend for themselves? Are you just a cold hearted isolationist?
2) Tell me what your candidates have done, from Carter to Clinton. And if we started drilling in ANWR 15 years ago, we would have our oil now. But we can’t try and find our own oil right searp?
3) This assertion completely demonstrates your brain damage. AQ and other Islamic extremists are not a “tiny group of people”. And they DON’T WANT to be your friend searp. We dropped two atom bombs on Japan, and today they are a free country and one of our best allies. Explain that.
How can I not insult you? You have mush for brains.
45. searp | November 28th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Kahn: I do embrace it, anything that improves that benighted country is good. However, our military job is way finished there, and the longer we stay the more problems we cause ourselves.
My view is that we are staying, at horrendous cost, because of the vanity of George W. Bush. He sees himself as a courageous, Trumanesque figure who does the right thing in spite of public opinion, and wants historical confirmation of this. This is evidently the view of this blog.
There is another view, of course: if you start a war you’d better be clear about the reasons and able to articulate the goals of the war. Those goals ought to be achievable in some finite amount of time. The cost ought to be commensurate with the desired outcome.
46. searp | November 28th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Neo: your posts remind me of school kid rants, how old are you, 14?
Get over WWII, it is a very, very poor analogy. If you want to nuke Iraq, just say it. As for the WWII analogy: we ended the war by killing 20% or more of the population of Japan and Germany. In Iraq, that would amount to 5,000,000 people. Are you advocating that?
Why do you persist in saying “my candidates” and assuming that I have policy positions that I don’t have? I’d drill in ANWR and build nuclear plants. A lot of them. More to the point, why don’t you just address what I say instead of creating strawmen?
AQ (Qutbists) are a tiny group of people. They advocate a political theory that is considered crazy by most Muslims. Their popularity is being confirmed by our results in Anbar. Having said that, our willingness to view all inhabitants of the ME as either Qutbists or potential Qutbists gets us… well, where we are. Petraeus’ insight was that AQ is really unloved, and if we empower folks, they will get rid of them.
Finally, if you wish to comment on my posts, please try to comment on the plain words and meaning of the posts, not on what you imagine of the poster. When you rant in that manner, you do yourself a disservice.
47. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I commented specifically on your comments. You just don’t like the answers, what a shock. History is very relevant, despite your assertion that it is not. You do remember the old adage; those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it.
I am glad you favor drilling in ANWR, but the candidates, I assume you prefer, are dead set against it, leaving us more vulnerable to foreign oil.
Patreaus plan was brilliant, as you led onto, so why are you insisting that this effort is lost?
AQ and the “qutbist” ideology is more prevalent than you may think hence the chaos and destruction they have inflicted on this planet since 1972.
And what haven’t you learned about achieving peace through strength? It is has been demonstrated time after time (it’s that history thing). Yet you still advocate the failed Jimmy Carter school of foreign policy.
Sad.
48. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 9:52 am
searp,
so from now on, no war is possible unless there is a specific end date and a set budget?
You’re an idiot. I am sorry you served.
49. searp | November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 am
I didn’t insist the effort was lost, I insisted that we won in 2004 and were too dumb to realize it. Petraeus’ plan made allies of Sunni sheiks. Temporary allies - there is no long term convergence of interest. It did succeed in getting rid of AQ, so we’re there.
Chaos and destruction do not correlate well to the size of the group.
Let’s review AQs progress. Safe havens? Well, only, perhaps, in Pakistan. Military victories? None. Terrorist attacks against civilians that change nothing in their favor? Check. Threat assessment, threat assessment. You have to begin by taking a clear-eyed look at the opponent.
I don’t advocate any particular school of foreign policy, I advocate a clear understanding of our goals and the levers available to achieve them. It seems to me that we have lacked both.
I think Brent Scowcroft would agree, and I know LTG Odom would agree. Since I talk with general officers reasonably frequently, I can tell you that many general officers also agree. You see, they are paid to be realists and cannot afford to have a cartoonish view of the world.
This downward spiral has been almost predictable, facts get in the way of ranting about political beliefs and WWII.
I repeat: go to Iraq, you will learn something you can’t learn on this blog.
50. searp | November 28th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Neo: I didn’t say a damn thing about a specific end date or a set budget. And thanks for appreciating my service. I am sorry that you didn’t serve.
searp,
so from now on, no war is possible unless there is a specific end date and a set budget?
You’re an idiot. I am sorry you served.
51. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 am
searp,
If you advocate “making friends” that means staying behind to help them out. As we did in Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc.
I am sure you can find General officers who have a negative opinion of this war. So what? There are also those who support it, as has been the case in every conflict.
But those that have a different opinion than yours, are said to have a cartoonish view of the world.
And you wonder why I don’t take you seriously.
52. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 10:21 am
>>Neo: I didn’t say a damn thing about a specific end date or a set budget. - searp<>….if you start a war you’d better be clear about the reasons and able to articulate the goals of the war. Those goals ought to be achievable in some finite amount of time. The cost ought to be commensurate with the desired outcome. - searp<<<
Geez!!!!
53. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 10:23 am
That last post of mine was really screwed up:
(Neo: I didn’t say a damn thing about a specific end date or a set budget. - searp)
Yet you just posted the following:
(…. if you start a war you’d better be clear about the reasons and able to articulate the goals of the war. Those goals ought to be achievable in some finite amount of time. The cost ought to be commensurate with the desired outcome.)
So which is it?
54. searp | November 28th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Cost commensurate with outcome DOES NOT EQUAL set budget.
Finite amount of time DOES NOT EQUAL specific end date.
And thanks again for denigrating my service, you wimp
55. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 10:33 am
You’re entirely welcome.
56. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 10:34 am
And explain to us how a “finite amount of time” does not equal a “specific end date”
I want to see this.
57. SteaM | November 28th, 2007 at 11:21 am
The war we are experiencing in Iraq is a Resource War.
Iraq and Iran have the second and third largest reserves of oil that is easy to produce thus highly profitable. British and American oil companies have had oil business deals with other countries before and dealt in dollars. So that’s nothing new. However, if an oil-rich country decides to nationalize their oil production (which means that the government controls the oil not private companies like in the british and US companies) and they decide to trade it in euros then the US is in trouble. Our economy is dependent entirely on oil. Our production peaked in the 70s. ANWAR would probably only produce enough oil to last maybe 2 years. But probably less considering how much more and more we use every year. We currently use around 20 million barrels of oil EVERY DAY.
So Iraq nationalized their oil production. They also began to trade it in Euros rather than dollars.
Iran has done the same.
George Bush and Dick Cheney are both ex oilmen. Oil is what drives our economy. It provides us with transportation, plastics, clothing, medicine, and cheap toys from China. It provides us with convenience on every level. It provides us with low-low prices at Wal-Mart and other outlets.
If the American people were suddenly without cheap oil they were be devistated. As would our economy. In turn this would devistate the world ecomony.
So we went to Iraq to take the second largest oil reserves in the world. We will prop up a government that is willing to work with us. They will get some of the profits from their oil. We will get the oil and our oil companies will have a hug share of the profits.
British companies will do the same.
However, oil is still not renewable. It still puts CO2 into the atmosphere which still holds in more and more heat as more CO2 goes in. We will see bigger and crazier weather. We will see mor resource wars and more of our people die in these wars and we will see more people killed by crazy weather from burning fossil fuels.
This is reality. Welcome to it.
Buy local, grow your own food, stop buying imported products made from oil, promote renewable energy, ride a bike, and be realistic. We the People must be responsible for all of this. We the People are the ones addicted to oil.
58. Joe | November 28th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Still nobody has answered why the Republicans are blocking the defense spending bill because it has a GOAL of end of next year to draw down most of the troops.
If you people want to embrace the Lieutenant General in the article at the beginning of this post, then pass the bill. Bush shouldn’t have to veto it since the bill is in line with what the Lieutenant General has to say.
We can all be happy.
Instead, the Repubs and the President are too hard-headed and care about their own legacy to do that.
59. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Joe,
We will withdraw from Iraq when the Iraqis feel comfortable enough with their security for us to leave. Not when the Democrats want us to leave for political reasons.
Any other questions?
60. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
SteaM,
Spoken like a true Stalinist. Congrats.
I suggest you move away from this evil country because people like me will continue to seek better alternatives to “riding a bike” and “growing our own food”. We prefer to push America forward, not to revert back to the 1900’s.
I would suggest Venezuela. There you wont have to worry about oil, they have plenty, and you wont have to worry about evil people like Bush and Cheney. Chavez will take care of everything you need.
61. liberalT | November 28th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
neocon - so 1000 people dead every month from sectarian violence is acceptable to you?
62. Aaron | November 28th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Let me ask everyone this: Even if the violence in Iraq were to miraculously stop altogether tomorrow (instead of merely returning to 2006 levels), would the invasion have been worth it?
Considering what’s been lost in terms of blood, treasure, and American standing, vs what’s been gained (next to nothing), I think we can safely say that the Iraq invasion was a debacle before it even began. Whatever happens now in the Iraq war will never make this fiasco worth it. And damn it - Hillary needs to own up to that.
If GWB had announced in 2000 that as president he would spend $2 trillion of your taxes, get 4,000 US troops killed, and get perhaps over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed, to remove a tin-pot dictator who posed no threat to his neighbors and had no involvement in attacks against this country… you would have thought he was nuts.
Yes, yes, you wingnuts will always bleat on and on about how much we spent and sacrificed during WWII. What you ding dongs utterly ignore in that shameless and self-serving argument is that we got something for our sacrifices of blood and treasure. There was a good reason for the staggering losses during WWII. This Iraq war was just a waste without good reason - a war that never should have been fought, and that has left us weaker.
Considering the cost versus the benefits, we can ill-afford any more “victories” like this.
63. liberalT | November 28th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
of course it wouldn’t have been worth it. Unfortunately - people here are so caught up in “we have to win” that they have forgot what if anything they are winning.
Fortunately - finally the American people have woken up and realized this and that is why despite improvements in the situation in Iraq - the majority of Americans are still against the war.