Iraq Withdrawal

[Slava]

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/070426/w04269A.html

It looks like Bush is going to veto a bill for troop withdrawal in October. I'm not sure what to think of this...I'm a pure pacifist at heart, but pulling the troops might mean civil war in Iraq.

I'm curious to see what you guys think. Should the US "finish what they started", or should they cut casualties (on their side) and withdraw on a given date?

[Agamemnon]

The US could probably 'finish' the war in another decade or two, if they maintained/ramped up the resources they're investing in the operation. The problem is US voters want positive results NOW, for a voter 4-5 years is a looong time, they're tired of the conflict (and hopefully pissed at the hundreds of billions that may end up completely wasted).

I think we'll be hearing a lot of withdrawal/stay the course dialogue over the next 6 months... should intensify especially as the Presidential election looms.

[Madman]

I just saw an interview with a US soldier where he explains that the US military is the only buffer between the people that want them there to help the country and the people who want to inflict chaos. The soldier then said that they can't leave, because if they do that buffer will be gone and there will be a mass slaughter inside the country.

I think he is right. Sure, it was probably wrong to invade in the first place - but we can't go back and change that now. The US cannot simply withdraw their troops and leave the country in ruins, it is their responsibility now to clean things up the best they can.

[MarchHare]

I think he is right. Sure, it was probably wrong to invade in the first place - but we can't go back and change that now. The US cannot simply withdraw their troops and leave the country in ruins, it is their responsibility now to clean things up the best they can.

As a counterpoint, I read an article in Time magazine a few months ago where they interviewed a retired US Army general (possibly Tommy Franks, but I don't remember specifically), and he said that as long as US troops were there, the domestic Iraqi forces aren't going to do what it takes to secure their country. His theory was that the Iraqis are using American forces as a crutch, and that if the US gradually withdraws, it would force the Iraqi forces to act in the interest of their own security.

[Edit]
Here's the article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...574148,00.html
The quote was actually from Colin Powell, and was also reiterated by unnamed "generals".

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former four-star, said a surge had been tried in Baghdad--and had failed last fall--and would only further delay Iraqis in taking control of their own security.

[...]

FOR MONTHS THE GENERALS OPPOSED increasing troop strength, chiefly because they calculated that as long as the American footprint was growing, Iraqis would never take responsibility for their own security. This continues to concern them: a former military official told TIME that Defense Secretary Gates has spent a lot of time in his first three weeks on the job trying to wrest from his military planners clear benchmarks for putting the Iraqis in charge.

[Dion]

Iraq has become another Vietnam. While it might be true that a pullout would cause mass slaughter, some American parents son or daughter is being killed on a daily basis. I'm not so sure the US can win this war.

The American government will be there for a very long time if it decides to continue the fight. Then there's the problem of finding more soldiers to go over to Iraq and fight. Soldiers there now are doing double duty to make up for the shortfall. Maybe those senators who are in favour of the war should send their sons and daughters over to fight.

[MarchHare]

I'm not so sure the US can win this war.

The problem is that nobody has clearly defined what "winning" the war means. If they want a stable, violence-free, democratic nation in Iraq where the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds all leave together peacefully, that ship has sailed; it was always neocon pipedream to think that American soldiers would be greeted as liberators.

Obviously nobody, not even the most ardent pacifist, wants to see a bloodbath in Iraq if American forces withdraw, but continuing with the current course of action is only going to see more soldiers sent home in bodybags. So what should the goal of American forces be, and what's the best plan that would allow them to achieve that goal with the smallest number of casualties, both to US soldiers and Iraqi civilians?

[CaptainCrunch]

The biggest failure is the under-estimation of the way that the different factions would interact. I'm sure that more then one person said that if you get rid of Saddam and the Baath party, the next step is chicken Mcnuggets and freedom fries. Saddam kept control of the three different groups through complete intimidation and ruthlessness, however due to a cap on the media there when Saddam was in power we didn't hear about violent incidents that did occur.

The American's haven't and can't find a way to unite the different groups, and the Iraq government has really dragged it feet as far as forming thier own independant army and police force and giving it the ability to do what the American's are trying to do now

Unfortunately having the preverbial disturbers in Iran and Syria are certainly not helping the cause, and its now too late to completely throw a blanket over the borders preventing the shipment of arms and professional insurgents.

At some point the American's are going to have to leave Iraq, thats a fact, and Bush did try to set a deadline for the Iraqi government to get its stuff together. It remains to be seen how strong the American resolve is going to be in exiting Iraq.

Right now its a question of time, as oppossed to tossing more troops into the grinder, but I think the penny ante strategy of fighting the insurgents on thier terms have to end. I think the American's really need to focus on the leaders of these groups and thier financiers in order to be effective.

The American government will be there for a very long time if it decides to continue the fight. Then there's the problem of finding more soldiers to go over to Iraq and fight. Soldiers there now are doing double duty to make up for the shortfall. Maybe those senators who are in favour of the war should send their sons and daughters over to fight.

That argument only works in a conscription army, and since this invasion is now years old, anyone who joins the military knows that they're going to Iraq, especially if they're infantry based. The sons and daughters of senators and congress people have the same choices as everyone else on whether they want to join up or not.

[Clever_Iggy]

Pull out now and youre creating a breeding ground for terrorism and anti-American sentiments. Like the Afghanistan war in 1979 where the US support local troops against the Soviets and then left once their immediate interest was satisfied. That resulted in an armed, well funded and resentful Bin Laden and a government that harbored him.

President Bush has taken a lot of missteps in his 7 years...including going into Iraq essentially unilaterally... but he is partially right here. Leaving Iraq now will harbor resentful groups in Iraq and we'll turn on our TV's in 10 years and wonder "how did this happen?" But, you cant win a war on volunteer signups, political correctness, and without full resources being deployed.

Whoever gets the job in 2008 is going to have a mess to clean up - cant believe people actually want that job.

[Agamemnon]

I don't think anyone denies that if the US leaves now there will be chaos and bloodshed. Its finding alternatives that is proving problematic... what other options does the US seriously have? Stay indefinitely to prevent the chaos/massacre? I don't think thats a workable solution, the US public doesn't appear willing to stand for it (at least, the Democrats aren't).

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't think anyone denies that if the US leaves now there will be chaos and bloodshed. Its finding alternatives that is proving problematic... what other options does the US seriously have? Stay indefinitely to prevent the chaos/massacre? I don't think thats a workable solution, the US public doesn't appear willing to stand for it (at least, the Democrats aren't).

Just staying stagnant and acting as a buffer zone between warring groups isnt going to do anything. The war in Afghanistan in 2001 started well because the troops had an identifiable target (Taliban). Due to troop commitments in Iraq, they didnt finish the job and now that country is in chaos.

Unfortunately, the American public and media is politically correct and that's impossible in war. The alternative to pulling out is something that no politican, media member, or general is willing to say - war is ugly and filled with racism (or conflicting relgious views), propaganda, and death - the last one is the only one that is in this war.

Either the US needs to commit to winning and eliminating insurgents at all costs, using any method or get out and be ready to accept the consequences of a vulnerable Iraq falling into the hands of a country like Iran or Syria who wont keep a body count.

[Superflyer]

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why not cut back about 25% of the troops over a year, while at the same time training the Iraqui army what to do to maintain what they are doing?
Then every year take another 25% out until there is none left.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why not cut back about 25% of the troops over a year, while at the same time training the Iraqui army what to do to maintain what they are doing?
Then every year take another 25% out until there is none left.

If it was only that simple. The Iraq government has been unable (or unwilling) to get organized in terms of police and army in Iraq. A graduated withdrawl wont do anything. As US troops with draw, violence will increase. Instead of the Iraq army filling in for the removed US troops, it will be the warring parties battling for control.

Besides, you wouldnt be solving the problem in the American public eyes' - troop casualties.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That argument only works in a conscription army, and since this invasion is now years old, anyone who joins the military knows that they're going to Iraq, especially if they're infantry based. The sons and daughters of senators and congress people have the same choices as everyone else on whether they want to join up or not.

There's the "stop loss" orders that prevent soldiers from leaving the US army. So i'm not so sure you can say it's not a conscription army when people are not allowed to leave or retire when they've done their duty.

"One response to difficulties in recruitment: stop people from leaving. Sergeant Isaiah Santopoalo is one of 70,000 soldiers who have been barred from quitting the Army by a stop-loss order that keeps G.I.s in uniform beyond their retirement date or the end of their enlistment obligation. Since 2004, the Army has denied departures for troops headed to or already in Iraq or Afghanistan as a way to promote continuity in fighting units. "I definitely want to get out," says Santopoalo, 22, of the 73rd Cavalry Regiment outside Baqubah, 30 miles east of Baghdad. Three weeks before his enlistment was up last year, the Army ordered him to Iraq for a second tour. He had been planning to live with his wife in Chicago and attend film school by now. Instead, Santopoalo stalks Sunni insurgents through the palm groves. "You start to think about what life could be--sitting on a beach drinking a Corona," he says. "That's when it affects you."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...7270-3,00.html

The sons and daughters of senators and congress people have the same choices as everyone else on whether they want to join up or not.

The senators and congress people that support the war are hypocrites. There's a shortage od soldiers in the army yet they refuse to send their sons and daughters over to Iraq. George Bush has 2 duaghters and their not over in Iraq. It's always let someone elses sons and daughters go over, fight, and get killed..

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Dion

The senators and congress people that support the war are hypocrites. There's a shortage od soldiers in the army yet they refuse to send their sons and daughters over to Iraq. George Bush has 2 duaghters and their not over in Iraq. It's always let someone elses sons and daughters go over, fight, and get killed..

Sen. McCain's son is either in Iraq or heading there. It was big news awhile ago. He's one of the Republican candidates for 2008 - would be interesting to see how he approaches this...

[MarchHare]

The senators and congress people that support the war are hypocrites. There's a shortage od soldiers in the army yet they refuse to send their sons and daughters over to Iraq. George Bush has 2 duaghters and their not over in Iraq. It's always let someone elses sons and daughters go over, fight, and get killed..

What if Bush's daughters don't want to join the military? They're adults now; their parents have no say whether they enlist or not.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Slava

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/070426/w04269A.html

It looks like Bush is going to veto a bill for troop withdrawal in October. I'm not sure what to think of this...I'm a pure pacifist at heart, but pulling the troops might mean civil war in Iraq.

I'm curious to see what you guys think. Should the US "finish what they started", or should they cut casualties (on their side) and withdraw on a given date?

They should cut and run, but not on a specified media publicized date.

MYK

[octothorp]

Ultimately, I'd like to see the majority of peace-keeping duties handled by a coalition of regional countries. Unfortunately, most of those neighbouring countries would like nothing better than to continue to agitate Iraq. If you are somehow able to get the Turks, Iranians, and Arabs to sit down and take ownership over the region, they could go along way to create some effective solutions in tandem with a US force. Current diplomatic channels make that impossible, but perhaps it's time to reopen some of those channels. The US has got to make it so that a peaceful Iraq is in the best interests of its neighbours.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What if Bush's daughters don't want to join the military? They're adults now; their parents have no say whether they enlist or not.

The point I was trying to make was that I thought it odd that so few sons and daughters of senators and congress are over in Iraq fighting. My mistake is in the way I worded that response.

Of course their adults, but you would think that having parents who are pro war, there might might be some pressure put on them to enlist.

[MarchHare]

The point I was trying to make was that I thought it odd that so few sons and daughters of senators and congress are over in Iraq fighting. My mistake is in the way I worded that response.

The nature of an all-volunteer military is that it doesn't tend to attract highly-educated people from wealthy families (particularly in the combat arms branches, such as the infantry). Of course there are exceptions to this, but the grunts on the ground armed with rifles (i.e. the ones most in danger of being killed in Iraq) by and large are not university-educated and come from lower-income families. More often than not, the children of senators and congressmen don't fit that profile.

[Edit]
Although it would be interesting to compare what percentage of congressmen + senators have children serving in the military vs. the percentage of the overall American population.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

They should cut and run, but not on a specified media publicized date.

MYK

That would be the only way I suppose. I don't quite know if they should cut and run but if they were to, that would be the only way.