Unilateral Withdrawal Or More Troops

from JoeUser Forums
 If we “unilaterally” invaded a country, why can we not unilaterally cut and run? Why does even, Dean say that we cannot do the latter? — and by so doing joins the ilk of liberal hawks, such as Hillary and Kerry? Is it inspired begrudgingly by the adage that “you made your bed...”? But do we have to sleep in it other sleepless nights as well?

For one thing, “unilateral” was in the decision; the execution was not, for Bush was smart enough to drag along a “coalition”; despite its being window dressing. Nevertheless, some members of this coalition have in fact unilaterally cut and run — apparently without repercussions other than from critics in this country. There are even critics who object to a timetable of attrition for fear the insurgents will simply exploit it to their advantage.

To what end, then, did Bush commit the nation? Was it to insure that there be unconditional democracy, though already this has been compromised? And if we wait until Iraqi forces are up to par, what guarantee is there that they will indeed put down the insurgency once and for all in face of our own forces unable to do so? If indeed there be a true Bush commitment to this war, should he not send in another 100,000 coalition troops to wipe out resistance? Echoes of Vietnam notwithstanding, what has he got to lose as a lame duck president but the soul of his party?

The alternative, it would appear, is for Bush just as boldly unilaterally submit to a timetable come hell or high water, with or without UN blessings, and put an end to this debacle.

      

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: November 7, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

 

politics
23,374 views 86 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, it seems you have at least picked up on a new idea.  That the decision was unilateral, not the actual invasion.  But I will disagree there as well, as I dont think we were leading Blair around by the nose.  Although some may argue that as you did.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since Blair also had a "thing" with Clinton, why not Bush?
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Echoes of Vietnam notwithstanding, what has he got to lose as a lame duck president but the soul of his party?


The only "echoes" are coming from democrats and their media friends.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pouring into Iraq more troops would conjure the echoes. I was not referring to the present condition.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

To what end, then, did Bush commit the nation?

This is good enough for me. There is a middle ground here you know... it is not just leave or put in more troops. How about staying for the long haul? How about standing up for the things we pay lip service to like ensuring freedom for the Iraqis?

The 2000 soldiers who have died in Iraq gave their lives in service of the freedom. The answer is not more troops or unilateral withdrawal but rather the realization that reforming an entire nation won't be completed in a year or a decade but rather decades after decades until it is finished.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"as I dont think we were leading Blair around by the nose. "

Blair led himself, and exposed his belly to Bush.

www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13459528,00.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=367829&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5

" Since Blair also had a "thing" with Clinton, why not Bush?"

Clinton's advice to Blair regarding the Bush White House was to "hug them close". History tells us he did just that.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Since Blair also had a "thing" with Clinton, why not Bush?

Ever seen the movie Love Actually?  I think it was less of a 'thing' and more of a way to keep his eye on Clinton!

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about staying for the long haul?
...And add to the casualty list and further deplete our own defense at home.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The time for more troops was at the outset of this war not today. We need to set a date to end our committment and if the Iraqi people do not step up and defend their new government so be it. The time is soon comming to end this war for our troops.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
if there was someone in charge--either in the field or the dod--who could be counted on to provide an accurate, non-politicized assessment AND it concluded a viable stable state could come together in the absence of constant attacks, i'd have no problem putting in however many troops were required.

i'm not sure such a person can be found or, if found, it's not already too late for the viable stable state.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
1: Prs. Bush has stated ad nauseum what needs to happen before we will pull all troops out of Iraq. Just because his detractors don't care to open their ears, doesn't change that fact.

2: There is another word for "unilateral withdrawal", it is called "surrender" and would do nothing more than turn Iraq over to the bacteria to run rough shod over the people.

Only losers quit just because things aren't going absolutely perfectly. If the Founding Fathers listened to the naysayers, there would never have been an American Revolution.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is there is NO indication the what Bush says must happen to pull our troops out of Iraq will EVER happen. The factions within Iraq do not want to work togeher and countries like Iran and Seria fuel the discord by supplying weapons to the factions that are creating the insecurity. Stability in Iraq is not a reality with our troops in that country and I do not believe there is any real chance of establishing stability when we finally leave that country. When we did not stop the insergents at the outset of Saddam falling from power, we lost the fight. The reason we were unable to establish and maintain stability was because we did not have anything close to the force levels required. Bush violated the most basic military principal of warefare - overwhelming force. His generals told him what was required and Bush sent about 1/3 the force levels needed.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is there is NO indication the what Bush says must happen to pull our troops out of Iraq will EVER happen.


Just because the President doesn't announce it in the MSM and send you a personal letter doesn't matter. You still don't understand that the President is not going to annouce to the public any timetable for a withdrawel.

You have the military knowledge of a first grader.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
We have a few neighborhoods riddled with crime in my city. Perhaps they should saturate the area with police and kick down every other door, or just withdraw entirely...

IMHO, you're smarter than this steve. If we had a million troops in Iraq these attacks would still occur, and until the Iraqi people ask us to leave, we'd be abandoning them. I think the expectation Bush-haters have are unreasonable.

This isn't Vietnam, there is no North Vietnamese army bearing down on the poor Iraqis. There are just insurgents, attacking sporatically in hopes people like steve will see it and write catch-22 articles like this.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog

It is Bush that has the military knowledge of a first grader. What I said is that the conditions that Bush has made for our pullout ( not the time) was when the Iraqi Army and police can secure the country. What I said is that is not likely to EVER happen!

BakerStreet

If at the outset we had eliminated the groups that have grown into the terrorists of today and secured the borders and the Amo Dumps, the current security problems would be in a few isolated situations. We did not do that because we did not have the force levels needed. We had almost 500,000 troops in the first Gulf war and we were not attempting to occupy a unfriendly country. Gen Franks and the Army CoS told Bush it would take about three times the troop levels Bush agreed to send. The Op Plan completed by Gen Franks called for not less then 300,000 in Iraq when Saddam fell.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is a lie, frankly col. If you "eliminate" people who aren't doing anything wrong, people like Col Gene will call you a nazi. If you don't, they simply bide their time, hitting you in criminal fashion and posing as civilians the other 90% of the time.

So if we don't kill "civilians" Col Gene complains that we aren't stopping the attacks. When we do kill "civilians", Col Gene waves the bloody shirt and screams injustice. You treasonously demand failure, and them blame other people for it. The only true fact in the situation is that Steve, Col Gene and the rest oppose what we are doing in Iraq, and will find fault no matter what we do.

We've defeated and occupied an entire nation with fewer losses than single battles in WW2. I think the sentiment here is facetious and unrealistic. The sentiment from others is ghoulish and politically motivated.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
What I said is that the conditions that Bush has made for our pullout ( not the time) was when the Iraqi Army and police can secure the country. What I said is that is not likely to EVER happen!


Col, you have no idea what's going on in Iraq besides the MSM headlines and what the NYT tells you. You should say "you don't want it to happen".
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush violated the most basic military principal of warefare - overwhelming force.
You got that right!
We need to set a date to end our committment and if the Iraqi people do not step up and defend their new government so be it
couldn't agree more. 
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are just insurgents, attacking sporatically in hopes people like steve will see it and write catch-22 articles like this.
For over two years, you know perfectly well my argument for and against the war--at the outset either continue the Clinton war but with greater bombing intensity, invade with overwhelming force, continue to pressure the UN to complete a thorough search for WMD--neither was done and we should admit to our fallacy and end it by a second wave invasion or withdraw strategically. "Kicking down doors" we have already subscribed to and it didn't work. Your reference to city crime left off a more relevant and positive alternative: job opportunity and education aligned with hard muscle. 
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is another word for "unilateral withdrawal", it is called "surrender"
BS! It is called "get your act together, Iraqis, we have shown the way." In no way is this to be construed as a cop-out, dishonoring the 2000 brave; they fought and died to help lift the Iraqis toward democracy--if it doesn't come to fruition, at least they died giving the Iraqis the seeds of democracy that eventually will be realized however imperfectly.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
All those who challenge the glorious Blair/Bush strategy are French surrender monkeys!!!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only true fact in the situation is that Steve, Col Gene and the rest oppose what we are doing in Iraq, and will find fault no matter what we do.

We've defeated and occupied an entire nation with fewer losses than single battles in WW2. I think the sentiment here is facetious and unrealistic. The sentiment from others is ghoulish and politically motivated.
True, I opposed the war as conceived. But I also was sensible to realize that the condition in Iraq was but an extension of the first war, which GeoH and Clinton did not carry out forceibly; GeoW had the opportunity to clamp down on Saddam by other means--he chose invasion and omitting Powell's warning about the pottery shop[with invasion comes occupation]. As for WWII battles, they were unconditionally won.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again, back to my point about the neighborhood. If we used a force "overwhelming" enough to kick down every door in Iraq and investigate crimes before they happen, I wonder what the Bush-haters around here would be saying?

They'd be screaming Nazi, they'd be calling Iraq a police state. They'd be saying we were crushing the human rights of Iraqis punishing them before they commit crimes. Then, any future attacks would be blamed on our oppression.

If we don't, and just send in a million more troops to stand around and make a pretty show of stopping the insurgency, all we do is give them more targets. Stop pretending that you are the level-head, steve, because you have the most irrational opinion of all.

You are trying to pose the idea of making war on civilians, when RIGHT NOW we have articles on JU calling us villains for doing so.

"As for WWII battles, they were unconditionally won."


By killing all the SOLDIERS who were fighting us, and taking the remainder prisoner. So, are you suggesting we turn Iraq into one giant prison camp, and kill all the civlians who don't surrender? What happens when they say they surrender, and then keep fighting when our back is turned?

The problem is, we are being attacked by people who did surrender, and who smile and wave at our soldiers when they aren't attacking us. The only way to prevent it is to crush their human rights and turn Iraq into a police state, which if we did you'd be right here bitching about it...
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
My, testy, no amount of aging has mellowed you. No one is suggesting murdering innocent civilians but simply that US troops are undermanned and need help to ferret out car bombs, known pockets of resistance and the Syrian/Iranian borders. This will show we indeed mean business without which the only alternative is "bye."     
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Those "pockets of resistance" on the Syrian border are towns where women and children live. Killing civilians will be considered "murder" whether they are innocent are not, and you don't have to stray off this forum to know it.

Again, you ignore the catch-22 of the situation. "Ferriting out" would be considered oppression, and people would immediately blame future attacks on our horrible oppression of the Iraqi people. To saturate Iraq with military and crush resistance would be to oppress the innocent Iraqi citizens. This isn't WW2 where people who surrender are put in prison camps. People who surrender are left to attack again in Iraq.

We can't kick in doors just because an area is anti-US. When we are attacked and given cause to investigate an area, we do. You know that you'd be right here complaining if we turned Iraq into some huge concentration camp for killing those who oppose us and oppressing those who don't.

(And yes, it does make me testy to see someone who knows exactly why we don't do something but still poses the question for propaganda value. We are sacrificing lives in the spirit of freedom and human rights. For that you find fault. Not like you wouldn't find fault if we did the opposite as well.)