Troop Withdrawal: A Case of Cold Feet?

There are some antiwar cohorts, and strangely together with liberal hawks, who are getting cold feet in the stream of politics calling for withdrawal. The worst instance of this is Fareed Zakaria, Newsweeks’s renown analyst and critic of the war since its outset. He hedges over its “timing” when events in Iraq are no worse now than previously. He seems to have visions of mass panic in Vietnam during the Ford administration’s directive to pull out. Zakaria notes that since there has been no sudden spike in American deaths — what’s a few a week, after all — the Democrats are being Machiavellian in hitting Bush while he’s down and drawing his blood. On the contrary, the antiwar movement from the beginning has always been about the blood of the troops in a war poorly planned and undermanned. Of course, Zakaria would argue that was then; I would argue it is the result of now since lack of troops means our dependence on Iraqi forces.

Zakaria argues that this shameless political move is ill-timed in light of the coming Iraqi elections and should be what we do now — since oddly Condoleezza Rice is now in charge of the war! — and not dwell in the shortcomings of the past. He implies that while our policy is now “on firmer footing,” political opposition could “precipitate disaster.” He presumes that the opposition is calling for a “panicked withdrawal.” Zakaria artfully uses Ambush Alley, a scourge to US Troops for two years, now secured by Iraqi forces, while ignoring the implicit removal of US occupational checkpoints along the way from the airport to Baghdad.

This famous analyst, until now calm and open-minded, smells disaster in the withdrawal on the one hand, but on the other, withdrawal serves as a “useful purpose” when Iraqi leaders “realize they could be on their own, without the United States to blame.” Zakaria should know better than to attack straw as though Murtha and his ilk panicked. Old Marines invented “strategic withdrawal.”

 

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 14, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

5,955 views 19 replies
Reply #2 Top
The only problem with Fareed Zakaria'a assessment is, there is no reason to "withdraw" at all. While progress in Iraq is slow in coming, it is coming. More quickly (I might add) than any other democracy in history.

The problem with the idea of a "strategic withdrawal" is, there is no reason to fall back when the push is moving forward.

Cold feet is for the young who are scared of commitment.


Good article though.
Reply #3 Top
Thanks. But if the push is moving forward then incremental withdrawal should concur with the success.
Reply #4 Top
But if the push is moving forward then incremental withdrawal should concur with the success.


Why?
Reply #5 Top
There are some antiwar cohorts, and strangely together with liberal hawks, who are getting cold feet in the stream of politics calling for withdrawal.


Frustration is probably a better way to describe it. People are getting fed up with the incompetence by the Bush administration in managing this war. Our invasion of Iraq could have been successful if we had done everything right. The Bush administration has done everything wrong, due to the politicization of our strategy. Experts in Middle East policy were let go in favor of analysts who subscribe to Bush's political agenda. Because of naive expectations that we would be greeted as "liberators," we let Iraq become a haven for terrorists. We go into a city, fight the insurgents, and then pull back, leaving any Iraqis who might have helped fight at the mercy of the insurgents when they return. It's been 2-1/2 years and we haven't even secured the road to the airport!

Iraqis should have been given control of the reconstruction of their country but instead we have Halliburton and KBR in there profiteering from the war. Many Iraqis voted in the last election in hopes that it would speed up U.S. withdrawal, not because they are "embracing democracy."
Reply #6 Top
Frustration is probably a better way to describe it. People are getting fed up with the incompetence by the Bush administration in managing this war.


I love it when people talk as if they spoke for everyone else.

Here's this is for you. link.Link

Enjoy.

Many Iraqis voted in the last election in hopes that it would speed up U.S. withdrawal, not because they are "embracing democracy."


Once again speaking as if you speak for them.

You must be related to Col Gene
Reply #7 Top
Zakaria artfully uses Ambush Alley, a scourge to US Troops for two years, now secured by Iraqi forces, while ignoring the implicit removal of US occupational checkpoints along the way from the airport to Baghdad.


How is achieving what you want a bad thing? For two years it's been "It's so bad you can't even get to the airport without American checkpoints every 30 feet." Now it's "OMG, the checkpoints are gone!" Can't have your cake & eat it too, Steve.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #8 Top
People are getting fed up with the incompetence by the Bush administration in managing this war.
Your entire response is well stated!

Now it's "OMG, the checkpoints are gone!" Can't have your cake & eat it too, Steve.
You missed the drift;Zakaria failed to see that "native" forces are less provocative, and is therefore symbolic of the wisdom of Murtha.
Reply #9 Top
Why?
for the same reason now that the election is over 20,000 troops are leaving.
Reply #10 Top
love it when people talk as if they spoke for everyone else.


Like Bush's speeches, eh?
Reply #11 Top
Like Bush's speeches, eh?


Sorry but with GW's speeches, he IS speaking for everyone else. That's why he was elected president. He was elected so he could speak for everyone, it's part of what being the president is all about. While the people here at JU do "not" have that privilege.
Reply #12 Top
he IS speaking for everyone else.
Oh, yeah, like Clinton spoke for you, I suppose?

Reply #13 Top
Oh, yeah, like Clinton spoke for you, I suppose?


enquiring minds can't hardly wait for drmiler's reply.
Reply #14 Top
Stevendadalus
But if the push is moving forward then incremental withdrawal should concur with the success.


Why?


Why?
for the same reason now that the election is over 20,000 troops are leaving.


I didn't mean why will it occur, I meant, why does a push forward automatically mean there should be an incremental withdrawal?

I know it has been announced that the troops who will be rotating in the next few months won't be replaced by other battalions. I also think that is a sign is success. I am just questioning why one should automatically mean the other.

In WWII the Germans didn't withdraw troops after they basically handed us some of our nations worst losses in battle. After the big push of (and after) "Operation Overlord", we didn't automatically pull troops. In fact, we have never automatically pulled troops prior to either a ceasefire agreement or a full surrender.

If we end up pulling 20,000 troops from Iraq, and it ends up lengthening the war, will you still be calling it a good move? Or will you be trashing Prs. Bush for doing it, even though you back the idea now?

BenUser:
Our invasion of Iraq could have been successful if we had done everything right.


You remind me of the people in disaster scenes that looked at us and said, "if you had have gotten here before all this happened, we would have been ok!"

Anyone who claims to be successful, with no failures is a liar. Anyone who sits on their butt, ignoring many, many successes, while highlighting the failures is a spoiled turd.

By your definition, The Revolutionary War was a total wash, the Civil War was a draw, WWI and WWII were soundly won by the Germans and even Desert Storm was a victory for Hussein.

You can take your vomit and swim in it with Colon Bin Gangrene.

I may disagree with Stevendedalus most the time, and I'll admit to throwing a few shots his way at times, but I can respect his positions because he backs most of them with some points that are at least worth thinking about... all you do is hop on the Bash Bush Bus and mindless ride along.
Reply #15 Top
he IS speaking for everyone else.
Oh, yeah, like Clinton spoke for you, I suppose?


When he was president....yes! Now that he's not....piss on him! He "was" duly elected by popular vote as president. And in the office of president, he helped make laws. I can't say I ever liked the man or what legislation he helped to enact, but that's another story. He helped make laws and as a US citizen I followed those laws even if I did not agree with them. Same with GW. He is an "elected" official done so by "popular" vote. So whether or not you like it. Until his term is complete, he DOES speak for ALL of America.
Reply #16 Top
If we end up pulling 20,000 troops from Iraq, and it ends up lengthening the war, will you still be calling it a good move? Or will you be trashing Prs. Bush for doing it, even though you back the idea now?
Your premise is wrong: it would not lengthen it if we were gone--civil war is none of our business. Besides, the 20,000 is already a given.


In WWII the Germans didn't withdraw troops after they basically handed us some of our nations worst losses in battle.
The Germans did strategically withdraw unable to hold onto their gain in order to fight another day. If we fell back where insurgents couldn't take potshots at us, I beleive the Iraqis would no longer have an excuse to prolong the in stability.
Reply #17 Top
There's no doubt a president's voice is ubiquitous, nevertheless, in a republic there is still room for dissentin peace time or war. Technically as the only nationwide elected official, he certainly has the capacity to presume he speaks the popular will, of which I am not a part.
Reply #18 Top
I meant, why does a push forward automatically mean there should be an incremental withdrawal?
---Parated2K

Because the Left doesn't want a Bush Admin victory, that's why.
That's how they think; any success should willingly be tempered with failure. Look at their social programs, for God's sake. A few decent victories in the past, yes, but failure all around, and they still hang on to them.
That's why we lost Vietnam, really. We'd "sanitize" a village of its VC or NVA troops, then leave instead of setting up a garrison to hold the position and squeeze them out, denying them territory, as good military strategy would suggest. The enemy would then simply slip back in and use the village again. Brilliant, no? That's what they want in Iraq, too.

If we end up pulling 20,000 troops from Iraq, and it ends up lengthening the war, will you still be calling it a good move? Or will you be trashing Prs. Bush for doing it, even though you back the idea now?
---Parated2K

I vote it'd be the latter.



civil war is none of our business
--stevend

You say that now. When/if it happens? You'll be pointing your finger and saying "I told you so!" along with the rest of them.

The Germans did strategically withdraw unable to hold onto their gain in order to fight another day.
--stevend

Where? The only way the Germans backed off was if they were faced with overwhelming opposition. This finally happened in 1943 on the Eastern front, and mid-late 1944 on the Western. Before that, they held on with an iron grip to every inch of ground they took.
And they knew how to control the populace, too. Cruelly, brutally and quickly. Could we do the same in Iraq? Nope. You wouldn't like that, would you? I wouldn't either, truth to tell, but you do have to admire their efficiency on some levels, at least.
Rommel sure wasn't allowed to "strategically withdraw" in North Africa, despite all his desperate communiques to Hitler in Berlin. He had to be pushed the whole way to Egypt. And he was...very effectively. For that, we have generals like Patton and Montgomery to thank...men who knew how to fight a war.


If we fell back where insurgents couldn't take potshots at us, I beleive the Iraqis would no longer have an excuse to prolong the in stability.
---stevend

You know, from what I keep hearing, it's not so much the Iraqis we're fighting anymore. It's the foreigners; thugs in dirty nightshirts who come in across the borders to resist democracy, with TNT strapped across their chests and AK-47s in hand. Their lives are insured by obscenely wealthy Arab monarchs who smile sadly and shake their heads at the terror, and take our money for oil. They then use that oil money to pay the thugs' families a reward if they die killing innocent people or Americans. When are you going to get that message?
Reply #19 Top
Before that,
Doesn't speak well for Germans who quickly folded with a few months of D-Day.

It's the foreigners; thugs in dirty nightshirts who come in across the borders to resist democracy, with TNT strapped across their chests and AK-47s in hand.
Gen. CAsey wouldn't agree; there are many Iraqi Sunnis still fighting.

vote it'd be the latter.
Wasted vote.

Because the Left doesn't want a Bush Admin victory, that's why.

a horrid lie!
The enemy would then simply slip back in and use the village again. Brilliant, no? That's what they want in Iraq, too.
That's what is now happening even with the 20,000.