Ex-Top Commander Endorses Pullout Bill

[OrnotBitwise]

He'll probably say the same thing anyone capable of logical thought would: Is Iraq in a position for us to bring our troops home within a year?

If not, the answer is no, regardless WHO wants to say otherwise.

Hmm. The logical question to follow this with is "will Iraq EVER be in a position for us to bring our troops home?"

Our keeping our troops in Iraq is predicated on two propositions, one clear and the other unstated by the administration's supporters, by preference. I'll state the latter first, since it's the more contentious of the two, in the popular media.

(A) Since we "broke" Iraq, we bought it. We destroyed their government and infrastructure and therefor we owe the Iraqi people a debt of honor (if you will permit me the poetic hyperbole). I have no problem whatsoever with this proposition. In fact, I agree with this statement without reservation. We owe the Iraqi people big time.

By itself, however, this assertion does not mean we have to remain in Iraq. Oh yes, it's true. A lot of people claim that it's enough, but it's not. The second necessary proposition is as follows:

(B) Our troops are doing more good than harm by remaining in Iraq. Many people take this as a given but it is not. Our troops are, without question, increasing security in those zones in which they have a strong presence. Even I won't argue that. It is also true, however, that the presence of our troops is increasing tension between some of the factions in Iraq and increasing resentment for the United States -- and the West in general -- among the Iraqi population in general. Let's face it, NO ONE likes a foreign invader. Think Red Dawn here.

My opinion -- regretfully but strongly -- is that the harm our presence is causing outweighs the good that our troops are doing. That's regardless of the intent or moral rectitude of our forces: I mean no disrespect to anyone.

It's actually fairly simple if you strip all of the rhetoric and emotionalism off of it. The Iraqis don't want us there anymore. It's their country. Case closed -- or so it should be.

 

[Gunny]

Hmm. The logical question to follow this with is "will Iraq EVER be in a position for us to bring our troops home?"

Our keeping our troops in Iraq is predicated on two propositions, one clear and the other unstated by the administration's supporters, by preference. I'll state the latter first, since it's the more contentious of the two, in the popular media.

I don't know that your latter statement is correct. "Unstated by administration supporters, by preference," stereotypes any and all who are not the administration's detractors, and places artificially a stance on them.

All too often, some debaters who suffer tunnel vision are quick to label me or others "Republicans," "Bushies," and or believe that because we do not condemn the administration, that we blindly support it in all things.

(A) Since we "broke" Iraq, we bought it. We destroyed their government and infrastructure and therefor we owe the Iraqi people a debt of honor (if you will permit me the poetic hyperbole). I have no problem whatsoever with this proposition. In fact, I agree with this statement without reservation. We owe the Iraqi people big time.

No argument.

By itself, however, this assertion does not mean we have to remain in Iraq. Oh yes, it's true. A lot of people claim that it's enough, but it's not. The second necessary proposition is as follows:

I agree that owing Iraq and having to stay in Iraq are not mutually inclusive.

(B) Our troops are doing more good than harm by remaining in Iraq. Many people take this as a given but it is not. Our troops are, without question, increasing security in those zones in which they have a strong presence. Even I won't argue that. It is also true, however, that the presence of our troops is increasing tension between some of the factions in Iraq and increasing resentment for the United States -- and the West in general -- among the Iraqi population in general. Let's face it, NO ONE likes a foreign invader. Think Red Dawn here.

My opinion -- regretfully but strongly -- is that the harm our presence is causing outweighs the good that our troops are doing. That's regardless of the intent or moral rectitude of our forces: I mean no disrespect to anyone.

Following the course of action the administration has chosen, we are pretty-much locked into remaining in Iraq. I have been rather outspoken in my opinion regarding the novice-level approach taken towards invading Iraq and the predictable aftermath.

It's actually fairly simple if you strip all of the rhetoric and emotionalism off of it. The Iraqis don't want us there anymore. It's their country. Case closed -- or so it should be.

Your first question, IMO, is the Million Dollar one ..."will Iraq EVER be in a position for us to bring our troops home?"

IMO, the govt of Iraq is in no hurry for us to leave. We're doing their dirty work, and all the while, they are crticizing us for it.

We need to provide them the tools they need to succeed and leave. If they fall afterward, it will be of their own doing.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

IMO, the govt of Iraq is in no hurry for us to leave. We're doing their dirty work, and all the while, they are crticizing us for it.

We need to provide them the tools they need to succeed and leave. If they fall afterward, it will be of their own doing.

I actually agree with this, to an extent. Certainly, we are serving the interests of a small group of influential individuals within Iraq and only some of them -- a small number, unfortunately -- seem to have the best interests of Iraqis in general at heart.

I'm more interested in whether the bulk of Iraqi citizens want us to stay. That's harder to gauge, I freely admit. Still, I think there's enough evidence now to conclude that they want us gone. Would our leaving precipitate a period of anarchy in Iraq? Almost certainly, yes. But I question whether postponing the event will lessen its severity at all. It may even make it worse when the axe finally falls.

 

[Gunny]

I actually agree with this, to an extent. Certainly, we are serving the interests of a small group of influential individuals within Iraq and only some of them -- a small number, unfortunately -- seem to have the best interests of Iraqis in general at heart.

I'm more interested in whether the bulk of Iraqi citizens want us to stay. That's harder to gauge, I freely admit. Still, I think there's enough evidence now to conclude that they want us gone. Would our leaving precipitate a period of anarchy in Iraq? Almost certainly, yes. But I question whether postponing the event will lessen its severity at all. It may even make it worse when the axe finally falls.

One would assume, based on the current situation, that only the secularists would want us to stay. The opposing religious groups, and and feudal territorialists most likely want us gone.

IMO, we need to put the govt's feet to the fire. And I am willing to deal with the gov't simple because it was democratically elected by the people, right? They get their ass in gear and start assuming more of the security role and we gradually pull out.

 

[Annie]

I actually agree with this, to an extent. Certainly, we are serving the interests of a small group of influential individuals within Iraq and only some of them -- a small number, unfortunately -- seem to have the best interests of Iraqis in general at heart.

I'm more interested in whether the bulk of Iraqi citizens want us to stay. That's harder to gauge, I freely admit. Still, I think there's enough evidence now to conclude that they want us gone. Would our leaving precipitate a period of anarchy in Iraq? Almost certainly, yes. But I question whether postponing the event will lessen its severity at all. It may even make it worse when the axe finally falls.

Wow, I'm impressed, someone that actually reads what other's post. You have my vote! We may not agree 99% of the time, but at least I know you are fair.

 

[JimH52]

IMO, the govt of Iraq is in no hurry for us to leave. We're doing their dirty work, and all the while, they are crticizing us for it.

We need to provide them the tools they need to succeed and leave. If they fall afterward, it will be of their own doing.

Gunny, on this we agree. Remaining in Iraq beyond what is absolutely necessary is a huge mistake. Perhaps as big as invading was in the first place.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny, on this we agree. Remaining in Iraq beyond what is absolutely necessary is a huge mistake. Perhaps as big as invading was in the first place.

IMO, we are having an impact on the situation, but we are not changing it. In that light, there isn't much point in our remaining past the minute the Iraqi gov't is deemed capable of supporting and defending itself.

Do not confuse the fact that I support a satisfactory conclusion with supporting the decision to invade Iraq. I in fact did not agree with the latter and have been quite outspoken about it.

 

[onedomino]

One would assume, based on the current situation, that only the secularists would want us to stay. The opposing religious groups, and and feudal territorialists most likely want us gone.

IMO, we need to put the govt's feet to the fire. And I am willing to deal with the gov't simple because it was democratically elected by the people, right? They get their ass in gear and start assuming more of the security role and we gradually pull out.

The most likely scenario is that regardless of whether a (R) or a (D) is elected in 2008, there will still be US ground troops in Iraq in 2012 (they will not still be patrolling the streets). And that there will be at least one major US airbase, and naval facilities at Basara, well beyond 2012.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

The most likely scenario is that regardless of whether a (R) or a (D) is elected in 2008, there will still be US ground troops in Iraq in 2012 (they will not still be patrolling the streets). And that there will be at least one major US airbase, and naval facilities at Basara, well beyond 2012.

Sadly, you're probably right. That was, after all, one of the primary unstated goals of the invasion in the first place.

Still, there will be several strong factions -- both liberal and conservative -- within this country pushing for a total pullout. I hope that we will be vocal enough and pugnacious enough to make keeping any military presence in Iraq too politically costly.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The most likely scenario is that regardless of whether a (R) or a (D) is elected in 2008, there will still be US ground troops in Iraq in 2012 (they will not still be patrolling the streets). And that there will be at least one major US airbase, and naval facilities at Basara, well beyond 2012.

I fondly remember the days of 2003/04, when many of us were predicting that the goal of the invasion was to establish a long term military presence in iraq, and Bush supporters were objecting, and telling us that we would be leaving soon. That we had no intention of making Iraq a proxy, forward-staging area for our military.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I fondly remember the days of 2003/04, when many of us were predicting that the goal of the invasion was to establish a long term military presence in iraq, and Bush supporters were objecting, and telling us that we would be leaving soon. That we had no intention of making Iraq a proxy, forward-staging area for our military.

Yeah, I seem to recall that as well.

You know what the line will be too. "The bases are too expensive to just hand over to the Iraqis. We paid for 'em and we should get some benefit from them. After all, the Iraqi government isn't reliable: we can't turn over resources like that to them." And so on.

 

[Gunny]

I fondly remember the days of 2003/04, when many of us were predicting that the goal of the invasion was to establish a long term military presence in iraq, and Bush supporters were objecting, and telling us that we would be leaving soon. That we had no intention of making Iraq a proxy, forward-staging area for our military.

Oddly enough, the only "prediction" which came in the form of a baseless accusation, was that we went into Iraq to steal Iraq's oil. I don't recall much of anything in the way of debating whether or not we wanted a permanent military base in Iraq, and really don't see that it matters.

Since we have had a military presence in both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait since 1991, not to mention Bahrain, and use of UAE port facilities so what does it matter if we have yet another base in Iraq?

Were you arguing against THOSE facilities PRIOR TO 2003? If not, I'm not sure I see your point.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Oddly enough, the only "prediction" which came in the form of a baseless accusation, was that we went into Iraq to steal Iraq's oil. I don't recall much of anything in the way of debating whether or not we wanted a permanent military base in Iraq, and really don't see that it matters.

Since we have had a military presence in both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait since 1991, not to mention Bahrain, and use of UAE port facilities so what does it matter if we have yet another base in Iraq?

Were you arguing against THOSE facilities PRIOR TO 2003? If not, I'm not sure I see your point.

I've known Ornot for years, and I know he never makes shit up or lies. He remembers, just like me, how Bush worshippers towed the adminstration line in 2003, that we weren't going to permanently stay in iraq. That was one of the selling points of your war: it would be quick, easy, and we'd be out of there.

It was all lies of course.

With respect to bases in saudi arabia, I'm afraid that I - like most people - weren't as informed about the middle east as we should have been pre-2001.

By avoiding Fox News, and the Limbaugh show, I've actually become quite informed now. And realize the nature and consequences of american policy in the middle east for the last 30 years. And that is this: If you support dictators and corrupt regimes, you're going to piss some people off. Particularly the people that live under those regimes.

 

[Gunny]

I've known Ornot for years, and I know he never makes shit up or lies. He remembers, just like me, how Bush worshippers towed the adminstration line in 2003, that we weren't going to permanently stay in iraq. That was one of the selling points of your war: it would be quick, easy, and we'd be out of there.

It was all lies of course.

With respect to bases in saudi arabia, I'm afraid that I - like most people - weren't as informed about the middle east as we should have been pre-2001.

By avoiding Fox News, and the Limbaugh show, I've actually become quite informed now. And realize the nature and consequences of american policy in the middle east for the last 30 years. And that is this: If you support dictators and corrupt regimes, you're going to piss some people off. Particularly the people that live under those regimes.

One, I didn't accuse anyone of lying. I was posting on this board and you weren't, so don't try and tell me what was and was not being said when you weren't here.

Two, rather than accuse anyone of anything, I asked for you to clarify what point you are attempting to make.

Three, it isn't "my" war. Whether or not YOU or I like it, it is OUR war.

Four, if it's all lies, do show me exactly which US military installation in Iraq has been designated as permanent following a US pullout.

Don't kid yourself. You aren't much informed at all. You spew the same baseless rhetoric left-wing extremists have been spewing for years, verbatim, and no amount of truth, facts, logic, nor common sense has ever swayed you one inch that I've observed.

As far as ornot goes, I have treated him/her in the same manner in which he/she has treated me and will continue to do so. If I choose to call ornot or anyone else a liar, rest assured I WILL have the facts to back it up when I do, and there will be no doubt in your nor anyone's else's brainhousing group what I'm saying.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Oddly enough, the only "prediction" which came in the form of a baseless accusation, was that we went into Iraq to steal Iraq's oil. I don't recall much of anything in the way of debating whether or not we wanted a permanent military base in Iraq, and really don't see that it matters.

Since we have had a military presence in both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait since 1991, not to mention Bahrain, and use of UAE port facilities so what does it matter if we have yet another base in Iraq?

Were you arguing against THOSE facilities PRIOR TO 2003? If not, I'm not sure I see your point.

As early as April 2003 the pentagon was admitting publicly that they intended to maintain a permanent or "enduring" presence in Iraq. Opposition to any permanent military presence in Irag, among liberals and others against the war, actually predates the invasion but it really solidified at that time.

"We" wanted these bases because we were forced to close our bases in Saudi Arabia, naturally.

 

[Gunny]

As early as April 2003 the pentagon was admitting publicly that they intended to maintain a permanent or "enduring" presence in Iraq. Opposition to any permanent military presence in Irag, among liberals and others against the war, actually predates the invasion but it really solidified at that time.

"We" wanted these bases because we were forced to close our bases in Saudi Arabia, naturally.

And did you oppose these bases prior to the invasion of Iraq? If I had to guess since I really do not know, I would say in most cases nobody even thought about it -- the fact that we already had permanent/semi-permanent bases in the region.

 

[JimH52]

IMO, we are having an impact on the situation, but we are not changing it. In that light, there isn't much point in our remaining past the minute the Iraqi gov't is deemed capable of supporting and defending itself.

Do not confuse the fact that I support a satisfactory conclusion with supporting the decision to invade Iraq. I in fact did not agree with the latter and have been quite outspoken about it.

Thank you Gunny! If a Cyber High Five is possible, I am giving you one!

I didn't agree with the decision to go to war. This is the first war the US has fought in a pre-emptive manner. That is astounding and has set a horribly dangerous precedent. But we are there, we cannot leave the country a crying mess but we need to give an ultimatum to the leader and get our butts out of there as quickly as possible.

No, I am not a Hawk. If anything I am a pacifist but I am more a realist.