This is why the Democrats will lose in '08

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
[brDon't you think commanders in Iraq are better suited to say when/if there needs to be a troop pull-out

No, and it wouldn't matter if the "campaign" were going extremely well.  It's not the military's job to make decisions about pulling out the troops.  Ever.  It would be the height of disloyalty for the military commanders to tell the civilian gov't that sent them there, "we have to leave."

I'm sure military leaders have an opinion, one way or another.  It's worth something, but it's not their decision.

I get that the miltary does not act autonomously to declare war, nor to pull out.  

Civics 101.

Point is, Congress is setting arbitrary deadlines without input from General Petraeus and ignoring his comments that we need more time to see if the surge is working.  He's in charge of the men on the ground and is the chief military tactician in the battle.  

It would be far more prudent for Congress to seek the advice of the commander of the Iraqi occupation forces prior to drawing lines in the sand.  I see political shenanegans and an outright power struggle in Washington.

Congress, acting alone without input from the military is not the best judge of when we need to pull out.  I'm going to trust what the military leadership says over people who are using the war in a power struggle in Washington.  That was my point from the git-go.

Continue to parse words if you like.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Point is, Congress is setting arbitrary deadlines without input from General Petraeus and ignoring his comments that we need more time to see if the surge is working.

It doesn't matter whether or not the surge is working.  Doesn't matter whether or not Petraeus "thinks it's working", or says "it's working."  Could Petraeus say "it's a misable failure, we need to evacuate now?"  If an enlisted man said that in public, he'd be court martialed.

His opinion is his opinion.  Regardless of his opinion, Petraeus will do his job, and Congress will too.  To say that Petraeus's opinion and the opinion of active military leaders should somehow be the only opinion guiding Congress's actions, is to fundamentally misunderstand the role of Congress.  Congress does not answer to the Military.  And what they've heard, they do not have to take into consideration.

[Conan71]

I'm quite well aware of the respective roles of Congress, executive branch, and the military and am quite aware that Congress has an oversight capacity over the military.  As is anyone else who got a C or better in Civics or their Amerian Government classes.

It is my opinion that Congress is flaunting common sense on the issue in order to force a show-down with the President, to help load their guns for the '08 elections.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

The spineless have folded again.  The Democracts today announced that they are dropping their requirement for withdrawal terms in the Iraq war funding measure.  But don't you despair, there's going to be language that "influences policy" in the next bill, you just wait!  

If there's one thing the American people can't stand, it's a wimpy, flip flopper.  If getting out of Iraq is the right thing to do, then damn the critics and push through your agenda and the American people will praise you for it.  The majority of American do AGREE with you don't they?

I think trying to slip  a surrender date in a war funding bill will cost the democrats 08.Surely if the democrats aka the traitor-cats in office felt that they were really doing the will of the people they would just come out of the closet and just deny funding to the troops or demand a immediate pullout instead of trying to sneak in a surrender date in a war funding bill that they know Bush will not sign.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

It is my opinion that Congress is flaunting common sense on the issue in order to force a show-down with the President, to help load their guns for the '08 elections.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Depends on if a withdrawal defies "common sense" for you.  I have nothing bad at all to say about any of our military, or our military leaders.  However, the Military, under the leadership of the Executive, is bound by certain opinions.  It's part of their job, it's honorable, it's justifiable, but that also has to be taken into consideration.  And while a second-term Executive may have no use for public opinion, it's always critical to Congress.

As for the "show-down", Bush gained his 28% approval rating the hard way, a "show-down" of some sort was inevitable.  Even though sometimes "flowers fall out of their mouths", the Congress and the Executive branch have some issues to resolve.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

It is my opinion that Congress is flaunting common sense on the issue in order to force a show-down with the President, to help load their guns for the '08 elections.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Depends on if a withdrawal defies "common sense" for you.  I have nothing bad at all to say about any of our military, or our military leaders.  However, the Military, under the leadership of the Executive, is bound by certain opinions.  It's part of their job, it's honorable, it's justifiable, but that also has to be taken into consideration.  And while a second-term Executive may have no use for public opinion, it's always critical to Congress.

As for the "show-down", Bush gained his 28% approval rating the hard way, a "show-down" of some sort was inevitable.  Even though sometimes "flowers fall out of their mouths", the Congress and the Executive branch have some issues to resolve.

A withdrawl makes sense, only if it is done on a realistic time-frame that takes into account the ramifications of national security interests to the U.S. in re: WOT and not leaving total chaos (instead of somewhat controlled chaos) behind for the Iraqis to suffer through.  I don't expect, and don't want us to be there forever.  I don't think anyone wants that.

Setting an arbitrary date when it's obvious that the Iraqis are still ill-prepared to defend themselves is irresponsible.  If the military comes back and says: "We believe Iraq will be ready for us to leave Oct. 1st", then that deadline makes perfect sense.  In the absence of that, it shows me no conscience on the part of Congress.

Iraq does owe it to us to show us they are serious about stepping up to the plate and taking charge of their own destiny.  Get 'em trained and get our troops the eff out of there.  

I just happen to believe that Petraeus is better equipped to determine when that time is, and that Congress would do well to seek out and heed that determination.  IMO, That should determine a pull-out date not the political ambitions of a bunch of politicians in a power grab.

They definitely have some issues to solve- no argument there.

[MichaelC]

I don't know.  October first may be arbitrary, but it also give the Military and the Executive several months to strategize.

Unless something very odd happens, the Military will be in Iraq indefinitely in some capacity.  Just guessing, barring a few events, 50K troops over the next 50 years seems likely.  As long as that is not in a strictly combat capacity, that figure is reasonable.

That will be the next "phase" of our deployment IMO.  If there is no clear advantage to continuing on the path we are on, Congress can assist in accelerating that process.  Surge or no surge, is there any long term advantage to continuing a military presence in combat mode in Iraq?  There might be an advantage, I'm not seeing it yet.

[iplaw]

I think what disgusts me and other people who genuinely care about what happens to the Iraqis when/if we pull out is that those who are pushing for a timetable for immediate withdrawl have offered very little in the way of strategy and policy other than "let's get em out."

People like to bash Bush for not having planned for the Iraq aftermath properly, which is fair game, but should our exit not be planned just carefully to minimize the damage if/when we leave?  To this date, I hear no substance, just obsequious anti-war calls for withdrawl, damn the consequences.

[Conan71]

I see no benefit to a long-term conflict.  

We DO need to give the Iraqis some sort of incentive to step up training and equipping themselves and a time-line would do that, I just don't see a political charade as being the proper way to set that date.  

If I were the chief tactician, I would formulate something like the gradual withdrawl of troops of X amount per month starting at whatever date is a reasonible expectation to have a like-amount of well-trained Iraqis ready to take American soldier's places.  Every month or every other month there would be an expectation of X amount of Iraqis trained and ready to replace Americans.

The Iraq gov't would know the end-game and they would have incentive to be prepared to defend themselves and to restore and maintain order on their own or risk failure and be over-run.

That is what we are trying to prevent at this point.

[MichaelC]

I believe that once US troops begin to withdraw, chaos will uptick quite a bit.  In a gradual shut down of US participation, if you're thinning the troops, that leaves the troops that are there on islands facing more and more opposition with less support.  I don't like that much.

If you leave provinces, that causes the chaos to uptick in those provinces and potentially spill over to places where US troops are.  I don't like that much either.

I prefer a fast withdrawal.  Moving back into bases and safer areas, to where the bulk of combat troops can be safely withdrawn, and the rest can be repositioned.  

From what I can tell, the Sunni's are expecting a full-scale Civil War as soon as we leave, the Shia's are prepared, and the Kurds may cause us some problems that we can't really anticipate quite yet.  Add in foreigners, 2 million refugees, and 2 million displaced in country:  I don't think there is much we can do about it.  Now, anyway.  We may very well be back.

[Conan71]

Having to go back isn't an appealing option to me and I have a feeling that is what would happen should we just pack up and go.  Worse yet, it could spill beyond the borders of Iraq.

I believe gradually weaning them off American security by replacing with like numbers of well-equipped and well-trained native-Iraqi forces is the only workable option.

That's why the Iraqis have got to step up to the plate.  There have been some very dis-heartening stories about theft of military gear, a lax attitude on the part of the Iraqi command, and from some accounts, lack of interest from young Iraqis in defending their nation.  There was a well-written piece in UTW a few weeks ago about Col. Ted Westhusing (cover story) that touched on these issues and the frustration he felt.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Having to go back isn't an appealing option to me and I have a feeling that is what would happen should we just pack up and go.  Worse yet, it could spill beyond the borders of Iraq.

I believe gradually weaning them off American security by replacing with like numbers of well-equipped and well-trained native-Iraqi forces is the only workable option.

Going back sure doesn't appeal to me, I was opposed to this initially.  But we might not have too many choices in the matter later.  Way too many factors, and our oil interests which obviously aren't limited to Iraq.

The Iraqi gov't is one that causes the US all kinds of technical and philophical problems.  It can't be trusted, we don't know what it will do even if fully operational.  Ultimately, it may be easier for us to deal with whatever battered and bruised gov't comes out of the civil conflict.

[Conan71]

^ Quite possibly so.  The biggest problem, obviously, is in uniting common Iraqi forces to fight for the country instead of their sectarian interests.  We see sovereignity as having borders, a lot of Muslims see sovereignity as common religious belief.

It would basically be like trying to unite the United States military if Protestants and Catholics were mortal combat enemies.

[Hometown]

Iplaw, On September 26, 2006, before the last general election, you originated a thread called "How to lose an election in 60 days" predicting that the Democrats would "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."  I expect that your current thread will be every bit as prophetic.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Iplaw, On September 26, 2006, before the last general election, you originated a thread called "How to lose an election in 60 days" predicting that the Democrats would "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."  I expect that your current thread will be every bit as prophetic.

You forgot to say "hateful."