Posted on 04/28/2007 9:14:39 AM PDT by leadpenny
What a hoot!!! Why didn't you just say "Webb and Odom and Reagan won the cold war", it would be about as accurate.
Odom was Assistant Chief of Staff at DOD for Intelligence, from 1981-1985, and later the head of the NSA under Reagan - electronic intelligence. His role in policy making, as opposed to delivery of the intelligence products he was tasked with, was minimal at best. Reagan and his WH team set the winning anti-soviet policy and the strategies for it, and assigned and coordinated the primary tasks of that strategy primarily with operational elements of State, CIA and DOD. To include Odom as any prime-figure in the setting of that policy is simply myth-making with someone who "was present", as were many other Generals at DOD who did their assigned roles and would never presume to say: "they and Reagan won the cold war", they know better.
That is why we will be and should be "dismissive of a general" who has that "magnitude" of a myth, "under his belt".
Meanwhile, we invaded Iraq - against the advice of Odom and many other generals and with the advice of many more generals than those represented by Odom - and we're bogged down in the very muck and insurgency that Bush adn Rumsfeld were warned about.
"Bogged down" is an irrelevant term, and means one thing whenever it is used - the user wants to quit doing what is needed to convince the aggressors to quit and simply prefers to quit themselves. It implies an erroneous conviction that the opponent will never quit, when in fact the main reason the insurgents have not quit yet in Iraq is that they are continually convinced, from day one, that the Democrats will rescue them and remove the only obstacle to their success - us. From our point of view, the insurgents are "bogged down" in Iraq. Because we will continue to defend the infant Iraqi democracy.
That's four years (or is it five?) since "Mission Accomplished" was proclaimed.
You really just love those LameStreamMedia myths don't you. The facts and the truth are that the commanders and troops of one of our finest aircraft carriers, as they sailed back from the Persian Gulf to the US, wanted to celebrate, with their Commander in Chief the "mission accomplished" of their particular mission in Iraq. So, go troll somewhere else with your media myths, we are too well informed here to worship them.
And no, "Odom" and his "record" extend no greater "credibility" to his position and certainly no grater credibility than the majority of his own peers who do not agree with him. The only reason he is given any "credibility" is he is saying what the left and the media want to hear, period. Of course the same media sources for this are not going to go interview and quote all the retired generals who disagree with Odom. That would spoil the myth that his opinion and his opinion alone is enough.
Go away troll.
We’re bankrupting our treasury in a no-win war that has created 2 million refugees, led to internal chaos in much of Iraq, and strengthened Iran strategically - a war that Odom (along with other generals) warned against - and your animosity is directed, not against Rumsfeld and his cronies, but against the generals who said it was a bad idea (or at least that it shouldn’t be attempted without half a million troops). OK, we’ll have to “agree to disagree” as they say.
Apparently you believe as many Americans that surrendering an oil rich haven to Al Qaeda bodes poorly for their future recruiting efforts.
And I’m not even convinced Hillary wins the Rat nomination. The leftists have so tkaen to their emotional braying that she is a target to them, not their candidate.
They want a new Marxist like Obama or Edwards who can lead their mission to create a nation where no one has economic mobility and the elites control everything and everyone below them.
But if you think that the US departure will result in Iraqis taking care of their “own affairs” then you have a very sunny view of the world. The world does not take kindly to a void and that’s what will happen if the US leaves prematurely allowing Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia to continue their game.
They certainly have no intention of allowing Iraqis to govern themselves.
What's the alternative? We stay there forever? That was never the announced plan, at least as I heard it.
The alternative is the plan at action. Pay attention and you may actually hear something about the actions underway lead by Gen. Petraeus.
But please don’t let me disturb any of your disposition to an announced plan.
War always working along the lines of announcements.
Just like infomercials. The folly of youth. :)
Odom is not advising the president, as the president is not asking for his advice, AFAIK. Besides, the chances are that Odom is still connected to the information grapevine, at least to an extent. As far as the national security policy arguments are concerned - he is [qualitatively] better informed than I am, and thus I expressed my wish for the more level playing field.
The bankrupting of our tresury isn't due to the war, its due to out of control spending, of which I blame solely on Bush and the Republicans!
This is a war no choice. I just cannot perceive such a defeatist attitude with 3000 men lost! As tragic as it is just to loose 1 man, in the context of war this is incredible to say the least! There isn't a President who served in a time of real war that wouldn't think those numbers are almost surreal in the context to the daily reports they would recieve. Imagin FDR getting reports of 100 killed every day for 4 years. Or Lincoln getting reports of 250 daily deaths (just on the Union side) To put it in a little context:
2900 innont people dead in 90 minutes of 9/11
1500 men in 3 days of the Tet Offensive
3000 Marines dead in 1 day Iwo Jima!
5100 dead in 1 day at D-Day Antietam 23,000 dead in 1 day
I'm not making light of those that have bravely sacrificed their lives in the war, but we loose more people in less than a month on freeways than we have in 4 years of war! If they win you will see death on a scale that will make you wish for these numbers, except they will be in the malls and workplace of America! Destroy all Monsters over there whatever the cost on their turf.
With federal revenues increasing like never before and the deficit declining (due to the tax cuts), where is the "bankruptcy" that has been created by Iraq. There is no such thing, just the sheeple babling what the LameStreamMedia tells them to believe.
Very few major wars are ever a "no-win war" - one side wins when the other side decides to quit trying to win. You simply wish to quit trying before they do. No thanks.
Any form of regime change in Iraq, regardless of the means by which it occurred, was going to create conditions where the oppressed dominant population group - the Shia - and the minority population group that dominated everyone under Saddam - the Sunni, were going to produce some degree of "chaos" as the political power adjustments were worked out between them - no matter what.
Certainly it has not helped that money from Sunni nations (Jordan, the gulf states, the Saudis) and money from Shia Iran have contributed to the arming of different militias claiming to protect Sunni or Shia turf. The fact is, in spite of the damage it is so easy for a single suicidal terrorist to create, they - the insurgents of all stripes - do represent a clear minority among the millions of Iraqis who voted for their government, want it to succeed and continue to volunteer for the ranks of soldiers and policemen needed for security.
One can easily see that while the US forces are present, they are a mitigating factor in the "chaos" that would have ensued without them, and would in fact ensue, way beyond today's levels, if they departed.
No. While your political ancestors abandoned the south Vietnamese, we will not let our generation deliver the same fate to the Iraqi people.
Go away troll.
With federal revenue climbing faster than ever and the deficit in decline, please explain your definition of "bankrupt" and thereby how Iraq relates to it.
Having said all that, how can we exit Iraq before Iraqis can take over to manage without us? The opposition could say, “If a man disturbs a hornet’s nest, the wise man runs.” However, I would say, “The wise man does not disturb a hornet’s nest.” Over simplification, but interesting ideas.
"However" it amounts to nothing but hollow platitudes.
“What’s the alternative? We stay there forever?”
Why are you not howling that we are still in South Korea? And why are we still there? Because we didn’t kick North Korea’s butt back to the stone age. (Now they’re trying to build an atom bomb.)
I guess you’d rather have Al Qaeda in control of Iraq’s oil supply, so they could finance atomic terrorism against the West?
At the moment, Iran is lurching toward financial collapse. But if they don’t have to spend their national treasure trying to kill our soldiers in Iraq, as well as financing terrorism worldwide, they can instead pave the way for the rising of the Mahdi by blowing up the west.
If you’d quit listening to pacifist propaganda and think beyond next week, maybe you’d see the danger we are in if we give up Iraq to our sworn enemies. This would shame us before the world, and no other country on earth would ever believe us or be our willing allies in a war again.
“What’s the alternative? We stay there forever? That was never the announced plan, at least as I heard it.”
The plan has never changed. 1. Remove Saddam. 2. Help the Iraqi people defend themselves against those who do not want the Iraqi people to have a democratic government. 3. Help the Iraqi people establish a democratic government. 4. Help the democratic government of Iraqi establish sufficient security means to permit us to gradually reduce our presence. 5. Help the democratic government defend itself from its enemies, foreign and domestic.
What’s not to understand?? We are working on 4 and when the Iraqi people and government are ready we will move on to 5; because if anyone thinks a democracy in the middle of a neighborhood of despots is not going to have a defense treaty with us, then they ignorantly think every one in the world believes in “can’t we all just get along”.
“the chances are that Odom is still connected to the information grapevine”
Guess again, unless your referring to the internal fifth column that leaks our secrets to the NYSlimes.
>”However” it amounts to nothing but hollow platitudes.<
:o) Only if you are a shallow thinker.
The internal career DOD permanent government recommended him to the generals who simply passed the recommendation with their formality of a blessing on to Reagan. That was the extent to which "Reagan HIRED Odom" - odious Odom. You can keep spinning your myths about him all you want, it won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Go away troll.
>Go away Troll.<
Go away, Troll?
Don’t look now, Wuli, but your youth is showing. When an imature person runs out of a strong argument for their point of view, they resort to an ugly mouth. A mature person, if they are one-upped, exhibit more grace than that. But we live and learn, hopefully.
“If you mean he won’t respond to voters’ desire that we get out of Iraq”
No matter how many people want us to “get out of Iraq” (we all do in some sense), a majority do not want us to simply walkaway and allow the massacres to ensue. A majority are not in favor of removing money needed for what we are doing. A majority, like all of us, want what we are doing to work, for the Iraqi’s sake and for us.
Go sell your koolaid somewhere else.
“I don’t think Reagan would have invaded Iraq.”]
Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it.
Reagan did not have 9/11, Al Queda, and the WOT and the 12 years of UN diplomatic failure over Iraq and Saddam still playing WMD rope-a-dope with everyone. I have no doubt that if Reagan had been POTUS on 9/11, he would not have responded that much differently than Bush 43. The times they are not the same.
“Odom is doing the GOP a favor. Unless we start moving out of Iraq before the Nov 2008 elections, the Democrats will win big.”
Is that all you came here to do, is to sell the Dim’s political wishes????
Here is an article he wrote from the Hudson institute
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=4278
How to Cut and Run
We could lead the Mideast to peace, but only if we stop refusing to do the right thing.
October 31, 2006
by William E. Odom
The United States upset the regional balance in the Middle East when it invaded Iraq. Restoring it requires bold initiatives, but “cutting and running” must precede them all. Only a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops — within six months and with no preconditions — can break the paralysis that now enfeebles our diplomacy. And the greatest obstacles to cutting and running are the psychological inhibitions of our leaders and the public.
Our leaders do not act because their reputations are at stake. The public does not force them to act because it is blinded by the president’s conjured set of illusions: that we are reducing terrorism by fighting in Iraq; creating democracy there; preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; making Israel more secure; not allowing our fallen soldiers to have died in vain; and others. But reality can no longer be avoided. It is beyond U.S. power to prevent bloody sectarian violence in Iraq, the growing influence of Iran throughout the region, the probable spread of Sunni-Shiite strife to neighboring Arab states, the eventual rise to power of the anti-American cleric Muqtada Sadr or some other anti-American leader in Baghdad, and the spread of instability beyond Iraq. All of these things and more became unavoidable the day that U.S. forces invaded.
These realities get worse every day that our forces remain in Iraq. They can’t be wished away by clever diplomacy or by leaving our forces in Iraq for several more years.
The administration could recognize that a rapid withdrawal is the only way to overcome our strategic paralysis, though that appears unlikely, notwithstanding election-eve changes in White House rhetoric. Congress could force a stock-taking. Failing this, the public will sooner or later see through all of the White House’s double talk and compel a radical policy change. The price for delay, however, will be more lives lost in vain — the only thing worse than the lives already lost in vain.
Some lawmakers are ready to change course but are puzzled as to how to leave Iraq. The answer is four major initiatives to provide regional stability and calm in Iraq. They will leave the U.S. less influential in the region. But it will be the best deal we can get.
First, the U.S. must concede that it has botched things, cannot stabilize the region alone and must let others have a say in what’s next. As U.S. forces begin to withdraw, Washington must invite its European allies, as well as Japan, China and India, to make their own proposals for dealing with the aftermath. Russia can be ignored because it will play a spoiler role in any case.
Rapid troop withdrawal and abandoning unilateralism will have a sobering effect on all interested parties. Al Qaeda will celebrate but find that its only current allies, Iraqi Baathists and Sunnis, no longer need or want it. Iran will crow but soon begin to worry that its Kurdish minority may want to join Iraqi Kurdistan and that Iraqi Baathists might make a surprising comeback.
Although European leaders will probably try to take the lead in designing a new strategy for Iraq, they will not be able to implement it. This is because they will not allow any single European state to lead, the handicap they faced in trying to cope with Yugoslavia’s breakup in the 1990s. Nor will Japan, China or India be acceptable as a new coalition leader. The U.S. could end up as the leader of a new strategic coalition — but only if most other states recognize this fact and invite it to do so.
The second initiative is to create a diplomatic forum for Iraq’s neighbors. Iran, of course, must be included. Washington should offer to convene the forum but be prepared to step aside if other members insist.
Third, the U.S. must informally cooperate with Iran in areas of shared interests. Nothing else could so improve our position in the Middle East. The price for success will include dropping U.S. resistance to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This will be as distasteful for U.S. leaders as cutting and running, but it is no less essential. That’s because we do share vital common interests with Iran. We both want to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban (Iran hates both). We both want stability in Iraq (Iran will have influence over the Shiite Iraqi south regardless of what we do, but neither Washington nor Tehran want chaos). And we can help each other when it comes to oil: Iran needs our technology to produce more oil, and we simply need more oil.
Accepting Iran’s nuclear weapons is a small price to pay for the likely benefits. Moreover, its nuclear program will proceed whether we like it or not. Accepting it might well soften Iran’s support for Hezbollah, and it will definitely undercut Russia’s pernicious influence with Tehran.
Fourth, real progress must be made on the Palestinian issue as a foundation for Middle East peace. The invasion of Iraq and the U.S. tilt toward Israel have dangerously reduced Washington’s power to broker peace or to guarantee Israel’s security. We now need Europe’s help. And good relations with Iran would help dramatically.
No strategy can succeed without these components. We must cut and run tactically in order to succeed strategically. The United States needs to restore its reputation so that its capacity to lead constructively will cost us less.
This article originally appeared in the October 31, 2006, edition of the Los Angeles Times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.