Posted on 08/13/2005 4:42:15 AM PDT by RWR8189
There have been conflicting reports about the timing of American troop withdrawals from Iraq. Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. forces there, has announced that the United States intends to begin a "fairly substantial" withdrawal of U.S. forces after the projected December elections establish a constitutional government. Other sources have indicated that this will involve 30,000 troops, or some 22 percent of U.S. forces in Iraq. Some high-level statements from Baghdad have indicated that the beginning of withdrawals may be delayed until next summer. On either schedule, progress is dependent upon improvements in the security situation and in the training of Iraqi forces.
A review of withdrawal strategy therefore seems in order. For one thing, how are the terms "progress" and "improvement" to be defined? In a war without front lines, does a lull indicate success or a strategic decision by the adversary? Is a decline in enemy attacks due to attrition or to a deliberate enemy strategy of conserving forces to encourage American withdrawal? Or are we in a phase similar to the aftermath of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in 1968, which at the time was widely perceived as an American setback but is now understood as a major defeat for Hanoi?
For someone like me, who observed firsthand the anguish of the original involvement in Vietnam during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and who later participated in the decisions to withdraw during the Nixon administration, Casey's announcement revived poignant memories. For a decision to withdraw substantial U.S. forces while the war continues is a potentially fateful event. It affects the calculations of insurgents and government forces alike, so that the definition of progress becomes nearly as much a psychological as a military judgment. Every soldier withdrawn represents a larger percentage
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Control of that OIL must be the reason why they want us out fast and now.
France is have a tough economic year.
I'll give you an exit strategy, Henry: Victory.
Dr. Kissinger is quite a bright man you know..
Because of the axiom that guerrillas win if they do not lose, stalemate is unacceptable. American strategy, including a withdrawal process, will stand or fall not on whether it maintains the existing security situation but on whether the capacity to improve it is enhanced. Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.
That takes up a lot less space, Henry :)
"Every soldier withdrawn represents a larger percentage of the remaining total. The capacity for offensive action of the remaining forces shrinks. Once the process is started, it runs the risk of operating by momentum rather than by strategic analysis, and that process is increasingly difficult to reverse."
I'm stating the obvious, but this is well-stated.
Victory over an insurgency is the work of decades. You have to build a new reality and quell a generation. We will never achieve victory by pulling out; although plenty of politically motivated scum will be happy to claim it.
You are absolutely right! The thing is, though, this President is extremely reluctant to do something like this. He barely counters the "reality" the left (a coalition of political hacks, "journalists," educators, and rock/movie "stars") has already created and perpetrates through every newscast, movie, book, and CD.
I've always said that if only this administration could have kept up the publicity pace from the "shock and awe" days, this war would be viewed as successful today, despite the left.
Frankly, despite good intentions, I don't believe this is a short term win for us if ever.
I think the problem with the publicity as you call it, is that there has been much that did not pan out as the script was orginally written. They are now spending lots of time spinning the realities vs the what was expected to be a much cleaner transition.
Three people I hope to live long enough to piss on their graves, Robt.S.McNamara,Bill Clinton and Kissinger. In my opinion three of the biggest liars ever involved in U.S.politics. All with innocent blood on their hands. There is a special place in hell for McNamara and Kissinger.
By the number of enemies of the United States that are worm food.
Considering we're still all over Europe and the Pacific from a war two generations past, I wonder whose interests the "pull out of Iraq now" crowd is really pursuing.
"It is called the 2006 congressional election"
Bingo
"The rush to pull out of Iraq is beyond me. Even after the country is stabilized and the insurgency ended; we should remain to protect our interests and to provide a continuing stabilizing force. This is land that we have paid for in blood and treasure, I see no reason to simply walk away and devalue that full investment."
I would leave Iraq tomorrow. Half my fighting force goes to Iran, the other half to Syria.
A message goes to both leaders, "either you stop the crap in 24 hours or we destroy your entre infrastructure.
The left say Bush is a lame duck anyway. Might as well tell the left to pound sand and do what is right.
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.