Posted on 11/15/2006 4:31:47 AM PST by shrinkermd
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal...
...This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan... who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.
But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies....
...Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Oh, you were awesome
(Beaming with pride)
You guys make me proud
(wiping tears from my eyes....sniffle)
Thanks Beachy!!
*curtsies*
I just hope all of this will comeback to bite the left in the a** in 08.
Going into the elections they had all the answers and, a lot of dumb a** Americans believed them. If it wasn't so dangerous
I would say it's almost funny.
I guess all those welfare cks, with the supposed increase will just have to wait.
Many of you wanted a change, you are going to get one. From bad to worse.
What do you expect the Government in Iraq will look like in ten years, assuming we "win"?
IMO, the question isn't can we "win", the question is, is there a reaistic chance we win anything worth fighting for?
And so are these people: 
And this person: 
These people and countless others showed immense courage to step forward and be a part of helping to rebuild Iraq...YOU tell them that they aren't worth fighting and winning for. Their freedom and desire to live life to the fullest is worth fighting for.
Amen to that.
And, think of all the countless innocent men/women/children who are slaughtered by those who do NOT want a fully-functional thriving democracy. Their dreams are worth fight for.
It's nice to know that during WWII noone was asking such inane and unimportant questions as "is there anything worth fighting for?"
Nevel Chamberlain would be proud of you, M. Dodge. Keep being the appeaser that you are. As for me, "Give me liberty or give me death" still aptly applies.
By the way. I have Iraqi friends who lost loved ones from Saddam's brutal regime. I wonder what their thoughts would be regarding your willingness to be an appeaser?
I could not have stated this any better than what you've done here. Bravo!!
President Bush if a far better man than I. BUT, if I were president, I would do that in a heartbeat......and then I would go fishing.
Screw these fickle and traitorous cowards that make up over half of our un-United States. Let them eat pig sh!t.
If the Republicans nominate a liberal for 2008, I am voting with my feet in the general election... we lost this last election because of the RINOs...
Maybe those Democrat leaders who are calling for investigations should investigate themselves first.
Great pictures TX. Thanks for your service to our country and congrats on the promotion!!
Just wondering if you ever found any non-biased sources to support your position?
My “position” – that policy makers can’t articulate an achievable goal that represents “winning” in Iraq – is a negative, there is no “source” that “proves” we have a set of hopes rather than a realizable plan. Rather, this is demonstrated by the fact that no one here – or for that matter at the highest levels of government – has been able to provide one.
This is a very difficult situation, and the only comfort we can take is that to date the cost has been relatively low – except of course to those who have paid it personally and their families.
If you take the view of this war that I do, their sacrifice has been in vain.
This is a horrible situation, and I expect that this belief is deeply offensive to many of those who have made and continue to make these sacrifices. I am in awe – literally – of the restraint that those who disagree with me have shown here, because I am saying things no one – myself included - wants to hear.
I come away from every one of these conversations questioning my own judgment, and whether - even if it’s correct - whatever little good expressing my opinions here may do be able to possibly be balanced by the distress they cause other readers. Because if I am right, the clearer my arguments, the greater the distress they must cause.
But ultimately, on careful reflection, I come back to the conviction that these sacrifices were made because our leaders had no realistic plan to achieve their goals, that these sacrifices continue because this failure continues, and that these sacrifices will continue to be made – in vain - because there is no realistic plan to end them.
Regularly, when they say such things, people my position are told that ours is the counsel of despair and defeat.
But where is the counsel of “victory”?
Where is the proposal that tells us - in concrete terms, not hopes or platitudes – what victory will look like?
It is nowhere to be seen - because the foreseeable outcomes in Iraq cannot, even by the cleverest of arguments, be seen as victories.
Take a look at what current policy offers up as “success”:
- Assuming the country stays together in some Federal arrangement, central and southern Iraq will be “Islamic” states – the evidence for this is that the secular parties consistently run far behind the various religious slates.
- Similarly, assuming the country stays together its government will be hostile to Israel and supportive of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah - the evidence of this is the views of Iraqis such a Nouri al-Maliki. Such leaders represent the “moderate” shade of opinion on this issue, and we should count ourselves extremely fortunate if we get no worse in an independent and Islamic Iraq.
-Iranian influence in southern Iraq is strong, and growing. The evidence of this is the judgment of the US military and US intelligence agencies. The best we can hope for is that internal Shia rivalries will dilute it, but outcomes such as succession and eventual political federation between Southern Iraq and Iran are not out of the question.
-Even assuming that a Federal government exists, there is little likelihood that it will be motivated (or able if it was) to suppress terrorist organizations far more potent than existed before the occupation. The evidence for this is the emergence of steadily more capable and technically sophisticated “insurgencies” in both Shia and Sunni areas, and the documented increase in the influence and support of Iran, a major financier and exporter of terrorism.
-For these and many other reasons even assuming that some sort of Federated Iraq can be cobbled together, there is no way that the rest of the world can be convinced that this outcome is a “victory” for the United States.
Prior to the occupation we clearly set out our criteria for success – a united Iraq transcending ethnic and religions differences, supportive of US policy in the middle East and operating under a stable electoral political system and a market economy.
In the event, we are going to get little or none of this.
As a result while there is great concern in the US over the possibility of losing our “credibility” if we fail in Iraq, in the rest of the world American talk of “victory” in Iraq is seen as denial of the obvious. It’s far too late to worry about our reputation in terms of our judgment, competence or capabilities in Iraq, outside of the US our credibility on these issues has largely evaporated, nothing we are able to do in Iraq at this late date – or at least nothing we are remotely willing to do - can restore it, and at this point we only appear weaker and more self-deluded with each attempt to finesse our failure into “success”.
- And these are the good outcomes – events could easily – perhaps likely will - spin out of control in ways even more damaging to our reputation and national security.
If someone wants to argue that is too bleak a prospect, fine.
But if so, IMO its incumbent on them to come up with some description of a brighter outcome and with some reason stronger than hope that it can be realized; evidence for example that for example that Shiite and Sunni Iraqi’s want a secular rather than an “Islamic” arrangement, that such a government will be supportive of US policy, or other reasons why the outcomes above are not likely or even nearly certain - because it appears to me that the parties voted into power and the statements by their leaders clearly promise the opposite.
If this is the case our presence in Iraq – whatever might have been accomplished in a different past - is a no-win situation in the present, and I think that the already grave internal divisions within our country will only deepen as this reality asserts itself.
My personal choice instead would be to honor the individual sacrifices made by members of our military and their families as a moral example, to leave to history to sort out the culpability for past misjudgments, and to look with a clear and dispassionate eye at out choices going forward.
And I my hope – without much optimism, given the current political situation – is that as we move toward 2008 national leadership emerges which is equal to that challenge.
Because failing that, I fear we will discover that it is as easy to flail helplessly in a morass of hope as in one of despair.
*yawn*
You waited all this time to comeback with more Libtard drivel as your response?
You should have just realized you can't run this crap here and let it go.
Anyone else happy he's not in the military? How would the Patriots have gotten during the Revolutionary War if enough people like this were to have been making decisions back then? Hey M, go away and leave the fighting to real Americans. Go sulk in France where you belong.
Nice thread...
As a result while there is great concern in the US over the possibility of losing our “credibility” if we fail in Iraq, in the rest of the world American talk of “victory” in Iraq is seen as denial of the obvious.
How about some sources to back this up? Non-biased of course. No WorldPublicOpinion BS funded by the Tides Foundation please. The things you are saying are taken STRAIGHT from the anti-war playbook. To wit:
From Comely Beatty of Gold Star Families for Peace:
And despite the opinion that a majority of Americans now have about the calamity of mass destruction that is Iraq, the war machine rolls on with its unacceptable denial and its decision to send more of our young to die.
*snip*
So, please, tell every person you know about this court decision. Don't just preach to the choir. Deliver a sermon to those who still cling to the pants legs of a man who claims to be a Christian, a president who changed the reasons for war after each rationale was vetted and proved false. Convince the equivocators.
Are you following her instructions?
We in the peace movement need to agree on one thing: yes we need an exit plan, but it is not a strategy, it is a command. The command should be: have all of our military personnel and paid killer mercenaries out of Iraq within 6 months, and the generals carry out the command. Simple, it's not brain surgery, and I think it is so easy even George Bush can sign the order. We can't give the homicidal maniacs any wiggle room or long-term strategy sessions. For one thing, when our leaders strategize, we are put in even more jeopardy - they have proven that they are not too bright or even a little compassionate. But the most important thing is that people die every day in Iraq for absolutely no reason and for lies. We have to say NOW because the people on the other side are saying NEVER. We can't compromise, we can't say please, and we can't retreat. If we do, our country is doomed. We have to honor the sacrifices of our loved ones by completing the mission of peace and justice. It is time. Bring our troops home, NOW!
From United For Peace and Justice:
UFPJ Position on Ending the War on Iraq
On May 17, 2004, UFPJ’s national Steering Committee adopted a UFPJ position. Here it is.
1. Bring the U.S. troops home now.
2. Iraqi sovereignty must be reestablished immediately.
3. The Iraqi people, not foreigners, should make the decisions about the future of their country, including security. Iraqis should decide the structure of their economy and control Iraq's reconstruction. The corporate invasion of Iraq must be ended and the privatizations laws passed under the occupation repealed. Labor and human rights should also be guaranteed.
4. The United States should pay for the reconstruction of and reparations to Iraq, in accordance with international law.
5. The United Nations and other international organizations should refuse to endorse or collaborate with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But once the U.S. ends its occupation, if representative sectors of Iraqi society invite it, the UN, backed by other international bodies such as the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, should help the Iraqis establish mechanisms through which to choose their own leaders and reclaim sovereign control of their own country.
Appeal For Redress "We write on behalf of fellow active duty service members to ask you to engage in a world-wide effort to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home."
You are trying to sound reasoned and thoughtful. Instead, you are simply regurgitating liberal anti-war talking points. And you have found no NON-LIBERAL, NON-ANTIWAR sources to back up your beliefs. You are looking at the world thru lenses painted with anti-war beliefs. Can you even see that?
For grins, I googled "War Iraq World Opinion" and this was the result:
Summary of Findings: A Year After Iraq War
Introduction and Summary: Views of a Changing World 2003
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Polls find Europeans oppose Iraq war
Warview: Iraq, the U.S. and World Opinion
American attitudes: Program on International Policy Attitudes
War on Iraq - World Opinion
World Opinion Roundup -- Jefferson Morley's Review of Opinions and ...
World Public Opinion
World Public Opinion
Powell UN Briefing Fails to Budge World Opinion on Iraq
|
I don't know about you, but what this says to me is that the ONLY people worried about what the world thinks of America are the libs. I can only conclude that you are one of those. I think the 60s clouded your judgement, with all due respect.
My “position” – that policy makers can’t articulate an achievable goal that represents “winning” in Iraq – is a negative, there is no “source” that “proves” we have a set of hopes rather than a realizable plan. Rather, this is demonstrated by the fact that no one here – or for that matter at the highest levels of government – has been able to provide one.
For what it's worth, this is a copout. I'm certainly one who is pleased that our government is not out there telling us all exactly what the next move will be. Ever heard of OpSec? People with family members on the ground are mighty thankful for it.
This is from people who've been there. Not some "political poll" or liberal media.
Oh, btw, there is a goal for Iraq. Here it is: "when the Iraqi people can govern and defend themselves without the aid of the coalition forces" then we win and withdrawal.
I don't know why that is so hard to understand. if you don't I ain't wasting my time trying to make you. HAPPY THANKSGIVING
Oh, one other thing. My Congressperson and Senator have my permission to cut out all the pork they can find in order to fund this effort for as long as it takes.
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.