Get Out Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say

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.

"when the Iraqi people can govern and defend themselves without the aid of the coalition forces" then we win and withdrawal.

For that statement to be meaningful, "the Iraqi people", "govern" and "defend" all need to be defined.

And that isn't just a word game, it's deadly serious business for all involved.

For example, would we defend "the Iraqi people" against succession by the Shia? The interests of elected government of the "Iraqi people a whole" against an attempt by the Kurds to expropriate the oil fields near Kirkurk? The "rights" of Kurds against an attempt by a elected government to reimpose centralized control in "Kurdistan"? The interests of the Sunni against an attempt to divide the oil wealth between the Kurds and the Shia?

Each of these is a decision we may have to make - and that such questions can be asked at all reflects the fact there there may be no such thing as "the Iraqi" people, except in so far as some powerful group is imposing it's control over one or more of the others. You don;t ask these kinds of questions if you are one sovereign state defending the "people" of another against an external threat, you ask these kinds of questions if you are a colonial power attempting a govern a fractious protectorate.

Now, that may not be such a bad thing to be

I'm no "cultural relativist" I'm quite ready to make the judgment that secular government is superior to theocracy, representative government superior to authoritarian systems, market economies superior to centrally planned alternatives, and so on.

And I could wave my magic wand, and bring these beliefs to the Islamic world, I would do so.

But I don't.

And we can't, at least without great difficulty.

And to attempt to impose - or transplant - whatever you want to call it - these values in a place where many of the inhabitants are conducting four-way a ethnic feud on top of a 500 year long religious war played out via tribe and clan affiliations - well … to talk about defending such "a people" from themselves seems to me to be a major project.

So many words to say so little, honestly.

I might be incompetent or ignorant - the spectacularly incumbent and the deeply ignorant don't know it.

But "dishonest"?

Nope.

Perhaps what you mean is: "some leftist agrees with you, so you must *really* be a dishonest leftist."

There are many such passionate observers on both left and right - not my problem, not my responsibility, not the standard by which I test my judgments.

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."

Tactically, absolutely.

Strategically, I can't agree.

Representative government are accountable to the citizens for the direction of policy, if for no other reason than that such policy cannot be effectively conducted absent public support - Remember Nixon, Kissinger, and the "Secret plan to end the War"?

At this moment, with regard to Iraq, the debate is really just getting started.

You have people like McCain and Gingrich talking about increases in troops and the "arduous" course ahead. Very shortly, we will discover if the voters are willing to increase the intensity of our effort's in Iraq, and commit to the long haul

You also have people who are laying out the case for withdrawal - we will shortly discover if the voters are will to face up to likely situation if we leave.

Neither is an attractive option - about the only course almost certain to be worse is another "Secret Plan".

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 augment, with all due respect...

For example these liberals?

"The Pentagon awarded three contracts this week, potentially worth up to $300 million over five years, to companies it hopes will inject more creativity into its psychological operations efforts to improve foreign public opinion about the United States, particularly the military.

" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001910_pf.html

Or maybe these liberals?

"Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes has been tasked by President Bush with leading efforts to promote America's values and confront ideological support for terrorism around the world. She oversees three bureaus at the Department of State: Educational and Cultural Affairs, Public Affairs, and International Information Programs, and participates in foreign policy development at the State Department."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=white+house+effort+to+improve+world+opinion&btnG=Search

IMO, the "long war" is going to to be as much or more a contest of ideas and opinion as of military strength, and the attractions of Western Consumer culture are likely going to vex the Mullahs far more than advanced munitions.

1. I did not call you dishonest. Try rereading. I was commenting "honestly" about your previous post...that you used a lot of words to say a lot of nothing. I DID say that I think your vision is clouded.

2. *You have people like McCain and Gingrich talking about increases in troops and the "arduous" course ahead. *

So...where were you when GWB said that this would take a long time, energy and resources back at the VERY beginning of this? And restated it several times since? What's your idea of a long time? 2 years? 3? WW2 lasted 6 years (our involvement was only about 4), at a total cost of approximately 50,000,000 Allied lives according to Wikipedia.

Also from Wikipedia:

"Home front" is the name given to the activities of the civilians of the nations at war. All the main countries reorganized their homefronts to produce munitions and soldiers, with 40-60% of GDP being devoted to the war effort. Women were drafted in the Soviet Union and Britain. Shortages were everywhere, and severe food shortages caused malnutrition and even starvation, such as in the Netherlands and in Leningrad. New workers were recruited, especially housewives, the unemployed, students, and retired people. Skilled jobs were re-engineered and simplified ("de-skilling") so that unskilled workers could handle them. Every major nation imposed censorship on the media as well as a propaganda program designed to boost the war effort and stifle negative rumors. Every major country imposed a system of rationing and price controls."

IMO, a large reason why the crybabies in our country don't have a lot invested in winning and sticking with a plan is because they have never had to give up diddly squat out of their normal everyday lives to further the cause.

As far as the gov't trying to change public opinion, then yes, they have to do that as a function of their jobs I suppose. When I said that the only people who care what the world thinks about America are the libs, I'm talking the run of the mill people like you and me, not governments. In debates, the only people who seem to bring up how the world views our country are people who try to use that against America. Conservatives tend to feel more responsible for ourselves and not need everyone else's opinion to shape what they stand for.

I did not call you dishonest. Try rereading. I was commenting "honestly" about your previous post...that you used a lot of words to say a lot of nothing

My apologies. On rereading, I agree your meaning should have been clear.

they have never had to give up diddly squat out of their normal everyday lives to further the cause.

Did I think this was as conducted as wise? No.

Did a majority of my fellow citizens vote for it? Yes.

Given that they did so, should a tax-surcharge bill have arrived in my mailbox, so that this war was on our dime rather than the next generation's? Absolutely.

I'm sixty. We have no children. We earn a good income. And you're right, no sacrifice of any kind has been asked of us.

I'm disappointed that congress and the administration were terrified of asking the voters who approved this effort to pay for it, but I'm not surprised.

And I lay he blame equally between politicians who did not want to risk votes to pay for a war they opposed, and politicians who were afraid to ask voters to pay for a war they supported.

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.