Get Out Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say

New York Times ^ | 15 November 2006 | Michael Gordon

[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.

[StarCMC]

IMO our continues presence in Iraq isn't about strategic imperatives nearly as much as it's about the fact that the US political establishment can’t find a face saving way out of this mess.

BS. Still waiting on your sources -- with links please. If you think for one minute that Iraq was NOT a training ground for terrorists, or that it would become one again if we just cut and ran and left it to it's own devices, you are out of your mind. Where were you on 9-11? Remember the terrorists?? They'd love to do it again, only bigger.

[StarCMC]

Crud Allegra. Sending you big hugs and prayers upward for all of your safety.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

They're at it again right now. Two blasts.

Well, yes.

Meanwhile, you have mass kidnappings across the street from the Green Zone - what amounts to the kidnapping of government workers from a building across the street from the White House while the DC police look on and do nothing – or, maybe some faction of the DC police did it themselves? ... this while Washington is under martial law.

What part of “totally out of control” is unclear about this situation?

Sometimes you do have to “cut and run” – sometimes desirable outcomes are just too costly - or even impossible - to achieve.

This is especially true when you can’t even define you goal, which appears to me to be the case in Iraq - I do not see much likelihood that the resources we have brought to the task are even close to those required to achieve even temporary stability, or that the American people are ready to even discuss committing resources which might be equal to even that task, let alone discuss defining a realistic set of circumstance in which we could cease our efforts.

Individuals, families, business – and even nations – sometimes find themselves “committed” to unrealistic goals. Or perhaps worse, in situations in which they are no longer even able to define realistic goals at all, and simply struggle blindly onwards towards defeat because the prospect of defeat is itself too painful to contemplate

In these cases the acceptance of reality sometimes resembles the supposed process of accepting death, at the moment it appears to me that a majority of citizens are past denial and anger and are on onto bargaining: "surely there must be some way to arrange the to ethnic, religious and cultural differences of Iraq so that it’s citizens will come together in pursuit of what we suppose to be their self interest".

Unfortunately, wishing will not make it so.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

BS. Still waiting on your sources -- with links please. If you think for one minute that Iraq was NOT a training ground for terrorists, or that it would become one again if we just cut and ran and left it to it's own devices, you are out of your mind. Where were you on 9-11? Remember the terrorists?? They'd love to do it again, only bigger.

OK. Lets grant all your premises. And let's further assume that Iraq is fact THE place where should cponcertrate our maximum efforts.

1) What precisely is our goal?

2) What resources do you believe would be necessary to achieve a reasonable certainty we would reach it?

3) If these are greater than we are now deploying, how do you propose to sell US voters on an increased effort.

4) If such an effort can be sold to the voters, is it possible to do so while also pursuing conservative domestic policy goals which are anathema by many of the same voters.

[StarCMC]

Nice evasion tactic. Let's start over. You said:

Both the Shiite and Sunni "militants" have the support much of their respective "civilian" populations - they have (and exercise) the option of being part-time fighters otherwise indistinguishable from the civilian population.

I asked for links to where you are getting this information. Do you have any, or is this your own made up idea?

[M. Dodge Thomas]

I asked for links to where you are getting this information. Do you have any, or is this your own made up idea?

“Overall, 47% (of Iraqis) say they approve of “attacks on US-led forces” (23% strongly). There are huge differences between ethnic groups. An extraordinary 88% of Sunnis approve, with 77% approving strongly. Forty-one percent of Shia approve as well, but just 9% strongly. Even 16% of Kurds approve (8% strongly)…”

That’s just the people who approve of attacks on US-lead forces, the number sympathetic to the various insurgent groups but who not approve of such attacks on pragmatic or moral grounds is clearly much higher.

"Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months” and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should “only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.

There are, however, variations along ethnic lines. Sunnis are the most unified, with 83% wanting US forces to leave within 6 months. Seventy percent of Shia agree on having a timeline, but divide between 22% who favor withdrawal in six months and 49% who favor two years. Among the Kurds, on the other hand, a majority of 57% favor reducing US-led forces only when the situation improves."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=brme

The four questions I pose above remain unanswered.

IMO, they remain relevant.

[txradioguy]

Who ever told you that the majority of the civilian population in Iraq supports the terrorists is sadly mistaken or getting their info from the DBM or both.

[txradioguy]

You have no clue as to what you're talking about.

And I say that as someone who spent a year on the ground in Iraq.

[txradioguy]

Uh-huh partisian website with an agenda.

Haven't you learned from this country that when someone has an agenda it's easy to manipulate the polls to get the outcome you want?

[StarCMC]

worldpublicopinion.org??  

You'll forgive me if I don't take what they say to heart... 

Looking up their IP information:

Registrant: Make this info private
The Center on Policy Attitudes
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Suite 510
Washington, DC 20036
US

------------------------------------------------


Domain Name: WORLDPUBLICOPINION.ORG

Administrative Contact :
The Center on Policy Attitudes
info@pipa.org
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Suite 510
Washington, DC 20036
US
Phone: (202) 232-7500
Fax: 999 999 9999

Technical Contact :
Heller Information Services, Inc.,
noc@HIS.COM
30 West Gude Drive
Suite 220
Rockville, MD 20850
US
Phone: +1.3012550500
Fax: +1.3014244635

Record expires on 28-Jun-2009
Record created on 09-Oct-2002
Database last updated on 04-Jan-2006

Domain servers in listed order: Manage DNS

NS.BLUEWATERMEDIA.NET 65.109.200.124
NS2.BLUEWATERMEDIA.NET 65.109.200.188

Show underlying registry data for this record


IP Address: 65.109.167.118 (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
IP Location: US(UNITED STATES)-MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY
Record Type: Domain Name
Server Type: Apache 1
Web Site Status: Active
DMOZ no listings
Y! Directory: see listings
Web Site Title: World Public Opinion
Meta Description: Global source of public opinion research on international affairs and policy. New polls of European, Asian, and American opinion are released. Findings from international polling organizations such as Gallup, Pew, Zogby,
Meta Keywords: __KEYWORDS__
Secure: No
E-commerce: No
Traffic Ranking: 2
Data as of: 05-Jul-2006

Looking up the sponsors of The Center on Policy Attitudes:

Foundation Sponsors

COPA's projects have been funded by:

* Ford Foundation
* Rockefeller Foundation
* Rockefeller Brothers Fund
* Tides Foundation
* Ford Foundation
* German Marshall Fund of the United States
* Compton Foundation
* Carnegie Corporation
* Benton Foundation
* Ben and Jerry's Foundation
* Americans Talk Issues Foundation
* Circle Foundation
* Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
* Joyce Foundation

-------------------------------------------

Let's start at the top, shall we?  According to Wikipedia,

The Ford Foundation supports many progressive causes and has been heavily criticized for many of the programs it funds for a variety of reasons.

The Ford Foundation is a major donor to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a self-described progressive media watchdog group. The Ford Foundation has been criticized for its support of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Planned Parenthood and other Abortion-Rights groups.^[6]

In 1968, the foundation began disbursing $12 million to persuade law schools to make "law school clinics" part of their curriculum. Clinics were intended to give practical experience in law practice while providing pro bono representation to the poor. However, critics charge that the clinics have been used instead as an avenue for the professors to engage in left-wing political activism. Critics cite the financial involvement of the Ford Foundation as the turning point when such clinics began to change from giving practical experience to engaging in advocacy.^[7]

More at the link.

When reading Wikipedia about the Rockefeller Foundation we find this little nugget:

The second-oldest major philanthropic institution in America after the Carnegie Corporation, the foundation's impact on philanthropy in general has been profound. The early institutions it set up have served as models for current organizations: the UN's World Health Organization, set up in 1948, is modeled on the International Health Division; the U.S. Government's National Science Foundation (1950) on its approach in support of research, scholarships and institutional development; and the National Institute of Health (1950) imitated its longstanding medical programs.^[3]

We'll skip down a little to the Tides Foundation.  Do you really want to know about them?  I know you do.  From their own little spiel about how they have responded to 9-11 found here...  (Red font color is mine.)

 
Continue to the
Groundspring Home Page
Tides Statement for Peace The Tides Community Responds to 9/11/01
 

Since the events of September 11, 2001, the Tides community has responded in a number of ways.

Tides Foundation has granted over $1.5 million to organizations doing timely and essential peace and justice work, including assisting the working poor and immigrant communities in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, promoting peaceful co-existence within diverse and potentially conflicting communities, guarding against the erosion of civil liberties, and elevating the voices of peace and justice in response to the administration's intention to attack Iraq. More on the Foundation's efforts>>

Tides Center has also done critical work to support a peaceful response to the crisis. Shortly following 9/11, Tides Center helped a group of victims' family members form September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, an advocacy organization seeking effective nonviolent responses to terrorism. These family members continue to be a powerful, persuasive voice in the growing movement to find alternatives to war.

And Groundspring.org (formerly eGrants.org) has played a key role in gathering, processing and granting more than $840,000 in online donations to support a wide range of peace and justice work

Our efforts at Tides are rooted in our over 26 years of working for progressive social change, and we feel privileged to be able to redouble our commitment to such work at this critical time.

Here are a few of the organizations we have been able support over the last year through the commitment and generosity of our partners in social change:

American Civil Liberties Union
Campaign to Defend the Constitution and Human Rights, Education and Law Project.

Afghan Institute of Learning
Providing emergency relief and human rights workshops to Afghan women refugees in Pakistan.

Arab American Action Network
Protecting Arab, Muslim and other immigrants' civil liberties and human rights.

Asociacion Tepeyac de New York
Advocating for and working with families of undocumented workers who died on 9/11.

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Advocating for Arab Americans' civil rights, providing educational programs in schools, and giving legal assistance to hate crime victims.

Center for Constitutional Rights
Public education campaign to educate about the dangers posed by governmental anti-terrorism activities.

Chinese Staff and Workers Association
Ensuring that documented and undocumented Chinese workers and small business owners affected by 9/11 can access needed relief and services.

Council on American-Islamic Relations
Interfaith Coalition Against Hate Crimes project: promoting peaceful co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims and decreasing the tolerance for anti-Muslim hate crimes.

Global Exchange
United for Peace Coalition

Independent Press Association
Beyond War project

MoveOn.org
Providing a forum for ordinary people to oppose war with Iraq.

National Council of Churches
Coalition building for peace

National Mobilization Against Sweatshops
Assisting immigrant workers in New York, especially the Latino, Afro-Caribbean and Eastern European communities that were hit hard by 9/11.

New York ACORN
Organizing low-income communities to ensure that rebuilding efforts and federal funds benefit all New Yorkers, and especially low-income people.

Peace Action Education Fund
October 26, 2002 Peace March on Washington.

Physicians for Social Responsibility
Campaign to Stop War Against Iraq project.

Renaissance Economic Development Corporation
Emergency loan funds to address the working capital and technical assistance needs of small business in lower Manhattan affected by 9/11.

South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow
Planning and implementing hate crimes briefings and legislative and law enforcement trainings.

South Asian Network
Media outreach, coalition building, and staffing for civil liberties & detention issues.

 

 

I could continue, but I'll stop here.  Now, would you be so kind as to find a source for your information that is NOT biased?  An interesting aside ~ it's amazing how concerned the Tides Foundation is with American Islamic relations, but they don't have one area dedicated to stopping anti-Semitism.  Sort of lop-sided, doncha think?

[Allegra]

Sometimes you do have to “cut and run” – sometimes desirable outcomes are just too costly - or even impossible - to achieve.

Good grief...please turn off the CNN.

And comparing a brand new democracy to modern-day D.C.?? Are you freakin' serious???

I think I see the problem now.

Look, do us a favor. You won't hear our side; you're too steeped in media B.S. Just keep the cut and run stuff down, will you please? I know we have freedom of speech and all, but please use it responsibly.

You are endangering a lot of people with that crap.

It's selfish. All we ask is that you cut-and-runners find something else to occupy you for now and let our troops and those of us who work in support of them do the job and get this done.

Thank you.

[StarCMC]

Hey there -- just saw you were on this thread. I was doing a little research to back up what you were saying. LOL

[M. Dodge Thomas]

You have no clue as to what you're talking about. And I say that as someone who spent a year on the ground in Iraq.

One of the most frustrating things about trying to understand this war is that the people I know who have served are about equally divided between those who believe it can be "won" and those who believe that it's likely already "lost".

Usually though, in both cases, their opinions come down to two big "ifs":

- If we don’t change our tactics will lose / if we change or tactics we can win.

- If we don’t get more troops on the ground we will lose / if we get more troops on the ground we can win

No one I talk to believes that we can "lose" in the sense that we can be denied temporary predominance wherever we choose to concentrate forces at a given moment - but few believe that we can "win" by such tactics.

And what I don’t hear from people who have served there - especially in the last year - is confidence that that the Iraqi forces will be able to provide odder and stability on their own for years, if ever – that is, confidence that the basis of ALL the plans for either victory or disengagement are predicated on a realistic appraisal of the situation on the ground.

So I’d ask, as a serious question:

1) How would you define "victory"?

2) What resources are required to achieve it?

3) If current resources are sufficient, what do we need to do to win?

4) If they are not sufficient, do you believe the American public will support their increase?

[Allegra]

You GO, Star! {high five}

[StarCMC]

[Yaelle]

That would make a great tagline!

[M. Dodge Thomas]

It's selfish. All we ask is that you cut-and-runners find something else to occupy you for now and let our troops and those of us who work in support of them do the job and get this done.

Again, the question is:

1) When the "job is done, what is the outcome going to look like? What kind of government can we expect will be in place? Will it be friendly, or at least neutral, toward the US and Israel?

2) Assuming the job can be done, can it be done with the resources at hand?

3) If not, can we get the American people to support increasing them?

I don't expect most posters here don’t want to ask themselves these questions –at least, they never seem to get answered. And I suppose if I keep asking them, I'll eventually get zotted and I like this place, so I'll shut up now.

But in my defense these were my concerns before this war started it started, I was asking these same questions back them when I was reading estimates by the military of 300-400K on the ground and a long occupation, while listening to the Administration downplay the manpower concerns and Pundits issue optimistic accounts of the reception we would receive from the Iraqis when no one - neither I nor anyone else - could possibly know how there things would play out.

And thinking "This is crazy- if we are going to go in, go in with resources at the HIGH end of the estimates, and prepare the voters for a long occupation."

And what worried me the most was that I was getting the sense that hard questions were not being asked, and that anyone who DID ask them was either being ignored or tossed out onto the street. And the reason for my concern was this: more than once in my business career I watched entire organizations taken down by this sort of "visionary leadership" and this sort of marginalization of the people who asking the inconvenient questions instead of getting out of the way and letting the people who knew better "just get the job done".

Watching it made quite an impression on me, and by the second or third time around I had a name for the process: "When Dreams Become Delusions"

[VOA]

Cut and Run becomes Bait and Switch?

just needed repeated!

[r9etb]

These idiots never seem to factor in Iran....

[r9etb]

Fess up, Star ... you were waiting for that one, weren't you? ;-)