Cheney says U.S. wants to leave Iraq "with honor"

AP via Yahoo ^ | 02/20/07 | Caren Bohan

[HarryCaul]

TOKYO (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday the United States wants to finish its mission in Iraq and "return with honor," despite the war's growing unpopularity at home and doubts among U.S. allies.

Cheney's visit to Tokyo comes just weeks after Japan's defense minister said starting the Iraq war was a mistake and its foreign minister called the U.S. occupation strategy "immature."

The remarks forced Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whom Cheney meets later in Wednesday, to scurry to reassure Washington that Tokyo's backing for U.S. policy in Iraq was unchanged.

[rlmorel]

The feeling is mutual, and I mean it. I apologize for being so caustic on this.

We can agree that we have different opinions on these things, and I concede that having a larger and more intrusive footprint may indeed have alleviated the issues our troops now face.

But I also feel just as strongly that having a larger footprint may have introduced elements into the conflict, both physical and psychological that would have been counterproductive.

One thing I feel strongly about, and I suspect you feel the same, is that as a civilian, one cannot "support the troops" and not support "the mission". Perhaps this explains my mindset of supporting a policy that some see as a failed or broken down one. I see it as an evolving approach that we will need to adapt to as time goes on.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

"But I also feel just as strongly that having a larger footprint may have introduced elements into the conflict, both physical and psychological that would have been counterproductive."

Who knows, but it is always easier to draw down a large force than to ramp one up. Especially if the leader is captured and the sons are dead. But remember, at the beginning of any conflict, the world just sort of waits and sees what happens, for about a month. And THEN the posturing starts taking place.

In regard to Powell, it was true he wasn't a general at the time, but he asked Franks point blank (Franks book) 'do you have enough troops? Are you getting the support and troops you need?' Franks believed he did have enough, not anticipating the effort and manning that was required to re-start a nation, and occupation. Irregardless, Powells point was prescient.

Carpet bombing? No, but enough forces to attack and hold key areas of Iraq, Tikrit, and other places where Casey was bouncing around troops playing whack a mole, before he decided to hold up like Fort Apache in Baghdad.

We didn't have enough for occupation. I think everyone agrees. And beyond the 21,500, we are not going to get any more. Two things will happen: 1) the 21,500 helps to slowly turn over the duties to the Iraqis, whether they are ready or not, or the 21,500 help prevent further insurgent attacks with strategic shows of force until we pull out of there. We do not owe the Iraqis anything. They owe themselves to get it together. They may have a civil war. We had ours and became a better nation of it. The war ended when we had killed enough of ourselves. The fact is, Saddam is no longer in power, it will be a long time before they even contemplate developing nuke weapons like Iran. But of course, they could go just buy one from Iran, or even North Korea even. But that's another thread. Cheers.