GOP Congressman Joins Domenici in Breaking With White House on War [Doolittle says "quagmire"]

Rep. John Doolittle, a consevative California congressman, today joined others in his party rapidly deserting the president on the Iraq war.

At a town hall meeting in Rocklin and then in a meeting with the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee he questioned whether the conflict was worth the loss of more American lives. He said U.S. troops should be pulled back from the front lines "as soon as possible" and the fighting turned over to Iraqi forces.

A longtime supporter of the war, Doolittle called the situation in Iraq a "quagmire" on Thursday. "We've got to get off the front lines as soon as possible," Doolittle said at Rocklin City Hall, the Bee reported. "And in my mind that means something like the end of the year. We just can't continue to tolerate these kinds of losses."

Reagan - he would never have started it to begin with. He was into winning wars - the Cold War - without invading countries.

Ummm... don't forget about Reagan bombing Libya... He wasn't totally adverse to using force when necessary. To say that you know exactly how Reagan, or even Goldwater would've responded to this situation we find ourselves in is pretty bold of you, IMHO. This really is a completely new situation we find ourselves in faced with fighting against networks like al-Qaeda and others. This is not some political idealogy, it is a fanatic, radical, religiously motivated group of terrorists bent on killing anyone who is not like them, and who will not submit to their 'divine authority'.

If you think Reagan would've backed down... well, I personally think Reagan of all people would have been a powerful force, and voice against our enemies in this. AND, he would be able to get the point across to people who have NO CLUE how big of a danger this WORLD war really is.

Also, there were many things in play that brought about the end of the Cold War -- you make it sound too simplistic, IMHO. The reason we won the Cold War is because the USSR KNEW that they could not beat us, and were probably on the verge of a revolution if they didn't come to terms with the way things were going in their own country. There was a lot of pressure from around the world to end the Cold War.

As far as Iraq... There really is a war being fought across the globe. Should we stick our heads in the sand and wait till the Islamic Radicals take over Europe like the Nazis did in WWII??? What about the civilians in Iraq we have dedicated and sacrificed so much for? Do they not deserve a chance to live Free -- or should we just let the Islamic Radicals take over and create another dictatorship with Sharia Law as the basis for their society? [Please notice the terrorists are attacking the civilians a lot of the time... Do you think that will change if we abandon Iraq's people -- Answer: NO, it would only get worse until the terrorists gained complete control. Honestly, we owe it to the Iraqi people to complete the mission. All of you who speak this way talk about saving lives -- that of civilians as well... How can you not see that your ideas of how to end this thing {Bringing the troops home RIGHT NOW) would result in a massacre of the Iraqi people, and might even embolden these radicals in other areas around the world? You don't negotiate or give in to bullies, or they will take full advantage of you, and in the case of terrorists that will cost way more lives than those you are purporting to want to save.]

Also, it really is better for us to be fighting them over there, and not here. If you think that the terrorists are going to forget the Jihad they have been fighting against us for the last 20 years if we pull our soldiers out of Iraq, I'm sorry to say, but that is incredibly naive. We are VERY fortunate that we have not had another incident like 9/11 yet. There is a real threat -- it's not just fear-mongering, war-mongering, propoganda, or paranoia.

What's done is done, and no matter how you feel about getting into Iraq -- we are THERE. Now is the time to figure out how best to resolve the situation -- not give up and desert those who we vowed to help.

It's a real shame that people in this world still think appeasement is good policy -- please remember what happened in WWII, if you think ignoring this problem will make it go away.

The Republicans may lose it all in 2008...but when we’re hit again with the Democrats in power and they crap themselves...then America will do a giant “Oh My God”, we actually put these people in office and they have no ability to defend us.

Short term loss will mean long term gains...it’s just unfortunate it has to happen this way because these libs have no clue how evil these people are. NONE.

And your little Reagan “wouldn’t invade” other countries...please. Grenada ring a bell. Bush’s dad went into Panama. Clinton into Mogadishu, Haiti, Kosovo.

It’s been done for decades.

Korea was freed from years of Japanese occupation in 1945.

Truman's administration pulled our troops out of South Korea by 1949, even though South Korea was suffering from political and social unrest and the Democrats were warned not to do so.

In 1950 Truman felt it necessary to send our troops back to Korea, under the guise of fighting a "police action" against "bandits." In reality, North Korea invaded and occupied most of the South that year.

30,000 Americans died in Korea in the remaining 30 months of Truman's presidency.

Those deaths would not have occurred if we had not abandoned Korea prematurely.

You've obviously give the war in Iraq alot of thought. So I would like to ask you what you think should be done differently. Do you think should we should carpet bomb the country? If that is not your strategy, how do you think our military should go about killing our foes while at the same time helping our friends?

I no longer think it is politically feasible to change our tactics to a "winning" strategy. After our initial victory, I think we should have treated any type of lawlessness in a severe manner even if that meant substantial civilian casualties. I also think we should have disarmed the populace and, of course, controlled the borders with all forced required including massive bombing if necessary.

None of this makes any difference now and is, of course, Monday morning quarterbacking.

I think now our best strategy is to develop a plan to redeploy our troops to the borders with the intent to use whatever force is necessary to completely stop men and material from getting into Iraq. At least we will give Iraq a fighting chance to solve it's problems without outside interference. I also realize that this would probably bring us into conflict with Iran but this is inevitable any way.

There is no real solution to the sectarian fighting amongst the Iraqis, They have to solve their internal problems themselves.

Our troops have performed magnificently and have ridden the world of a brutal regime and given Iraq a chance for a future. We, however, cannot create this future for them, we can only prevent others from undermining it.

Since Dooverylittle and Domuchonknees have both criticized the War as recent as a year ago...

NONE OF THIS IS NEWS!

They have both said this crap in the past. And when they say it again in September....the media will point to same folks...like the idiots mentioned above...and come out with big new flashes...”Republicans Break Rank”. Even though it is the same McHagel type losers as before.

Numbers of support are still the same...and even better in the House.

So screw those two Rino Turncoats. Vote their sorry asses out in the next primary.

If we gave the order to our military to destroy the enemy in 6 weeks, they would do it.

This is what you said. I would just like to know what your winning strategy is? Do you think the winning strategy is to nuke Iraq or just carpet bomb it? And what areas do you think should be attacked? Should the Kurds be bombed? How about the Shia? How about the Sunnis who have been coming over to our side in the past six months, should they be bombed too?

I just want to get a feel for how you think you could defeat an insurgency in six weeks because if you have a plan like that and it doesn't involve nuking people, then you need to let someone in the military know about it

The way we are fighting this asymmetrical war can only be speculation on our part. I have talked to people who have been over there. We are engaging the enemy in ways that would make you proud. However how that is being done is secret. You don’t want to give away our game plan. The enemy is crafty but we quickly adjust. We are killing more of them. Iraq is like one of those bug zappers that attracts the bugs to their death. We have military grade equipment to hit hard. However, the police nature is a fine hand with a big punch. The people of Iraq are on board to help us. They like what is happening to their economy. Having their own government and freedom is not such a bad thing.

This Iraq war that you love so much is going to turn Washington over to the Democrats. With the White House in their hands and massive majorities in Congress, they’ll fix things so the GOP never regains power. All because of a war that we didn’t need to fight, against a pipsqueak of foe that was no threat to the US. History will record that Bush and his disastrous war ended the Republican era that Reagan began.
Bullcrap. Once we surrender, which you are proposing, it will embolden our enemies to attack us. When that happen, which party has the support of the people. By the way, how many UN resolutions did Saddam ignore, and the food for oil money was going where? I ask this as a Dad whose son was in Desert Storm, and will be leaving for Afghanistan this month. I question the motives of your posts, and your choice of screen name.

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.