Iraq bill: It's NOT a withdrawal

[fushigi]

Interesting opinion piece from retired brigadier general Kevin Ryan. According to him, the legislation in congress won't require any withdrawal of any kind:

Although the House and Senate bills set clear timelines for withdrawal of U.S. troops, they also permit some troops to remain in Iraq as long as they are performing one of three specific missions: protecting American facilities, citizens, or forces; combating Al Qaeda or international terrorists; and training Iraqi security forces. How many troops are we talking about? Potentially as many as have been there for the past three years. <snip> Up until the surge, the United States maintained about 15 combat brigades (marines and army) plus support troops in Iraq; about 135,000 troops. How many troops will we need after Congress's withdrawal? To train Iraqi security forces the United States had been using 5,000 troops, but last fall everyone agreed more trainers are needed, and the number is projected to grow to between 15,000 and 20,000 trainers. Another way to think of the training mission is to imagine that the United States would embed one brigade into each of the 10 Iraqi divisions. Add to that a few U.S. brigades to help fix the training of the equally large national police force, and you are up to between 10 and 15 brigades. To conduct operations specifically targeted against Al Qaeda or international terrorists in Iraq could take anything from the few Special Forces we have in Iraq to three to four conventional brigades. Finally, to protect U.S. facilities, citizens, and our own forces would mean guarding at a minimum the Green Zone and the several bases from which American forces would operate, easily employing another two to three brigades. Altogether, the number of brigades we might need to perform the three missions allowed by Congress could reach between 12 and 20 brigades. How is it possible that after a "withdrawal" the United States might need as many troops in Iraq as it had there before? The reason is that we never had enough troops to begin with. Military experts would rightfully point out that the bills before Congress are more correctly understood as a re-missioning of our troops. Perhaps a good strategy - but not a withdrawal.

[Chaossaber314]

Oh you guys!

That's our Washington!

[fushigi]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Oh you guys! That's our Washington!

That's what you have to say about this!? This is a total outrage! As if I didn't feel like American voters were being fleeced enough, now it turns out even when they debate a topic, they still agree on it??

It's really no better than a one-party system anymore.

[Praxius]

Nothing ever changes..... just the good cop, bad cop routine.

[The Decider]

The op ed piece doesn't address the political consequences of keeping those troops in theater past the deadline, especially in the exposed positions we currently occupy. As the body bags keep trickling in, that deadline will loom large. Case in point--the last years of the Vietnam War. Nixon came into office on the slogan "Peace with Honor." The Democratic Congress ordered the end of military operations but Nixon ignored the order and bombed Cambodia and Laos anyway. More soldiers died unnecessarily as the war dragged on. However, the political die was cast. Our pullout was only delayed.

The bill is far from perfect; compromises never are. But it does set in motion expectations that, if unfulfilled, will have political consequences.

[GHook93]

Quote by: The Decider The op ed piece doesn't address the political consequences of keeping those troops in theater past the deadline, especially in the exposed positions we currently occupy. As the body bags keep trickling in, that deadline will loom large. Case in point--the last years of the Vietnam War. Nixon came into office on the slogan "Peace with Honor." The Democratic Congress ordered the end of military operations but Nixon ignored the order and bombed Cambodia and Laos anyway. More soldiers died unnecessarily as the war dragged on. However, the political die was cast. Our pullout was only delayed. The bill is far from perfect; compromises never are. But it does set in motion expectations that, if unfulfilled, will have political consequences.

Simple solution impeach Bush and Cheaney!

[Praxius]

Quote by: GHook93 Simple solution impeach Bush and Cheaney!

Jeezz... I've been saying that for years.... lol.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: fushigi That's what you have to say about this!? This is a total outrage! As if I didn't feel like American voters were being fleeced enough, now it turns out even when they debate a topic, they still agree on it?? It's really no better than a one-party system anymore.

Yes, that is all I have to say about this. The majority of the board has been taking partisan sides and I've been saying that both groups are just as bad. This just proves it by proving that they're not just as bad, but they're the exact same thing.

[fushigi]

Quote by: The Decider The op ed piece doesn't address the political consequences of keeping those troops in theater past the deadline, especially in the exposed positions we currently occupy.

Good point. However, we can see thus far how much an administration pays attention to popular sentiments against the war... whoever's elected will still have the freedom to take his sweet time getting the troops out during his term. And as you mentioned Nixon, I'll point out that he was reelected despite not ending the war during his first term.

It's like they say... Americans never vote out a president during wartime. Who knew Lincoln's "don't change horses midstream" campaign would last 144 years?

[The Decider]

Quote by: fushigi Good point. However, we can see thus far how much an administration pays attention to popular sentiments against the war... whoever's elected will still have the freedom to take his sweet time getting the troops out during his term. And as you mentioned Nixon, I'll point out that he was reelected despite not ending the war during his first term.

True, he was reelected in November 1972 on a law and order platform. Americans were tired of race riots and hippies and the rest. That didn't mean they loved the war.

However, Americans saw the phony Nixon two months after his reelection when he ordered the Christmas bombing of Cambodia. Nixon escalated the war in the name of ending it. Had he chosen Christmas 1971 for his secret bombing campaign, we might have seen an interesting presidential campaign a year later.

Quote by: fushigi It's like they say... Americans never vote out a president during wartime.

Americans never had the opportunity to vote for or against Lyndon Johnson in 1968. Johnson resigned shortly after the Tet Offensive.

And if George Jr could stand for reelection in 2008, I think your theory would be severely tested.

[bishop]

Quote by: fushigi That's what you have to say about this!? This is a total outrage! As if I didn't feel like American voters were being fleeced enough, now it turns out even when they debate a topic, they still agree on it?? It's really no better than a one-party system anymore.

it's been a one-party system for quite some time now. and people who can think for themselves and aren't blinded by partisan babble can clearly see that reality. both parties are pro-imperialism, pro-deficit spending, etc., and have been so for quite a long time.

i agree that neither party truly wants to get us out of iraq. as it is, we have built plenty of permanent bases there. and, as the establishment moves towards a war with iran, these bases would definitely come in handy.

[fushigi]

Quote by: bishop it's been a one-party system for quite some time now. and people who can think for themselves and aren't blinded by partisan babble can clearly see that reality. both parties are pro-imperialism, pro-deficit spending, etc., and have been so for quite a long time. i agree that neither party truly wants to get us out of iraq. as it is, we have built plenty of permanent bases there. and, as the establishment moves towards a war with iran, these bases would definitely come in handy.

Do you really see an invasion of Iran in our future? We can't occupy the entire Middle East, can we??

Do they really want the forward bases for an invasion, or do they want them for a deterrent? Iran's still a decade away from nuclear missiles, right?

[bishop]

Quote by: fushigi Do you really see an invasion of Iran in our future?

we may not invade iran this very second, but i definitely think that there's a good chance of the establishment going to war with iran.. it doesn't seem to be radically outside the realm of possibilities, especially after taking recent history into account.

we could very well just sit tight in our permanent bases for our involvement in iraq to decrease, and then focus on iran when the "time is right"...

as for the present, ahmed and bush are playing a retarded game of brinksmanship.. the capturing of u.k.'s soldiers was undoubtedly a response to the capturing of iranian officials by u.s. forces. also remember that bush's "surge" is hardly a surge - it's an escalation. these extra forces are not meant to be temporary (unless you believe that undefined commitments can be regarded as temporary). also, this "surge" shipped over scores of patriot missile batteries, as well as an additional aircraft carrier battlegroup - neither of which do much towards fighting the surgents in iraq, but they'd be very useful in a war with iran.

[The Decider]

Quote by: fushigi Do you really see an invasion of Iran in our future? We can't occupy the entire Middle East, can we??

I agree, fushigi. When perennial critics of the "one party" system start talking about an invasion of Iran by a future Democratic president, their claims to "thinking for themselves" begin to fray. They are usually the same ones who believe Gore would have invaded Iraq had he ascended to the presidency. What Democratic politician has even suggested, hinted, or winked at the prospect of invading Iran? Lieberman doesn't count for reasons that should be obvious.

Partisanship has its evils, but "non-partisans" have no monopoly on rational arguments.

[bishop]

i don't believe gore would've invaded iraq, but at the same time i wouldn't rule it out either.

both parties gave bush the power to do whatever he wanted, despite that he is a bumbling idiot. both parties continue to pour billions upon billions into this war, they continue to give israel billions in welfare, etc...

and, clinton's administration was the first to formally change u.s. policy towards iraq to one seeking regime change. there were several times during his presidency where he feigned at going to war with iraq, and he did enlarge the no-fly zones - and gave authorization for more aggressive containment.

as i said before, i don't see the democrats immediately supporting a war with iran - but i also wouldn't rule it out in the future.. as it is, they supported bush's war with iraq, like it or not.

[fushigi]

Quote by: bishop i don't believe gore would've invaded iraq, but at the same time i wouldn't rule it out either.

And there are probably a good deal of past/future Republican potentates who wouldn't have invaded Iraq - namely, veterans of ass-backwards military failures like Vietnam: John McCain and Colin Powell spring to mind.

[bishop]

mccain did vote for the war, felt we should've gone in with even more troops and has fought to increase our footprint since the start of the war.. he has voted for every single spending bill as well. and amongst those vying for the white house, he's the biggest supporter of endless engagement in iraq of the bunch.

as for colin powell, he was wary of going to war, but he failed to publicly stand by those views. his sense of duty towards bush trumped his sense of duty to himself and his country. his presentation at the unsc was probably the most powerful act that moved our country to allow itself to be manipulated into a war with iraq. cheney, rumsfeld, bush and rice could've mongered about war till they were blue in the face - but none of them would've had the impact that powell's speech did.

[The Decider]

Quote by: bishop i don't believe gore would've invaded iraq, but at the same time i wouldn't rule it out either.

You wouldn't rule it out. Why? Do you have a speech? A policy paper? This suspicion of Gore's invasion motives on Iraq is notable for its lack of evidence.

Quote by: bishop both parties gave bush the power to do whatever he wanted, despite that he is a bumbling idiot. both parties continue to pour billions upon billions into this war, they continue to give israel billions in welfare, etc...

I know that it may not matter much, but something like 90 percent of Americans supported the war early on. Some of those 90% were also "Libertarians" and "independents." However, I don't blame libertarians and independents or even Democrats who supported the war as much as the architects of the war. In all of American history, Congress has NEVER voted down a war or use-of-force resolution. The people got what they thought they wanted because the intel used to support the war was bogus.

Quote by: bishop and, clinton's administration was the first to formally change u.s. policy towards iraq to one seeking regime change. there were several times during his presidency where he feigned at going to war with iraq, and he did enlarge the no-fly zones - and gave authorization for more aggressive containment.

"Containment" is the operative word. No one supported invasion at the time, not even most Republicans.

[Chaossaber314]

"Containment" is the operative word. No one supported invasion at the time, not even most Republicans.

Incorrect. The operative phrase was quite literally "regime change" started by the Clinton administration.

[bishop]

Quote by: the decider You wouldn't rule it out. Why? Do you have a speech? A policy paper? This suspicion of Gore's invasion motives on Iraq is notable for its lack of evidence.

no, i don't have one - do you have one showing that he wouldn't do any of these same things? i kind of doubt it.

Quote by: the decider However, I don't blame libertarians and independents or even Democrats who supported the war as much as the architects of the war. In all of American history, Congress has NEVER voted down a war or use-of-force resolution. The people got what they thought they wanted because the intel used to support the war was bogus.

none of this excuses those who voted to give bush the ability to wage this unnecessary war. moreover, they voted without even bothering to truly test the assumptions that bush was charading around as if they were facts. it was their responsibility to do so. voting to give a war hungry president power to launch wars of choice isn't something to view as inconsequential in the least. it's also part of the reason why the rule of the mob isn't the way the government was intended to operate.

Quote by: the decider "Containment" is the operative word. No one supported invasion at the time, not even most Republicans.

it was still containment, although clinton did police the no-fly zones with much more agressiveness and vigor towards the end of his presidency.. first clinton authorized the "iraq liberation act", formalizing the u.s.'s stance in favor of regime change.. then, clinton followed that up with operation desert fox which was a major bombing campaign.

the democrats are not the angels you seem to think they are.