Cut and Run?

[RickSp]

As a sailor I always shake my head when the war apologists pound their chests and claim that we can't "cut and run." I wonder if they understand the phrase.

To cut and run is to be caught in a position of great danger where there is no time to raise the anchor. Sometimes it is necessary to cut the anchor rode and run in order to save the ship. Cutting and running is a last resort manuever, but is basic common sense. Better to lose the ground tackle than to lose a ship and her crew on the rocks. When you are in dire trouble, not cutting and running is either stupid or suicidal.

This came to mind when I ran across an excellent article by William Odom discussing point by point why "cutting and running" might not be such a bad idea. Odom is no lefty. He is a life long Republican, a three star general and the head of the NSA during the Reagan Administration.

What's Wrong With Cutting and Running? by Gen. (ret.) William E. Odom

Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?

Worth reading.

So is it better to "cut and run" or stay and lose the ship of state and all the crew?

[Nono]

Well bushbots?

Back in August there was a cartoon in the Chicago Tribune. You see explosions, buildings collapsing, tanks rumbling through the resulting rubble, bullets and RPGs flying through the air, etc. etc. In the middle of all this stand two US soldiers. One says to the other: "But if we pull out, this whole place will disintegrate into chaos."

[northtexan]

Quote by: RickSp As a sailor I always shake my head when the war apologists pound their chests and claim that we can't "cut and run." I wonder if they understand the phrase. To cut and run is to be caught in a position of great danger where there is no time to raise the anchor. Sometimes it is necessary to cut the anchor rode and run in order to save the ship. Cutting and running is a last resort manuever, but is basic common sense. Better to lose the ground tackle than to lose a ship and her crew on the rocks. When you are in dire trouble, not cutting and running is either stupid or suicidal. This came to mind when I ran across an excellent article by William Odom discussing point by point why "cutting and running" might not be such a bad idea. Odom is no lefty. He is a life long Republican, a three star general and the head of the NSA during the Reagan Administration. What's Wrong With Cutting and Running? by Gen. (ret.) William E. Odom Worth reading. So is it better to "cut and run" or stay and lose the ship of state and all the crew?

Good article. Thanks.

But the Bushistas are as loathe to take good advice as ever. They'd rather sink the ship than be known as those who cut the anchor line. But then, they're always careful never to be the ones sailing the ship, so don't have to worry about foundering with it.

[SteveA]

Why cut and run? We can simply just "leave". It's not cutting and running really. This whole thing was initially about finding other terrorists that might have had a part in the 9/11 attacks, and hitting some of the camps where they might have trained.

They had a list of people and from what I remember, most of them they caught. Job done. Time for trials and sentences. It's not cutting and running. It's just not getting sidetracked into empire building. The initial plans had nothing to do with what we're doing now. We already finished the job. Let's just leave.

[Sonart]

Quote by: SteveA Why cut and run? We can simply just "leave".

Indeed... after all, even that greatest of all Republican Presidents, St. Ronald, showed us that, "Ya gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em." when he promptly bugged out of Beirut after getting 230-odd of our Marines blown to smithereens.

.

[RickSp]

"Cut and run" is just a Bushbot slur. Might also be considered "cutting our losses." A phased but expeditious withdrawal might be another way to put it.

[northtexan]

Quote by: SteveA Why cut and run? We can simply just "leave". It's not cutting and running really. This whole thing was initially about finding other terrorists that might have had a part in the 9/11 attacks, and hitting some of the camps where they might have trained. They had a list of people and from what I remember, most of them they caught. Job done. Time for trials and sentences. It's not cutting and running. It's just not getting sidetracked into empire building. The initial plans had nothing to do with what we're doing now. We already finished the job. Let's just leave.

OK. Call it what you want. Let's just declare victory and leave posthaste (before we REALLY get our asses kicked).

[leftcider]

Quote by: Nono Back in August there was a cartoon in the Chicago Tribune. You see explosions, buildings collapsing, tanks rumbling through the resulting rubble, bullets and RPGs flying through the air, etc. etc. In the middle of all this stand two US soldiers. One says to the other: "But if we pull out, this whole place will disintegrate into chaos."

Clever cartoon, but fails to take the whole picture into account. Bad as things are in Iraq, they can still get much worse. Civilian death tolls are high from Anglo-American actions and insurgent attacks but would be much higer in the event of full scale civil war. There are evident grave potential risks to withdrawing. These might be risks worth taking and consequences that are better to accept, but failing to address these issues and respond to them is foolhardy. This is not as simple an issue as some antiwar groups make it out to be. I commend the article Rick posted for addressing some concerns, although I do not think it adequetly takes into account the degree at which some of the negative identified trends could increase as a result of pullout.

[SteveA]

Oops, my bad. I forgot. We're supposed to "support the troops" by encouraging a continuation of the war effort. How did Bush phrase it? Oh yes! "Bring it on!", was the quote Bush gave. Though some soldiers likely felt that sentiment, I'm certain others would have preferred our leaders not promote that view.

It's a shame too because we already had achieved our intents for the most part a long time ago in Afghanistan. Instead they redefined it into a War on Terror, that's impossible to win.

I think this also should bring into question the value of having so many military bases and activities outside the U.S. We had non-interventionist views a long time ago and though maybe we can't commit to never getting mixed up in foreign affairs, having bases all over the world and getting involved in foreign politics is a bad plan. Let's fix stuff at home first and refine the product before trying to ship it overseas.

A few apologies could be in order as well.

[RickSp]

Quote by: leftcider Clever cartoon, but fails to take the whole picture into account. Bad as things are in Iraq, they can still get much worse. Civilian death tolls are high from Anglo-American actions and insurgent attacks but would be much higer in the event of full scale civil war. There are evident grave potential risks to withdrawing. These might be risks worth taking and consequences that are better to accept, but failing to address these issues and respond to them is foolhardy. This is not as simple an issue as some antiwar groups make it out to be. I commend the article Rick posted for addressing some concerns, although I do not think it adequetly takes into account the degree at which some of the negative identified trends could increase as a result of pullout.

Has it occurred to you that we may be a big part of the problem? The longer we have stayed the larger the insurgency has grown. Electricity in Baghdad is still only a few hours a days. We still only control of a relatively small part of the capital. We keep chasing insurgents out of cities and they come back stronger. Even the generals are beginning to figure out that the only thing that unites the insurgency is our occupation.

I agree that the risks of withdrawal are high. It is just that the risks of continued occupation are so much higher. And a policy of blindly "staying the course" is guaranteed to end in defeat.

[leftcider]

Quote by: SteveA Oops, my bad. I forgot. We're supposed to "support the troops" by encouraging a continuation of the war effort. How did Bush phrase it? Oh yes! "Bring it on!", was the quote Bush gave.

I do not promote that viewpoint.

[purplehaze]

I agree with a lot of the issues brought up here. However I don't think it as cut and dry and you make it seem. Financially speaking there is a lot of pork and wasteful spending we can cut back in so many other areas. I don't think Iraq is going to bring about the fall and demise of America if we stay another year or two. There are stories in the news every day of car bombings and other attacks in Iraq, no one can deny it is a very unstable place. But the people in the "leave now" crowed make it sound as if that is an actual solution to the chaos. Doing this will not make Americans safer, and it surely wont make the Iraqi citizens any safer.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007274

In recent days Iraqi forces--yes, Iraqi forces--have led the largest urban assault there since the liberation of Fallujah last November. Meanwhile, Iraq and the United States are finally ratcheting up the pressure on Syria, with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad saying "all options"--including military force--"are on the table" when it comes to stopping terrorist infiltration from that country. Without Syria's help, the insurgency would be seriously weakened. There are good reasons to believe the current operation in Tal Afar--a largely Turkoman city near the Syrian border--will be a model of things to come. Previous attempts to clean the terrorists out of Tal Afar and other cities in northern and western Iraq have too often seen the insurgents melt away only to return when the U.S. spearhead withdrew. This time Iraqis are leading the fight and, most important, many will stay so the people of Tal Afar can begin to believe they can live free of terrorist intimidation. A force of about 5,000 Iraqis and 3,800 Americans killed at least 157 terrorists, detained 440 suspects, and discovered 34 weapons caches, all while suffering minimal casualties. "The terrorists are losing their morale. They couldn't resist as they did in Fallujah," Iraqi President Jalal Talabani told us in an interview last week in New York, where he was attending the United Nations General Assembly. The Tal Afar operation calls into question the contention of war critics like Senator Joe Biden that there are only a handful of Iraqi troops capable of meaningful operations. In fact, U.S. commanders classify about 40 battalions--roughly 750 soldiers in each--as "fully independent" or able to fight "in the lead."

Also
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ing-iraq_x.htm

Still, on the question that tests fundamental attitudes toward the war — was it a mistake to send U.S. troops? — the public's view has rebounded. By 53%-46%, those surveyed say it wasn't a mistake, the strongest support for the war since just after the Iraqi elections in January.

There are signs things can improve if we stay. The fact that a lot of these bombings are aimed at Iraqi police and army recruitment centers should testify to that. There of course has to be a point when we do leave, and I think that needs to be within a couple years. But I think we have to stay until we are sure the Iraqi government can defend itself without us. Most of the polls, that I have seen at least, show the majority of Americans think leaving now would be a mistake. Most think it is going badly yes, and that we need to leave Iraq. But even the majority of those that want to leave know now is too soon. You may disagree with theirs, and also my opinion. However, I just thought it was worth pointing out that I didn't pull these wacky opinions out of my ass, and I am not in the "loony minority of mindless bush supporters" as it seems some would submit.

[xyzer]

I'm not sure that I'm reading some of the defeatest nonsense posted here. In the Marine Corps we didn't practice the cut and run technique, we fought to win...to see it through. Sure there are casualtties in Iraq...thats what war is all about. engaging in a fight which will require killing and risks. War is not a patty cake, patty cake baker man operation that always goes well!!!! War deaths may be tragic, but in truth the casualties we have suffered in two plus years in Iraq are miniimal compared to WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam
I was also taught, and have experienced in my life, the idea that we should see a job through to its conclusion and not be put off by set backs. Perhaps Thomas Sowells most recent commentary which contained this pearl of wisdom is correct...
"As the passage of time removes people from first hand knowledge of an earlier era, they are replaced by people ignorant of those times and therefore easy targets for demagogues." Experience has shown if we persevere we achieve our goals. When we are indecisiove and give up easily there is no success. Haiti is an example!
You posters have been listening to too many demogogues like Kerry, Rangel, Kennedy, et al. They promote defeatism and cowardice as they were cowards. Kerry inventing wounds so he could get sent home early. Kennedy cowardly avoiding any risk to himelf as he drove away while his girlfriend drowned. Rangel forever a 'commie' alarmist who survives on demagoguery trying to scare people into believing their kids might get drafted.
You can join this crop of defeatest but I wont! You can duck out to Canada to avoid serving but I didn't and wouldn't.
Rastionalizations are easy from thousands of miles away. There already have been positive spin-offs from this campaign.There has been much progress(undrer reported by people in the press who are themselves defeatist and sensationalists. We need to have the resolve and patience to see it through. The end is clearly in sight.

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer I'm not sure that I'm reading some of the defeatest nonsense posted here. In the Marine Corps we didn't practice the cut and run technique, we fought to win...to see it through. Sure there are casualtties in Iraq...thats what war is all about. engaging in a fight which will require killing and risks. War is not a patty cake, patty cake baker man operation that always goes well!!!! War deaths may be tragic, but in truth the casualties we have suffered in two plus years in Iraq are miniimal compared to WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam

We all have hot buttons - things that really piss us off. Mine are folks who support the war and then downplay the number of deaths. To say that I find this revolting is a serious understatement. So once again you are claiming that the deaths are minimal? How about the 20,000 or so maimed or crippled? Simply disgusting. Minimizing death and casualties and yet objecting to being referred to as a war monger. Unbelievable.

Defeatist nonsense? Did you read the article by the 3 Star General, the most Senior Army Intelligence officer and head of the NSA for the conservative's god, Ronnie Reagan, or can't you be bothered?

The end is sight. Sure. That was what Westmoreland was saying just before Tet. Even the Pentagon is admitting that we can't win this war, and you just prattle on with your macho nonsense. You sound like George Armstrong Custer claiming that he has the Sioux right where he wants them. But of course you aren't the one doing the dying.

[SteveA]

The question is truly what are we "winning"?

Who are we fighting? If we were killing terrorists, they'd have already been dead 100 times over by now. We've expended 1.8 billion rounds of ammunition from what I heard. Obviously we're not just shooting at people that were previously any threat to our nation.

It's a war we created. If we allow the actions of a couple dozen people to create a war with 2 nations and hundreds of billions of dollars in costs and tens of thousands of lives lost, as well as many otherwise civil liberties imagine what damage 100 people could do ... though it wouldn't be truly the 100 people doing it, it would be us doing it to ourselves by losing perspective on our actions and the consequences of our decisions.

The way we handled things, if 9/11 happened a couple more times we would lose more than just a few buildings, we'd lose our entire way of life. That would be a victory for terrorism simply through ignorance.

[bishop]

gotta love the gung ho, kill 'em all types who think everyone ought to think like a mindless killing machine. it shows just how intellectually bankrupt bush's war has become.

despite all the clamor, i feel that it's fairly safe to assume that in 1-2 years from now, soldiers will begin coming home. like i said in another thread, the stench of this quagmire needs to get worse than what it already is - or, things simply need to be going at their current pace since there is little improvement to speak of. one thing's for certain - bush will leave this mess for his successor to sort out. quite frankly, i'm not sure that that person will look for a full withdrawal either.. regardless of who's in power, we will continue to employ imperialist policies to govern iraq's internal politics, and most importantly, its oil. as it is, we already control all of their finances since their dinars are dollarized.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: purplehaze I didn't pull these wacky opinions out of my ass

True, you are saying what talking heads are saying.

Quote by: purplehaze the majority of Americans think leaving now would be a mistake.

They, like you, think what they are told to think by a lying media.

Quote by: purplehaze we have to stay until we are sure the Iraqi government can defend itself without us.

We don't have to do squat. US treasure and US blood are being wasted right now in a military "endeavor" that has no clear ending. Elitists are growing wealthier, while the taxpayers debt burden increases. Terrorists are getting some hands on experience and Islamic fundamentalist killers are recruiting in high gear.

Maybe this is a success for Bush, because he may want to have a good war going forever...

[SteveA]

This is one reason why I hate taxes ... you're supposed to pay for stuff that you might even consider self destructive. I quit my aerospace job a year ago, so they'll have a little harder time flying and the savings I'm spending is just helping a little to show how worthless the dollar is.

There's no way to opt your taxes out of the war, so I found the next best thing - stop earning anything so they have nothing to spend and I can blow my savings before it's devalued any more.

[Samildanach]

I say we send in the Christian contingent. Every one who is a Christian put your hands up, that way at least it will be a war of ideologies and have some meaning to it, hell a lot of them might even get their wish of going to heaven granted fighting a holy war for God, thats guaranteed heaven time that is. :)

[Osborn F Enready]

I would just like to say one thing.

If we left Iraq today, in entirety, there is nothing that could happen there that isn't already happening.

What could happen now, will happen after we leave, WHENEVER that is.

The whole thing is a damned side show, but the puppets bleed for real.