News-Record.com

Like Vietnam - will the outcome be any different
if we get out tomorrow or 10 years from now?

That's what I wish we knew.

The Somme analogy is misleading. The U.S. managed to stay more or less neutral until Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1917 (it had been "restricted" after the Lusitania was sunk in 1915 with more than 100 Americans aboard) and then got caught trying to get Mexico to take its side against the U.S. in the war. Had Germany refrained from doing even one of those two things, the U.S. might well never have entered the war and the outcome likely would have been very different.

There's another flaw in the analogy. I'll grant it's theoretically possible that we could pour enough troops into Iraq to ensure victory. But the guy who's now in charge of troops there also served in Bosnia, and on the basis of that experience he has written that a successful occupation will require about 1 combat soldier (only about half the soldiers now in Iraq meet his definition) for every 20 people in the occupied country. Even with the escalation, we'd still be at a far worse ratio than what he himself thinks is required for success.

Moreover, the escalation is being accomplished only by extending some tours from 12 months to 15 months and by using National Guard units that state governors had believed were off-limits. The tank is empty. A case can be made to build public support for a draft to build our military to the size it needs to be to bring this mission off. But 1) such an increase would take a minimum of two years and 2) no politician in a position of responsibility in either party is making the case, in Congress or with the broader public, probably because 3) a large majority of Americans believe the war is now pointless and want troops brought home.

And that doesn't even get into the issue of equipment and material.

You write, "I'm afraid the third [option -- pulling out] will leave matters as two area National Guardsman said on our front page today:
Chris Williford: 'It's going to be an abomination against the soldiers we're already lost if we pull out now. Their death would be pointless.' Ivan Alston: 'If we leave, it's going to be a terrorist haven.'"

What Alston fails to grasp is that Iraq is already a terrorist haven. Nothing we are likely to be able to do anytime soon with the personnel and resources we have now will change that. And lots and lots of Iraqis are going to die, some of them horribly, whether or not we stay.

As for Williford, I've managed to live almost 50 years without ever hearing a justification for pouring good money, so to speak, after bad, particularly in the context of war. And he doesn't make one; he simply assumes that to pull out now would be to dishonor those who already have died. Where's the proof? Where's the logic? Williford's entitled to his opinion -- and he has served while I have not -- but we are under no obligation to accept such an unsupported assertion as fact.

In fact, it would be a larger abomination to order soldiers and Marines into a situation in which they can achieve no strategic objective, in which all they can do is to die. A U.S. military officer could commit no greater crime than to issue, or comply with, such an order.

I supported the invasion. But at this point, after all this time and all these pledges and promises, I think that the reason I haven't heard a plausible plan for achieving our objectives in Iraq is because there is none. I'd be delighted to be shown otherwise, but I'm not holding my breath.

Maybe we should conclude that the Iraqi people aren't worth saving, that we simply can't stop them from killing each other, and that the only sane and prudent course is to get out.* Doug

It's simple! Load the C-130's and C-5A's get out now! Let Haliburton sort it out without any of our bankrupt debt or the blood of our kids with the 3 governments of Iraq.

"hey pop! Im doing good..crazy here got some good video for you I will send it to
you as soon as get better internet service. Ive been doing some cool sh##
..stuff I never thought I would do !! I got transfered to th 1st Calvery D I
like it better tell u more more later..Im ok just tired as hell..ill send ya
more emails later Gotta run for now .GMOOTFP love Mack"

There's also some question here about how well democracy works. Not everything should be decided by referendum, of course, but the Framers put war-starting authority in the hands of the branch of government closest to the people for very good reasons (primarily, their experience of unwarranted warmaking by monarchies, the executive branches of their time).

From a CNN/Opinion Research poll:

-- Only 31% of Americans support the war in Iraq. That's an all-time low for Opinion Research polling on the subject.

-- Only 11% support the president's escalation plan.

-- 21% want America to pull out immediately. Another 33% want all Americans out within one year. That 54% total compares with 32% who want to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to hand over control to a new, secure Iraqi government. (The poll doesn't indicate whether those polled knew, or thought they knew, what troop levels might be required to bring about such a handover.)

I didn't mean to make an anology in detail but in principle -- as you say, Lex, about continuing to pour resources into a losing cause. (The Battle of the Somme was not an English-French victory.)

You can't run a war by public opinion polls, but I agree Congress should take a firmer hand in directing policy. Now that Democrats control Congress, I don't think they can continue to express themselves about Iraq policy just on talk shows or with nonbinding resolutions.

You're right about that. They've got the keys now; they need to drive.

I would like to know the difference between what we have now and the "long term instability" which would result from our pulling out.

Your statement supposes things can't get worse than they are now and, as I read it, assumes that 130,000 American troops are accomplishing nothing at all there. I don't agree with such an assumption; therefore, I believe conditions in Iraq will worsen if U.S. forces are removed anytime soon. That doesn't mean we shouldn't withdraw them anyway, but we should try to anticipate the consequences first. And, yes, I know we didn't anticipate the consequences of going in there in the first place.

One example of long-term instability has been Somalia, which has lacked a functioning government for 15 years or so. It's been too dangerous even for humanitarian relief organizations to work there. Iraq could devolve into a similar chronic condition, although its greater population density and heavier concentration of armed factions could make it an even bloodier place.

Doug, it is currently too dangerous for humanitarian relief agences to function in most of Iraq.

Our soldiers are doing their best, but there are only 130,000 of them and an additional 20,000, stolen from Afghanistan or overextended Guard units, is not going to amount to a hill of beans.

Our guys have no mission currently, except driving around and waiting to hit an IED. When given an enemy to attack,they perform flawlessly. BUt for the most part, they are just sitting among people who hate them and hate each other.

Lovely mess our President has gotten us into.

Begin a phased withdrawal immediately.

John, our guys certainly do have a mission, and it includes a lot of anti-insurgency work. It may not be adequately supported, or the overall strategy may be flawed, or other factors may dictate against its success, but saying they're just driving around waiting to be hit is selling the commanders on the ground too short.

It may indeed be the most prudent course from out point of view to begin a withdrawal, but we can't pretend that won't have consequences for ordinary Iraqis. We will be casting them to the wolves. What we see now as a civil war may become a genocide as Shiites are fully unleashed to eliminate Sunnis everywhere they can.

Again, Doug, you act like that is not happening now. Sunnis are being systematically driven out of Baghdad as we speak. And American Forces have had to stand down, because to oppose those efforts would weaken Maliki's "government," which is really nothing more than a prop for Sadr to play with when he wants to.

Make no mistake, if we withdrew now, precipitously, there would be a bloodbath, as there is currently, and that bloodbath, like the current one, can be laid at the feet of George W. Bush.

The bloodbath can be laid at the feet of the terrorists, insurgents and murderers who are doing the killing, although Bush's errant policies helped create the conditions for this to occur. Previously, Saddam did all the killing in Iraq, and it was done in a much more orderly way. Our troops are taking out these killers every day, but it's like fighting a swarm of locusts with slingshots. Without our troops, it will escalate until the Shiites achieve their goals.

The bloodbath can be laid at the feet of the terrorists, insurgents and murderers who are doing the killing, although Bush's errant policies helped create the conditions for this to occur.*Doug

If Bush and the Neo-cons are the enablers. Than the root cause of this war mongering addiction must be remove either by defunding or impeachment. Your're call Doug or do more Americans die today in this war of insanity. Head'em out! Load'em up boys! Move'em out men!