Kerry Call for More Troops/Cato Institute says "Pull Out of Iraq NOW!

[KoKo]

I heard Ted Galen Carpenter, Foreign Policy Head of Cato Institute on a Panel Discussion on C-Span today, saying Bush's policy on Iraq is terrible but Kerry's is worse. Carpenter was adamant about admitting we made a mistake and getting the heck out of Iraq, now. I didn't understand what he meant about Kerry's policy being worse than Bushes until I saw this article.

Carpenter was throroughly digusted with what's going on in Iraq and said we should never have gone in there in the first place. We might have gotten the Libertarian vote, or some of it, but if Kerry is calling for more troops, then what does this mean?
ON EDIT: No Flames. Carpenter is an ass for not supporting Kerry and I don't think Kerry's policy could be worse than Bush. BUT, calling for more troops isn't making some of us Dems happy and losing the Libertarian vote isn't maybe so bad, but we need all the votes we can get so why did Kerry have to say this?
Here's what Kerry said:

Kerry Calls for More Troops to Bolster U.S. Military (Update1)

May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called for increasing the U.S. military by 40,000 troops, probably for a decade, in order ``to match its new missions'' in the war on terror and homeland security.

``I make this simple pledge,'' Kerry, 60, said in remarks prepared for delivery to veterans and military families in Green Bay, Wisconsin. ``If I am president, I will fight for a constant standard of decency and respect for those who serve their country in our armed forces -- on active duty and as veterans.''

The added troops would help ``relieve over-extended'' National Guard and reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kerry spokesman David Wade said. Half of the additional 40,000 troops would be used as military police and for civil affairs, tasks now mainly carried out by reservists; the other 20,000 would be combat troops. The U.S. now has about 138,000 troops in Iraq.

Kerry's plan is one of four priorities for a new U.S. security policy he outlined yesterday in Seattle. His other three priorities are: to forge new international alliances, use diplomacy and economic leverage in addition to military might and reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=us&sid=apQHTegvEtDo

[RoyGBiv]

1. Increasing the size of the military...

This "40,000" number have been around for awhile now. Kerry is calling for an increase in the size of the standing military to relieve the dependence on National Guard and Reserve troops.

One of the severe problems of Bush's use of the military is that such a heavy burden has been placed on those who are in effect "part-time" troops. This has been one of the more consistent complaints by the military from the beginning against his conduct of the war. He's thoroughly disrupted the lives of people who are not meant to serve as full-time soldiers. The point is not necessarily to increase our troop commitment, but to replace the "part-time" soldiers with those whose primary duty it is to serve in the military.

[KoKo]

9. If we hadn't invaded Iraq we would have plenty of troops. So when Kerry

says that, it sounds like he's planning to be in Iraq a long time, incurring more troop losses, OR he's planning on further troop deployments to other countries in the future.

That's what has some of us "Anti-Iraq Invasion" folks here getting very nervous. He either needs to explain himself better or keep quiet about it. Saying we need more troops still implies we will use them whether it's to replace the reserves or whatever. If we don't invade any more places and get out of Iraq..we don't need more troops. :shrug:

[RoyGBiv]

10. The size of the military...

The size of the military has been considered a problem for some time. I'm not prepared to argue the subject at length simply because I see where you're coming from and don't entirely disagree.

But, the criticism has been that the Pentagon spends too much money on "toys" that end up either not working or not working they way they are planned to work while ignoring the needs and necessity of the human element of the military. Supposedly, we can get by with fewer troops because in the event of an emergency situation, our technology reduces the need for them. But, so far, technology has not solved the need for language experts, well-trained military police, or other specialized jobs. Those are the kinds of things Kerry is saying need to be staffed on a permanent basis.

Put another way, the jobs the National Guard and reservists are supposed to fill are supposed to be temporary necessities in emergency situations, but what critics of this policy are saying is that these jobs should be filled full-time. In general, I agree with that, and I don't think it means we're going to be invading other countries or seeking a long-term commitment to Iraq. I think it's simply facing the world's realities.

[emulatorloo]

11. He wants the US soldiers there now to stop being killed

There arent enough troops for adequate security - adequate security means our troops will stop getting killed, we can rebuild the sh*t we blew up, and we can bring some stability to the Iraqi people give them their country back and get the hell out ASAP.

[Malva Zebrina]

14. I have read that several times

Kerry is not saying he will replace troops but speaks of increasingthe troops by 40,000.

[papau]

2. Strain on reserve/Guard means 40,000 more regular are needed - so

Kerry has been calling for this - and now a bill is in Congress to achieve it -

But Bush would rather screw Reserve / Guard than admit that he is wrong about troop needs!

Hillary - indeed any that care about our military - are behind the bill.

CATO was behind the war - you may have found a Libertarian that was not listened to as CATO lined up with Bush on the talk show circuit selling the war.

But I agree that beyond the immediate need for more troops - there is a need for Kerry to say before November 04 that there is a date certain - soon - that we will be out of Iraq - indeed before the 2006 elections.

[KoKo]

4. Carpenter is their Foreign Policy Head. Are you positive Cato supported

the Iraq Invasion? Carpenter was all but frothing at the mouth in anger.

If you are correct and I assume you are (I'm not a follower of Cato) then it could mean that Cato is fracturing in the ranks. That could be very good for the election, if Kerry could come up with a withdrawl date.

Thanks for the info.

[IrateCitizen]

5. I actually recall the opposite

I seem to recall that CATO was against the Iraq invasion from the outset. I did a quick look for a link, but was unable to find one unfortunately.

If they supported the Iraq invasion, it would be out of character for them. They've been long proponents of ending Pentagon waste, seriously cutting back the military, and dismantling overseas military bases.

[papau]

12. "CATO" is the sum of its parts - fpr a long while they did honest Soc Sec

analysis -Now they have some new "fellows" trying to justify the Snow non-analysis, selling inter-generational equity snake oil, and at times doing some bad math.

However, the math tends to be correct - once you know what they are doing - but what they are doing is quite often justifying a desired political result by a write up that is so full of spin in design and in conclusions that one wants to scream "BUT THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION".

In any case CATO fellows were on the talk circuit and pro-war. I did see a couple that were anti- war.

I did not know that CATO as an organization had "CATO POSITIONS"

I think it is just a bunch of fellows with grants that lean right as they lean libertarian and pro less services and less taxes on the rich - some of the fellows are qualified - many are not (Fox had a few political hacks that were CATO fellows writing the $100 per column contribution "op-ed's" for a while - and I think even Roger became embarrassed with the lack of ability in the area being written about).

In any case I am glad the fellow that holds the title "Head" of an area for CATO is so gung ho for getting out of Iraq. Let's see if he gets on right wing media - and if he does - what he says or writes when he gets there!

:-)

:-)

:toast:

[IrateCitizen]

3. Cato is actually very sensible on foreign policy

It's one of those instances in which people on the right go so far to the right that they end up coming full circle and smacking into their counterparts on the left, while both rub their heads and wonder what the hell happened!

Cato was against this misadventure from the beginning. They've also been proponents for some time of seriously scaling back the size of our armed forces and dismantling overseas military bases.

[sidwill]

7. Kerry needs to step back on Iraq

Let Bush be in a one sided discussion about Iraq. Its a lose/lose situation over there and a lose/lose political issue here.

Kerry should concentrate on domestic issues and maybe at most put together a "foreign policy Team" to examine Iraq without getting pinned down on any course of action.

After he is in the White House, then he can implement a plan...pullout.....hopefully.

[Loonman]

6. CATO usually falls on the right

Bush must have really screwed up.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

8. I happen to agree with many parts of CATO's Foreign policies.

They are reasonable, pro-internationalism, and anti-illegal pre-emptive war.

To Hell with them on Economic policy however.

[papau]

13. Amen to that!

I never checked the CATO Foreign policy writings of the last year and a half - I just noted these folks on TV that claim to be CATO fellows saying pro-war things.

It is good to hear that we may have a friend at CATO - at least as to Foriegn policy!

[KoKo]

15. "Iraq What Now What Next " was the Discussion. Here's links to it:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=3142Iraq: What Now? What Next?


What:

As the situation in Iraq devolves into a near-crisis, the debate rages at home about what the U.S. should do next. “Iraq: What Now? What Next?” will focus on the options left for the United States in Iraq. Andrew Apostolou, Vice President for Research at The Foudation for the Defense of Democracies, will argue why America cannot afford to cut and run from Iraq. Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President for foreign policy at the CATO institute, will advocate the gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops. Thirdly, Gayle Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, will argue the need to “internationalize” the operation and offer a concrete plan on how this can be done. The panel will present and debate these options, as well as offer thoughts on the upcoming handover of power, the pros and cons of committing more U.S. troops, the impact of the Abu Ghraib scandal and other issues related to the overall U.S strategy towards Iraq.



*
Iraq: What Now? What Next?, May 26, 2004
As the situation in Iraq devolves into a near-crisis, the debate rages at home about what the United States should do next. "Iraq: What Now? What Next?" will focus on the options left for the United States in Iraq. More...
• Streaming Audio: Listen to Event
• Streaming Video: Event Highlights; Gayle Smith, Center for American Progress; Ted Carpenter, Cato Institute; Andrew Apostolou, Foundation for the Defense of Democracy

http://www.kintera.org/htmlcontent.asp?cid=36515

[papau]

16. CATO defense policy studies Fellows indeed anti war from day one - sorry

Obviously the folks on the economic side saying "The Bush administration is on the brink of snatching defeat from victory in Iraq - for reasons wholly unrelated to the current fracas over the reasons for America's invasion: The administration appears committed to maintaining a Leninist-style economic model for the Iraqi economy. Such a course will ensure the failure of Bush's Iraq policy." are the ones I recall on TV -

The folks doing defense policy studies have all been reasonable and indeed anti-war to the point they might be to the left of the average DU'er!!!!

Sorry I did not notice that CATO - as to defense policy studies - was on our side!

:-(

:-)


August 19, 2002


Top 10 Reasons Not to "Do" Iraq
by Ivan Eland

Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Although President Bush has not formally decided to invade Iraq, the emotional chest pounding in the press by anonymous high-level civilian hawks in his administration has reached a crescendo. And while the hawks have made it seem unpatriotic to raise questions about such an invasion since Sept. 11, a careful analysis suggests that such a high-testosterone response should be avoided for 10 reasons:

February 10, 2003


Faulty Justifications for War with Iraq
by Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author or editor of 15 books on international affairs, including "Peace & Freedom: Foreign Policy for a Constitutional Republic."

The pro-war camp cites an array of reasons why a U.S. military campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein is a good idea. Four reasons are especially prominent, and all of them have major flaws.

Saddam Hussein is an evil ruler who represses, tortures, and murders his own people. His overthrow would be an act of liberation.

There is no doubt that Saddam is a murderous tyrant. But that characteristic does not distinguish him from several dozen other rulers around the world. If overthrowing a dictator is sufficient reason for the United States to go to war, one must ask how many other holy crusades are in our future. When does the United States attack North Korea's Kim Jong Il, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Sudan's genocidal slave-masters, or Burma's murderous military junta-to name just a few of the world's most odious regimes?

http://www.cato.org/events/transcripts/020920-eland.ppt


Commitment to Free Trade Critical to Recovery of Iraq
By Daniel T. Griswold
“War is God's way of teaching Americans geography,” 19th century American writer Ambrose Bierce sagely observed, and the war in Iraq is no exception. After weeks of intense coverage, one fact is plain: The people of Iraq should be among the richest in the world.

Pushing Iraq to Socialism or Capitalism?
by Carlos A. Ball

Carlos Ball is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and the editor of AIPE, a Spanish-language news organization based in Florida.

Is it possible that 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall the United States will impose socialism on Iraq? I hope not, but the Wall Street Journal reported on its front page earlier this month:

"U.S. and Iraq officials are leaning heavily toward recommending the formation of a state-run oil company. Such a move could sharply curtail the role of foreign oil concerns, but might allay concerns that the invasion of Iraq was an oil grab."

This would be a disaster and a missed opportunity. There is a golden opportunity to make every Iraq citizen shareholders in a private Iraqi oil company or companies. A time-frame should then be imposed, under which those shares cannot be sold until either a stock exchange is adequately functioning in Baghdad or a reasonable price is reached in foreign exchanges. That would avoid Russian-style mafias taking over the country's wealth.

January 3, 2004


Rolling Democratic Dice in Iraq
by Patrick Basham

Patrick Basham is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government.

President George W. Bush is rolling the democratic dice in Iraq and gambling that the formation of democratic institutions there can stimulate a democratic political culture. If he is proved correct it will mean a democratic first, for what Bush seeks to achieve in Iraq has never been accomplished before. On the contrary, the available evidence strongly suggests that the relationship between institutions and culture works the other way around.

August 29, 2003


Free Iraq's Market
by Gerald P. O'Driscoll and Lee Hoskins

Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr. is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Lee Hoskins is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.

The Bush administration is on the brink of snatching defeat from victory in Iraq - for reasons wholly unrelated to the current fracas over the reasons for America's invasion: The administration appears committed to maintaining a Leninist-style economic model for the Iraqi economy. Such a course will ensure the failure of Bush's Iraq policy.

[Solidarity]

17. Arguments Against Withdrawl From Iraq Are Getting Silly!

emulatorloo wrote:

"He wants the US soldiers there now to stop being killed
There arent enough troops for adequate security - adequate security means our troops will stop getting killed"

If I follow your logic perhaps we should send even more troops to Iraq who will back up the "security troops" who are helping to protect the "regular" troops from being shot at.

Hell, I'll go you one better than that! How about sending more backup troops to backup the troops who are backing up the "security troops" who are backing up the regular troops?

Bout half a million soldiers should be enough.

The strained arguments against bringing ALL of our troops home from Iraq are getting downright silly!

[papau]

18. I agree - there are a few overseas sites that are "force protection" only!

We are there to protect our being there. :-) And for no other reason.

Logic is in short supply in DC on occassion!

[KoKo]

19. “War is God's way of teaching Americans geography,” Great Quote, and

thanks for the additional info, Papau. Now if only those Libertarians would offer "their own plan," they might make sense. The problem is they seem to be against so much it's hard to see through to any solutions.

Just getting rid of government doesn't solve anything, but that's all they seem to care about. Maybe this mess will cause some alliance in the next election. Bush certainly is for VERY BIG Government.

[DEMVET-USMC]

20. This is a difficult issue: In fairness to current overstressed troops you

can make a good argument for increasing the size of our forces. I have suggested the creation of an American Foreign Legion to augment our overextended forces to be led by American Officers From the Army and I guess the Marine Corps also. ...Oscar

[Solidarity]

22. Troops Stressed: The Solution

I still think they will suffer a lot less stress if we bring them home.

[DEMVET-USMC]

24. What about the Kurds?If we simply withdraw now what will happen to them ?

The Bush Admin. got us in a mess here and I don`t see a simple answer to this problem as things are now. That is why we need some experienced leadership such as John Kerry and Wesley Clark to intelligently lead us out of this mess. Just pulling the troops out is what George the 1st did and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi rebels against Saddam died because of it. The situation is different now with Saddam gone but there are volitile forces there raedy to do who knows what once we leave. I want the best outcome possible and someone like Gen. Clark will know how to go about it. ...Oscar

[Massacure]

21. In my opinion

Full time troops should be pulled out of Korea, and Germany and sent to Iraq. Then you fill those posistions with reserves. It is much easier to call a place home when your not getting shot at.

Hell, if they are really stretched for troops, send the old troops coming back from Iraq to Germany. It is still a welcome relief over a six months extension in Iraq.

[Alerter_]

23. first of all, no one cares about the Cato Calen Institute

Second, the leaders of the Democrats party are pretty committed to keeping US troops in Iraq and control of the oil for many years, Kerry included

[KoKo]

25. a kick.

:kick: