The case for immediate withdrawal from Iraq

[pberq]

Getting past the propaganda on Iraq is not easy these days. The "stay the course" crowd (both Republican and Democrat) has used an incredible array of brainwashing slogans to support their case. Hillary Clinton's famous line that setting a date would "give a green light to the terrorists" would be laughable in its absurdity if it weren't for the many people who actually swallow this hogwash.

The idea that continuing the U.S. military occupation of Iraq is going to somehow result in stabilization at some distant point in the future is nothing more than a pipedream, and brings back memories of the propaganda that was used during Vietnam.

See this for a rational ananlysis of the situation:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/breyman.php?articleid=7095

<snip>
The peace movement is divided. There are two main views: (1) we must wait till the security situation is stabilized, and Iraqi military and police forces can battle the insurgency on their own, but we should (perhaps) discuss an exit strategy now (this is, more or less, the perspective of MoveOn.org and other factions and individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party); and (2) bring the troops home immediately.

Keeping red-baiting alive, right-wing television and radio hosts ascribe the second view to people who hold the first without seriously addressing its arguments. Thus, even positions not that distant from Bush and Cheney are dismissed as members of the "loony Left." Of course, the Limbaughs and the O'Reillys have no real response to the solid brief for bringing the troops home now. But have you come across considered analysis of the "troops home now" position anywhere in the mainstream media? This view, it's important to note, predominates among veteran activists and many activist veterans.

The case for "immediate" withdrawal (which may take several months) is straightforward and robust. Bringing servicemen and women home now will: shrink the insurgency, as its main reason for being would disappear; save U.S. and Iraqi lives (U.S. forces can be replaced by UN peacekeepers should the Iraqis so desire); save money and permit a focus on reconstruction; stop or reduce the flow of foreign fighters to an Iraq no longer the center of the jihadist campaign against the U.S.; permit rehabilitation of nearly broken National Guard, Reserve, and regular military units; enable the U.S. to start rebuilding its shattered international reputation (a long task); and permit the U.S. to replace its "global war on terror" with diplomacy and law enforcement.

[BlueJac]

1. Get out now

There is no good sound reason to wait. Just cut our loses a leave this weekend.

[pointblank]

2. I agree with the case...

...but it ignors the fact that a lot of money would be lost in giving up the oilfields...and we would no longer have a launching pad for other endeavors in the ME. This is unnacceptable to those in power.

[pberq]

3. Yes, you are right,

but as with Vietnam, the public pressure will eventually get so great, they will have to withdraw the troops.

[pointblank]

4. Lets hope so.

[wli]

5. it's a war on ordinary people, not Iraq

The real deal is inciting people to express political beliefs, whereupon they can be militarily assaulted and imprisoned. Cheney is probably salivating over the prospect of bringing the mercenaries and former illegal immigrants home to start blowing up ordinary American citizens in the streets of the US. He did order the 9/11 attack, after all.

[pberq]

6. Thanks for reminding me who we're dealing with - nt