I'm beginning to have some real misgivings about a full withdrawal

[Raven]

from Iraq. Help me with this. I'm listening to the Senate debate and I have been following the statements made recently by the maniac President. I have always supported a FULL withdrawal of troops...no leaving some behind as "force protection or to train or to chase terrorists. But I have also figured that we would get NATO and some of Iraq's neighbors to move in to protect the Iraqi people and hopefully do those things that we have utterly failed at. But you have to have an administration willing to ask for help, willing to negotiate for it. We don't have that.

Just getting our troops out of Iraq is going to be an enormous undertaking and it is going to be extremely dangerous. It is going to take some very competent leadership to pull this off without further endangering our kids over there. Competent leadership...we don't have it.

There are thousands of Iraqis who have put their lives on the line by helping the American forces. We have to get them out too. We need an administration that is committed to this and that can grease the wheels of government to make this happen. We don't have the ability or the committment to pull this off. Our past history of taking in Iraqis is dismal, why should that suddenly change. This administration doesn't give a damn about its own citizens in need, why should it care about Iraqis?

If we are successful in forcing a full withdrawal or even a partial one, I have no reason to believe that we can force this administration to do it right. I am afraid that this administration will cause it to fail and then say "We told you so". Any bloodshed will be blamed on the Democrats and the Republicans will use it in 2008. The President will be out of the mess he's created and able to blame others for it..."If we had only stayed the course..." I'm almost beginning to wonder if this is a clever trap for us and a brillaint escape hatch for Bush.

Please tell me how I am wrong on this and how we can avoid the awful result I fear.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. I think anybody who's in favor of a slow/partial withdrawal...

should go ahead and enlist so they can help out with that.

[Disturbed]

7. Any Draw Down will take many months.

There will be no rapid re-deployment of US Troops. Aprox. 180K Mercs will remain, as well. There will be no end to the US Occupation. Any Dem knows that.

[leftchick]

34. now that is not true

many dems believe the "top tier" candidate BS!

[DangerDave921]

12. Worry

I do have to admit I worry about the Iraqis once we leave. Could be awful civil war, terrorists taking over the government, more dictatorial control. Could be someone worse than Saddam in power. What do we say then, "Oops"? I don't want any more innocent Iraqis being killed. I just don't know how to stop it. Or if it can be stopped at all.

What an awful mess this whole thing has been. I see OP's point that the resulting bloodshed (if any) could be laid at the feet of the Dems for demanding withdrawal. Can we really cheer the troops coming home if we know thousands of innocents are being killed over there? Are US lives more valuable than Iraqis?

I hate this whole thing. I really do. And we are all so blase about it every day, going to work, the gym, the movies, watching TV, attending ball games. It doesn't feel real.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Right now somebody worse than Saddam is in power.

And I think anybody who really cares about Iraqis supports immediate withdrawal.

[DangerDave921]

36. I do care

To be honest, I kind of resent your suggestion that I don't care about Iraqis. You blithely pronounce that anyone who really cares about Iraqis supports immediate withdrawal. Well I do care.

I haven't committed yet to either immediate or phased w/draw. I'm just trying to figure out the answer to the question -- what happens after we leave? If immediate w/draw is going to result in rampant killings and AlQueda (or some similar group) seizing power, then I got my doubts. But I also hate the idea of more servicemen being killed staying there when the mission seems to have completely bogged down into nothingness.

I guess I'm struggling to find an answer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. I also said anybody who's not in favor of immediate withdrawal...

should be in Iraq.

Are you in Iraq?

[DangerDave921]

58. What are you talking about?

Because I am considering a phased w/drawal, that means I have to be in Iraq? I don't get the logic. So anyone who doesn't agree with you should be in Iraq?

I also support being able to drink coffee in the morning. Should I quit my job and move to Colombia to pick coffee beans? And I support having police on the street. Do I need to join the police force to want police on the street?

There are a ton of goods and services that we all use in this world that are provided by others. We have professional soliders right now who perform a job. According to your logic, no one can ever be in support of any military action (even for humanitarian goals) unless they join up themselves. Sheer idiocy.

[TwilightGardener]

30. There are no good options, as they say. We have to pick the least-bad

exit strategy. This is the terrible position we (and the Iraqis) have been put into.

[T Wolf]

21. Exactly! Support the war or not. Simple as that. nt

[KittyWampus]

48. How about you address what Raven actually said?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. I'm pretty sure I did.

[robinlynne]

2. and the alternative is?...

[Raven]

6. There is none that I can see but I wish there was a way that

we could make sure it's done right. Short of getting rid of the President and VP, I don't see it.

[robinlynne]

11. What we have done in Iraq is so very terrible, that as horrendous as the short-term future

is going to be for Iraq, leaving is the ONLY option we have. We know that staying is equivalent to mass murder and war crimes. And worse, that it is for corporate greed, nothing more.

[PSPS]

3. There's no way to "avoid the awful result" because it's already here.

The only variable is the number of US troops killed. The sooner we get out, the lower that number will be.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Isn't it incredibly sad

that one would think the president of the united states would manipulate in that manner and yet scenario is absolutely correct. The evil bastards in the white don't care about the truth, will never take any responsibility for anything and will do whatever they can to ensure someone else takes the fall. The party of responsibility and integrity supported by the most ignorant trash our country has ever produced.

[TwilightGardener]

5. There won't be a full withdrawal under Levin-Reed--

and it calls for an international mediator (under UN) to get involved politically. It sounds gradual and responsible. Of course, it will never come to fruition, so no need to worry after all!

[Raven]

9. Has the UN agreed to do it? nt

[TwilightGardener]

16. I don't know--I imagine it would be put as a request to them.

That language was included as a deal with Chuck Hagel (my Senator) as a condition of his co-sponsoring it--he's been advocating for a non-US mediator for some time now, but I don't know how something like that is arranged.

[MrMickeysMom]

17. With the right leadership (and pending indictments against crime family)...

The US can begin the recovery of our good name and of getting international support.

That's one reason we need to impeach these mothers...

[John Q. Citizen]

31. The UN isn't going to get involved in our occupation. The only way to get

the UN involved is to announce our intension to leave fully and completely, that means the bases as well, something I haven't heard any Dem leaders saying.

It would also mean abandoning out efforts to get the Iraqi government to sign joint oil production agreements with the multinational oil companies. unfortunately, that is official Democratic policy as per the bench marks we put in the last supplemental.

So until the US renounces our intentions to control the oil and be provided with bases we won't get the UN going along.

I'm not sure those two measuers are negotiable with the Dem leadership and certainly not with the Repos.

[TwilightGardener]

33. How do you know what the UN will agree to?

[John Q. Citizen]

44. I watched the lead up to the invasion. Do you think Russia or China wants to

help us secure the bases and the oil? Not to mention many other countries?

[TwilightGardener]

47. Don't know, until we ask them! I think the UN would help us--even though

we spurned them before. Especially if we get new (Dem) leadership in '08.

[Marrah_G]

8. You bring up a really good point

Are they going to offer a safe haven here for those Iraqis that worked for us? No matter when it is we leave, they are going to be hunted down and murdered more easily and openly then they are now.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. It's about time the Iraqis took responsibility for their own security

Apparently we had to get rid of their own evil dictator, a job that they weren't interested in doing for themselves.

At what point do you say your well being is up to you, either you take care of business or the business will take care of you.

[Warpy]

13. Obviously, full withdrawal will have to include asylum

for Iraqis who choose it, no matter what sort of security risk it poses to us. We owe them that, at the very least.

Iraq will be a mess after withdrawal, but it's a mess now. We don't know whether or not this government will hold. Al Malaki has been quite firm in insisting the US withdraw and that might help his credibility among the people as something besides a CIA puppet.

The plain truth is that the longer we stay, the more we prolong the inevitable. We have no idea what sort of Iraq will develop after we leave, but we do know the transition to it is likely to be violent. However, that transition will be OVER at some point, while an open ended occupation will not. We are not protecting the people now, and we need to shed the silly illusion that we ever have first of all.

I just know that we are accomplishing nothing by staying, prolonging the violence, and encouraging more and more unrest. Iraq is not our country and even though we destabilized it, restabilizing it isn't our job. There is no way to do that now, although there was a brief window of opportunity to do so at the very beginning.

We will owe the Iraqi people a great deal for what we have done to them. I sincerely hope this country doesn't fall back into bad (Republic) habits and simply abandon them. We will owe them much for rebuilding after they establish a government, and we can expect that government to be hostile to us.

[displacedtexan]

14. Were you around to watch the withdrawal from Vietnam?

The dire predictions of a generation did not come to fruition. Since Thailand and other South East Asian nations did not fall to systematic Vietnamese aggression, the Domino Theory, so widely trumpeted, was said to have been an illusion. Vietnam, without the presence of the United States, showed itself to be of little economic or strategic value to anyone.<98>

At home, a generation of Americans struggled to absorb the lessons of military intervention without clear motives or objectives.<99> As General Maxwell Taylor, one of the principal architects of the war noted "first, we didn't know ourselves. We thought that we were going into another Korean war, but this was a different country. Secondly, we didn't know our South Vietnamese allies … And we knew less about North Vietnam. Who was Ho Chi Minh? Nobody really knew. So, until we know the enemy and know our allies and know ourselves, we'd better keep out of this kind of dirty business. It's very dangerous."<100><101>

In the decades since end of the conflict, some have sought to portray America's defeat as a political, rather than a military defeat. The official history of the United States Army noted, however, that "tactics have often seemed to exist apart from larger issues, strategies, and objectives. Yet in Vietnam the Army experienced tactical success and strategic failure … The … Vietnam War('s) … legacy may be the lesson that unique historical, political, cultural, and social factors always impinge on the military … Success rests not only on military progress but on correctly analyzing the nature of the particular conflict, understanding the enemy's strategy, and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of allies. A new humility and a new sophistication may form the best parts of a complex heritage left to the Army by the long, bitter war in Vietnam."<102> US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in a secret memo to President Gerald Ford that "in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail."<103> Even Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that "the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion."

LINK

[Raven]

19. I was around then and I never thought that I would say now that

we had a better administration in charge of withdrawal from Vietnam. Imagine, we had better people running the country then....what an awful thought!

[DangerDave921]

37. Vietnam Withdrawal

I would remind you that after Saigon fell, the Khmer Rouge went on a rampage, with hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese people sent to so-called re-eduaction camps. Millions of civilians tried to flee, only to be killed or die as boat people. It was a god-awful brutal episode in history. The whole Vietnam era was terrible, but we can't forget the awful aftermath. That was not an illusion.

We could be facing a similar situation in Iraq. That place has been detabilized so anything can happen.

[pschoeb]

56. The Khmer Rouge were not in Vietnam, but Cambodia

What put them in power, was the massive secret bombing campaign against Cambodia from 1970-75 by the US, they would have come to power regardless of what the US did in Vietnam. The Vietnamese actually took out the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in 1979. Then the US government supported the residual Khmer Rouge hiding out in Thailand from 1980-1986, ostensibly because they were enemies of the Vietnamese.

[DangerDave921]

59. I hear ya

I was only saying that there were some awful repercussions after Saigon fell. Not saying it was or wasn't our fault for leaving; just pointing out a fact.

I can't predict what will happen in Iraq. The place is such a mess, who knows. But I do think we have a moral obligation to consider the effect our leaving may have on the civilians who we purportedly tried to save by knocking out Saddam.

[Jillian]

15. Raven - if you feel that way, you are not alone

Get off DU and go over to C-Span.
There have been alot of discussions by foreign relations scholars and experts about several different
ways to leave without leaving chaos.

Along with Biden's plan,
there are many other plans to look at.

The whole thing about leaving - is we don't ever want to go back.
So it needs to be done intelligently, not in haste.

[Gregorian]

18. I think we have people like General Wesley Clark to help tell the truth.

You could very well be right about the politicizing of a pullout, as sick as that would be.

I don't know what would make the pullout any deadlier than the present engagement. It's not something I would know about. Maybe it isn't.

I think leaving is too important to let this thinking immobilize us from doing so. But we'd have to preemptively bring information to the public. Without a real media, that isn't going to be easy. Clark would have to be on MSNBC discussing what should be done, and what he thinks could happen if your scenario were to happen.

But then again, maybe we're close enough to a new administration that we won't have a pullout before then.

The key is to create our own working plan, and force it on the administration. If that's possible.

[Raven]

22. You raise an interesting possibility...including in any withdrawal

bill a requirement for an oversight committee made up of some of these retired generals like Clark who can watch and report to Congress and the American people.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Unfortunately, Any Scenario Is Horrible

In the best of worlds I'd agree that we should keep a force to protect Iraqis who are innocent civillians or who helped us. The problem is once our forces start dropping in size we're likely to get overwhelmed by the bad guys. I don't think that there can be a gradual drawdown - once we move, we'll have to move fast.

This is such an unspeakably awful situation.

[NNN0LHI]

23. Its too late

If immediately after we invaded and didn't find any WMDs we had said WAIT A MINUTE! WE FECKED UP!

And then got the rest of the world involved in trying to bail us out this mess it might have worked.

But we didn't. Instead we began torturing and killing these people by the hundreds of thousands. Let me say this again so it really sinks in.

Instead we began torturing and killing these people by the hundreds of thousands.

These people understandably now hate us like you just can't imagine.

Just stop for a minute and think how you would feel about people who came here and did this to your friends and family.

Could you ever forgive them for what they did? Honestly. Could you?

I couldn't. And I consider myself a very forgiving fellow.

So there you go.

Don

[John Q. Citizen]

24. Have you read HR1234 It''s the best plan I've seen detailing how we can exit and still

possibly not completely screw things up even worse.

http://files.meetup.com/517753/The%20Kucinich%2012-Point%20Plan%20for%20Iraq.pdf

[Raven]

27. I have, but we still have to rely on this President to implement. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

32. Yet another good argument for impeachment.!

[ellisonz]

39. 67.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. Tell me, what's with the 67?

[ellisonz]

60. Umm...

You need 67 votes in the Senate to convict. You don't happen to have some laying around by any chance? Cus we're short.

[John Q. Citizen]

62. What Senator is going to come out for conviction before an indictment is even handed

down? Zero. We have Zero Senators on record right now saying that if the House indicts, that they will definitely vote to convict.

Impeachment is imperative.

Conviction is a the most desirable outcome, but only one of many possible desirable outcomes.

Failure to attempt impeachment is tantamount to a rubber stamp to torture, throw out due process, and the rule of law. it will become precedent that future executives also have all those same powers that bush has usurped.

And we will cease to be, or to even percieve ourselves to be a constitutional democratic republic.

[ellisonz]

66. But it still won't be enough to remove the SOBs from office...

:o

[John Q. Citizen]

68. Not impeaching won't remove them either. But it's still a win win situation to impeach.

After the public sees the evidence broadcast live on all three networks and cable from the hearing in the house, there may be enough of a ground swell that the GOP decides to tell the administration, look, either resign or we will vote to convict.

Or maybe the GOP will vote to save his traitorous ass and the public will turn on the Senate criminals who would vote party over country and constitution.

Or maybe enough of the Repo Senate votes too convict and get rid of chaney/bush to save their own hides.

[Bluerthanblue]

25. there is no happy ending to this-

none at all.

The suffering, dying, and killing will go on for decades.

I share your concern, but I don't believe there is any real 'good-option'

:shrug:

:hug:

:(

[Jim__]

26. We opened Pandora's box and now there is no way to close it.

We don't have enough troops to stay in Iraq. I believe some of our soldiers are getting ready for a 5th deployment. That can't go on.

The point you make about the admin not being willing to negotiate is correct. But, they're not willing to do what it would take to stop the killing in Iraq. Shinsecki (sp) said someting like 300,000 troops to pacify Iraq. He didn't pull then number out of his ass. There's no way we're going to do that.

To me, the only option is to bring in the neighboring countries. If Iraq blows up, it endangers all of them. They know that. I believe they'll work to prevent that from happening. I believe we could get them to sit down and talk seriously.

The Iraqis who are in the greatest danger? We owe it to them to get them out; we could bring a few million over here and save biilions over what the fight is costing us. But, bush won't do that.

The biggest problem is a little man with no vision is in charge of our country, and has his hands on our arsenal. That's our responsibility. We have to get him out. As long a he is in, the disaster will only get worse. The troops will not be withdrawn while he is president.

Job #1 - get rid of bush. Job # 2 - set the stage in Iraq so we can minimize the disaster that will follow our withdrawal.

[baldingrockwarlord2]

28. I think we need to TOTALLY get out NOW! Period!

It was a mistake from the get-go. They do not want us there. Sure, we "own" the mess now. But I believe that we should rebuild that country with our money, but have other manpower and resources than our own doing the work. Let me explain.

Sometimes when you wreck or destroy peoples property(or countries), you want to do the right thing and pitch in and help clean up and repair the mess, but the victims really don't want your help, or at least certainly do NOT want your presence as a reminder. This is why I think we need to totally get out, yet still honor the responsibility of reparations. I know this may be easier said than done, but we invaded illegally over lies. We need to bring our most valuable asset-our military-home now. It is not our job to police and conquer the world.

[BlooInBloo]

29. There's no good way out - so take ANY way out.

[marmar]

35. It will be bad if we leave, worse if we stay.

It's time to leave.

[Karenina]

38. da Dada Dada Da da Duh

Should I stay or should I go?

Loves me some Clash!

[marmar]

43. Exactly. We've "Rocked the Casbah" enough to piss off the entire region....

We've had the "White Riot" at Abu Ghraib, and that "White Man" George Bush is building his own "Hammersmith Palais" in Baghdad. What a "Train in Vain!"

:hide: :silly:

[treestar]

53. The question is "should we stay or should we go?"

[ellisonz]

40. You are correct.

We need to switch from an occupational strategy to a counterinsurgency strategy that incorporates an attempt at genuine political solution. But the reality is that US boots will be on the ground well into the first term of a 2008 Democratic presidency...people love to simplify Iraq, but if you ever talk to a soldier who's been or a policy expert they will tell you that the reality on the ground is very complex. It is not just horror or horror, there are real choices to be made here and the United States must bear responsibility.

[EFerrari]

42. The army knows how to retreat, Raven, if Bush doesn't.

We've been here before.

[Virginia Dare]

71. The army says it will take them two years to retreat safely...n/t

[moondust]

46. Nobody knows what will happen there

when U.S. troops withdraw. There are lots of theories but...predicting the future based on past and current CHAOS is not exactly sound methodology.

I'm not convinced that al Qaeda will even want to stick around in Iraq after U.S. troops leave.

[Johonny]

49. Well I'm pretty sure that there is no Iraq

Frankly the whole occupation has demonstrated to me that the Iraqi people don't see themselves as the Iraqi people. The country is made up of many different ethnic groups that all consider themselves better off with self rule. It seems unlikely that outside pressure from the US is going to change the minds of these people.

I am also not certain that the current coruptive force that is American money and military force isn't helping in fueling instability that would not otherwise be there.

I really have no interest in continuing to spend money on this venture. Particularly since NATO and even Iraqs neighbors seem to have very little interest in spending time, money and lives in sorting it out. In the end it's their country, if they want mass genocide and ethnic cleansing...

Bush will never excape the blame for this mess either historically or internationally.

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. Ya been had

The entire propaganda campaign of the last two months has been designed explicitly to produce those misgivings. They are now rampant on even DU, just as support for the war was in January and February 2003.

Ya been snookered.

[Raven]

54. Sweetie, I've been around too long and seen too much to be

"snookered". These are real questions. I don't have to be "snookered" to see a bloodbath in the future presided over by an incomeptent idiot.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. Nope, ya been snookered

Because the "bloodbath" turned into an inevitability for you, and that's just what the propaganda's been doing. Ya been bamboozled.

[LanternWaste]

52. Thanks for posting this.

Thanks for posting this. I asked the same question in a different flavor and without your eoloquence and so far, some of the replies to your post have me thinking.

[leftofthedial]

55. worst case is way less awful than a typical month there now

without withdrawal

[welshTerrier2]

61. the US has not and will not make progress in Iraq

you're not wrong to be concerned about what will happen when the US leaves Iraq. the violence among the various Iraqi factions might very well get worse. that violence, however, has been going on for more than 1,000 years. if the US remains another month, or 6 months, or a year, or 5 years or a hundred years, we are not going to change the underlying problems.

in fact, after more than four years, what exactly have we accomplished? that's the essential point. I won't even begin to address the insanity of having removed any hope of stability by eliminating Saddam. Can anyone seriously believe Iraq is or will be better off without him. I was no fan of Saddam; he was, in fact, a tyrant. But given the polarization of Iraqi society, he also brought stability. Where will that stability be found now?

and that's the problem. i see no way that further occupation by the US can somehow magically manufacture stability. who is it we're shooting at? who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? which side should we be "training" and what will highly armed and trained Iraqis actually do with that training? To quote the old cliche, you can't get there from here. look at the record. you can focus your concern on "what will happen if we leave" but I can't see that any progress is being made. the idea of staying makes no sense if there is no progress.

we should get out of Iraq as quickly as troop safety allows. I've read that we could safely do that in several (i.e. 3 or 4) months. The Levin-Reed amendment, which I don't support because I think it's watered down pablum and makes no sense, doesn't begin withdrawing troops for 120 days. That means the withdrawal process wouldn't begin until around December with most troops out by the end of next April. Even under this watered down plan, that's a five month timeframe.

and one last point ... I have always believed and still believe that we are in Iraq to steal their oil. the reality is that we're not there to help the Iraqis; we're there to help ourselves to their oil.

[lonestarnot]

63. What are you worried about. Halliburton and it's private army will stay on and they're getting paid

[Raven]

65. Yeah, somehow it just dawned on me that they might stay.

What a disgusting thought.

[porphyrian]

64. Our troops are fully trained in redeployment. They'll be just fine, and in no more danger...

...than they are on the ground. We can continue to fulfill our responsibility to rebuild and restore what we have destroyed through non-American contracts and security forces. There's no reason for us to remain more than a week.

[roamer65]

67. Just like the Vietnamese resolved their problems internally...

it is now time for the Iraqis to do them same. We are simply prolonging the inevitable by staying. Our role after an immediate withdrawal should be to provide stabilization money and diplomatic efforts to bring all groups together in negotiation.

[Virginia Dare]

69. I'm sorry to say you're not wrong..

we can't give this responsibility to George Bush. We're stuck until he's gone unfortunately. That's why this thing HAS to be ended legislatively through an iron clad bipartisan veto proof compromise, essentially cutting Bush out of the process.

[yurbud]

70. Bush would do a shitty job on purpose, though it would be relatively easy to do it right--

just pull out of populated areas, and Iraqis would mostly leave troops alone until they are gone.