Time to pull troops out of Baghdad - not out of Iraq.

[kentuck]

It's time to stop pretending everything is hunky dory and that there is not a war going on. The primary concern must be the safety and security of the American troops, not to save the face of George W Bush and Dick Cheney. After the attack on the al Rashid Hotel, it is now obvious that there is no place in Baghdad and in the surrounding cities that are immune from attack.

Let's build two or three huge Army bases, such as Danang and Cam Ranh during the Viet Nam War, and put our troops in these areas. We will secure the perimeters as well as possible, concertina wire, guard posts, etc, and give the troops the security they need at this time.
This is no time to deny the reality that faces us.

It seems that everyday there are roadside bombs, rocket attacks, or car bombs that are killing our people and those that are working with our people. It is a situation that is not improving. It is insane to drive over the same roads and go into the same cites everyday. This is putting the lives of our troops at risk when it is not necessary.

What happens if we withdraw to bases outside of the cities? Won't the terrorists take control of Baghdad and the other cities? Perhaps. But it is up to the Iraqi people to get their government together - whatever government they might want. We cannot buy their loyalty. The policemen that are dying in the carbombs were happy to accept American dollars but now their families are in grief.

If our troops are contained in a base environment, they can react to violence or acts of terror with a sufficient military force. They do not need to be picked off one at a time. If there are problems within the city of Baghdad or elsewhere, we send the appropriate number of troops to handle the uprising. This is guerrilla warfare. We should not fight it on their terms.

We need a new strategy for that warzone and it has become painfully obvious that George W Bush is blinded by his arrogance and doesn't have a clue of what the hell is going on. It is time for someone to speak up. To continue to do the same thing over and over with the same dismal results is the definition of insanity.

[wtmusic]

1. Bad idea

That proposal is already on the table and it's a bad one. Baghdad would quickly degenerate into chaos and could be a bloodbath.

The reason the DOD wants to do it is to limit casualties. Well, it would--American casualties. Again, the Iraqis pay the price.

[underpants]

2. Aren't we already pulling troops out of the north?

and INTO Baghdad? I'm not sure that setting up immovable permanent targets is the best idea. Nam vets would know better than I though.

[aquart]

3. Put our troops in concentration camps?

Goody. They can be picked off all at once instead of one at a time.

Brilliant plan.

[kentuck]

6. Base troops would be more secure than troops in Baghdad....

I don't understand your reasoning. So do you think we would put them into high rise apartments? Why aren't they attacking the airport now? That is where we have a large contingent of troops. Do you have any idea?

[Homer12]

4. Withdrawing to Bases will be an admission

That we are in a Guerilla War in Iraq.

If the troops withdraw from the major cities, and we have to go in to counterattack after small ambush raids by whomever (al-quadia, Repuiblican guard, etc...), our troops will be attacking the guerilla's in fortified positions.

Not only that but law and order would break down, and civilians would be targets by both sides.

It would be even worse than it is now.

[kentuck]

7. We are in a guerrilla war....

But eventually the Iraqis will have to defend themselves.

[leftofthedial]

5. "Tar-Baby stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low."

"`Tu'n me loose, fo' I kick de natal stuffin' outen you,' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, but de Tar-Baby, she ain't sayin' nuthin'. She des hilt on, en de Brer Rabbit lose de use er his feet in de same way. Brer Fox, he lay low. Den Brer Rabbit squall out dat ef de Tar-Baby don't tu'n 'im loose he butt 'er cranksided. En den he butted, en his head got stuck. Den Brer Fox, he sa'ntered fort', lookin' dez ez innercent ez wunner yo' mammy's mockin'-birds."

Look like Brer Georgie and Brer Wolfie and Brer Rummie done got dem a tar baby to dance with.

[kentuck]

9. Indeed, and the withdrawal to secure bases...

would be the first step in withdrawing from the entire nation. We will be close enough to assist the Iraqis with security matters when needed. Otherwise, our main concern should be to protect American troops.

[KoKo]

8. Kentuck your ideas make so much sense! And, it could be done on a

graduated basis, but start immediately! And, it could be kept secret (the only case I would say for any secrecy would be this one) from the press, so that they don't characterize it as a withdrawl. That way the Chimp/PNAC'ers can save some face and we who want to get out of there immediately could compromise just enough by allowing bases but no active troops in Baghdad, so that the "Iraqi people can actually begin to do what the PNAC'ers said they lied to get us into the war, to do."

Unfortunately, I think Bush's corporatists would never go for this idea. And, who knows if PNAC'ers would accept this anyway, because they seem to be fine with the situation the way it is. They seem to "get off" on challenge of killing and carnage and mismanagement.

But, if only your ideas could be discussed........ Even a total anti-war nut like me, could deal with what you propose, if it was a serious effort.

[kentuck]

13. I'm an "anti-war nut" myself but....

we have to deal with reality. We can secure our bases. It is suicidal to try and fight this type of war inside of Baghdad. It's a gamble but the Iraqi people have to create their own government. It won't be without some bloodshed. We can remain at a distance and help them with sufficient force when it is necessary. Otherwise, this is going to be a quagmire deeper than any we have seen in a long time.

[Sushi_lover]

10. I'd consider it

I'm no expert and of course I only know what the media tells me.

I wonder how quickly we can turn police security over to the Iraqis and demonstrate to the entire country that attacks on them is actually attacks on their own sovereignty.

I also wonder what the new calendar is for elections in Iraq.

[nostamj]

11. hmm....

[David__77]

12. Is this really viable?

I don't think the Ahmad Chalabis et al. would last a minute without massive US presence in the streets. They have little base. Sadr would take Baghdad and the Ba'athists would take many other areas.

[kentuck]

15. The north and south parts of Iraq have never been that unstable...

The part of the country in question is the central part with Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle cities. Yes, Chalabi may not be the leader that the Iraqis choose. But we must understand that the problem is in Baghdad and the surrounding cities.

[rwork]

14. Kentuck

I agree. Patrolling Bagdad in a Humvee is about as bad as the Napolionic charge strategy.

[kentuck]

17. I am no military strategist but I am a Viet Nam vet....

and I did observe a few things while in that little conflict. We were able to base large number of troops securely at some of the larger bases. We ran into trouble when we sent troops out into the villages and countryside. We would have been much better off to let the Vietnamese form their own government and assist them when it was necessary, rather than going out looking for NVA and ChiCom...That is very similar to what we are doing now.

[Sagan]

16. I agree we need a new strategy...

I'm not sure that dusting off a Vietnam strategy is what we need, though. It's not like THAT worked.

We need to hand over almost ALL domestic power to the Ruling Council. Handle security and foreign affairs while they get their house in order, then hand over everything else and skedaddle.

[kentuck]

18. Absolutely not a Viet Nam strategy...

"Handle security and foreign affairs while they get their house in order, then hand over everything else and skedaddle."

We can do our best to assist them without getting our people killed recklessly. But there is no perfect solution. We have to make a choice.

[chiburb]

19. Why do you call them terrorists?

"What happens if we withdraw to bases outside of the cities? Won't the terrorists take control of Baghdad and the other cities? "

Just curious as to why they aren't Freedom Fighters, Patriots, or The Resistance? That's how we see those "terrorists" when they resist occupying forces that don't/didn't happen to be us...

[kentuck]

20. Of course you are correct but....

The language of our media is compromised to the point that we cannot tell the truth and expect to move forward with what is needed to be done. In political matters, there must be a perceived consensus for decisions to be accepted by the people. It is a sad fact of present-day propaganda, but I agree with you about the semantics.

[incapsulated]

25. Truth is, we don't know who "they" are...

They could be from outside Iraq. Or Islamic fundies. Or Saddams old guard. Or the increasing numbers of unemployed, angry young men all over Iraq. Probably a combination of all of the above. Whoever they are, they are definately getting their shit together.

I don't see them pulling out of Bahgdad anytime soon, unfortunately. I would conflict with their message of being "in control" of the situation, that everything is fine. It would look like a surrender.

Of course, if he had any sense, Bush would have handed over most of this to the UN and we would have a tense situation. That doesn't mean UN forces wouldn't be under attack as well, but they would not be as symbolic as US tanks patrolling the streets. Plus, there would be a lot more progress overall and therefore less fury at the
americans there.

[markus]

26. or just pissed off Iraqi's denied their blood money

Interetesting bit on The World on NPR last week (I'm pretty sure it was last Tuesday because of where I remember listening to it).

In the Sunni parts of Iraqi society, the families of dead Iraqi's are entitled to blood money compensation for the deaths of their family members. They have tried to raise this with the army of occupation and been rebuffed.

If you don't get you money, you get to go out and kill N times the number of members of the party who killed your familly member.

With conservative estimates of dead Iraqi civilians running between 7,000 and 9,000, that seems like fertile ground for recruiting

[NNN0LHI]

21. What does this accomplish?

This plan does not get us our oil out from underneath those Iraqis sand. And that is why we are there. So what do we gain by herding up into a couple of fortified military bases? I don't get it?

Don

[kentuck]

22. Well, maybe?

It's according to what type of government is set up. What do we gain? We save the lives of perhaps hundreds or thousands of American troops. Or we continue to do the same thing day after day.

[Mari333]

23. Bring them all home now, and beg the UN to take over

Bush needs to get on his hands and knees, beg forgiveness, hand over all the lucrative contracts he gained for his friends and corporate sponsors, and beg like a dog for the UN to intervene, take over , and then the son of a bitch needs to ask forgiveness of the US public, and resign immediately....
Thats the only thing that makes any sense.
We all KNEW this would happen, and its happening.
God Forgive America, said a sign at the march the other day.
INDEED.

[kentuck]

24. I wish that could happen...

But I'm afraid that the reality is somewhere in between...