  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Bush Stalls on Inevitable Iraq WithdrawalPosted on Jun 26, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Quietly, the real debate over Iraq is beginning. It’s not about whether the United States should pull out troops. That is now inevitable. The real challenge is to figure out the right timetable for withdrawal, whether a residual force should be left there, and which American objectives can still be salvaged. This is not the debate President Bush wants to have come September, when a slew of reports will be issued assessing the results of the troop surge. Already, the administration is preparing the ground for kicking the real choices into next year. Where once the White House seemed to be saying, “Give us until September,” its spokesmen now seem to be insisting we won’t know that much by then after all. “If you want a definitive judgment, I’ve warned from the very beginning about expecting some sort of magical thing to happen in September,” White House press secretary Tony Snow said earlier this month. All we’ll have then, he said, is “a little bit of a metric to see what happens when you have all the forces in place for the Baghdad security plan.” “A Little Bit of a Metric”—sounds like a song that Snow’s rock band might play. The facts are these: We do not have enough troops to commit to Iraq to turn things around militarily, and the political situation is too fractured to give rise to a sudden burst of cooperation among Shiites and Sunnis. Colin Kahl, a nonresident fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a middle-of-the-road think tank that will be launched formally on Wednesday, sees the American saga in Iraq as the Goldilocks story in reverse. We sent a large enough contingent of troops to give the United States responsibility for security, but too few to keep order. “Not hot enough, not cold enough, just wrong,” Kahl says. Time is running out because most Americans no longer believe the administration’s promises that the commitment in Iraq will turn out well if only we are patient. This is why we need to begin planning our withdrawal now rather than waiting until the Army and the reserves hit the breaking point. Oddly, President Bush has more of an interest in this than anyone. “The more time passes, the more our options narrow,” says Kurt Campbell, the CEO and co-founder of the new think tank. “Left unchallenged, the president would fight to exhaustion, and we can’t afford to fight to exhaustion.” In one of its inaugural reports, the center suggests reducing the American presence in Iraq by 100,000 troops between now and the beginning of 2009. But it would keep 60,000 troops in Iraq for four years beyond that, not only to train the army but also to work with “tribal, local and provincial leaders” who are fighting al-Qaida. It is not clear to me that a lengthy commitment of that sort is either possible or desirable. But the report, written by James Miller and Shawn Brimley, has the virtue of defining three sensible goals for American policy: to prevent the establishment of al-Qaida safe havens in Iraq; to prevent a regional war; and to prevent genocide. Miller defines the right objective for those who want to end the war: “There should be a much better plan for withdrawal than there was for entry.” Indeed. That’s why it’s also useful that on Monday the Center for American Progress, a center-left think tank, released its own plan for a much more rapid withdrawal. The CAP would have all American troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008, except in the Kurdish area, where a force of 8,000 to 10,000 would stay for an additional year. The United States owes a serious commitment to the Kurds, both for historical reasons and for the help they have given the U.S. in this conflict. Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the CAP, argues that “the quicker you get out, the quicker you can recapture control of your policy in the area.” And the longer the United States stays, the greater will be the damage to our armed forces. “You’re ruining your ability to confront the global terrorist threat,” he says. “You’re ruining the Army.” Up to now, the administration has insisted that the only question in the Iraq debate is to withdraw or not to withdraw. These two reports lay out the parameters for the argument we need now: how to end a disastrous war in a way that best serves America’s long-term interests. The president would be better served if he entered the new debate. If he ignores it, it will pass him by. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at symbol)aol.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Truthdigger of the Week: Gen. Antonio M. Taguba Next item: Cheney the Survivor Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
AIDS and the Myth of the Oversexed Negro
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Alan, June 30, 2007 at 7:24 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Remember the ‘turkey shoot’ when those A10 unleashed their rockets and cannons on the retreating Iraqi army as they left Kuwait. Tens of thousands were killed and huge amounts of ordnance was destroyed.
Now the boot is on the other foot. The retreating US forces will either have to leave by plane and leave their war toys in the desert to rot. Or go through the tortuous retreat to safe haven Kuwait. I doubt if Turkey wiil be so accommodating to allow the retreat thro their territory.
So be prepared to lose a lot more on the road to home a few tanks blown up will cause a very nice traffic jam to make it easier for the Iraqis to exact their revenge. Had Saddam used similar tactics when the country was attacked no doubt the outcome would’ve been different. But the Iraqis have learned many lessons since those days. They know that the US forces are vulnerable because they just don’t like walking. Those nice air conditioned Humvees are so ‘comfortable’.
A quick look at the history of wars including the rout of the German armies in Russia tells it all. But I forgot the US administration doesn’t take much notice of history and it shows. Ever seen the results of a big sand storm in that area of the world? I have, I’ve seen six lane highways covered with huge sand dunes bridge high. The sheer logistics of such a retreat will be mind blowing.
Report thisBy cyrena, June 28, 2007 at 3:07 am #
#81855 by Roy Eidelson on 6/27 at 1:39 pm
Prof Eidelson,
I watched your video and appreciated having all of those clips there in one place. (the speeches by dick and george and rummy et, al) It was excellant, although I admit that you are far more diplomatic than I am.
I honestly do understand the social psychology of it, and all of this fearmongering is not new. I know we’ve had it before, but this is something so unlike anything that’s happened -EVER- when our whole system has been taken over like this. We’re all hijacked and held hostage, and we’ve been watching them break every international and domestic law in the book, so while I agree that it’s really important for the American public to be aware of all of this, it’s difficult to put our own response in context to a situation that none of us is really familiar with. These people have proven that they have NOTHING but contempt for the rule of law.
Still. It was good. I passed it along.
Report thisBy DennisD, June 27, 2007 at 7:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
E.J. - you can post this same story 6 months from now and even after Bu$h Inc. slithers out of office. Until everyone that gives a shit is willing to take to the streets like illegal immigrants, nothing will change. The Democrats are willing to let more people die because they think it will ensure a victory in 08 and the Republicans are perfectly willing to keep the cash register ringing. It’s a farce to believe that either represents anything but their own interest.
Report thisBy James R. Crosby, June 27, 2007 at 6:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
again i can’t believe it, nobody wants to tell the truth about Irag, the problem with the war is us, us Americans, i mean who the hell elected these clowms anyway, the damn Iraqi’s? hell no, we did, this war is our fault period, and if we don’t like it, then we need to change this government period, like one of my worker buddies said, “We need another Revolution.” This country is sick, and it’s only we the people that can change that.
Report thisBy cyrena, June 27, 2007 at 3:00 pm #
#81512 by Mudwollow on 6/26 at 11:05 am
I’m with Mudwollow…
......"We will probably see some staged troop withdrawals to quell the masses. But we did not spend multi-billion dollars building permanent bases with the intention of evacuating them. There’s no way in hell Americans going to leave all that oil “unattended””......
This is all about the realpolitik, and a bunch of these others are jumping at it as well, to string the masses along, to appease the growing demands that they are all receiving from their constituencies.
But again, the reality is that this was all planned too long ago,and far too carefully, and Cheney is NEVER going to accept less than a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. And, he’ll keep the mercenaries there as well. (more of them, once they can force the hydrocarbon law down the throats of the Iraqis...that isn’t working out well though)
Report thisBy Roy Eidelson, June 27, 2007 at 1:39 pm #
From a psychological perspective, the Bush/Cheney administration succeeded in promoting the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting our core concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, they will likely try to sell us a continuing occupation of Iraq—or an attack on Iran—in much the same way. I examine these warmongering appeals and how to counter them in a new 10-minute video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It’s available for viewing on YouTube HERE.
Report thisBy JK, June 27, 2007 at 1:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
When US authorities approva a “withdrawal,” it will be no more different from “stay the course” than an IRS 1040 for 2005 differed from the one for 2006. None of the “mainstream” formulas propose abandoning or demolishing the mega-bases. These are the poison pill: the US will have to keep 60k troops in the country just to defend and supply them, to avoid abandoning them to hostile hands. The alternative would be massive demolition of the $100 billion facilities. Al-Jazeera film crews would follow to capture images of gleeful jihadis dancing and cheering over the smouldering ruins of bases, officer clubs, and Little America PXs they will claim to have conquered.
Report thisBy PaulMagillSmith, June 26, 2007 at 11:10 pm #
RE: #81597 by euni84 on 6/26 at 5:12 pm
(18 comments total)
I think you have your hand directly on the pulse of the issue. While many seem to pay attention to the ‘effects’ of the conflict more of the world’s resources need to be directed toward the ‘causes’.
Just imagine if instead of pissing away valuable resources on this travesty of imperialistic intent we had spent even 10% on curing the world’s problems.
The $340 BN figure so often quoted is only the US military expenditure, actually pales in comparison to the estimated $2 Trillion that will be laid out by American taxpayers in the long run, doesn’t take into account the anguish & financial effect on the world of the loss of American,Iraqi, & other lives, nor the financial expenditures of other nations in the sham called ‘the coalition of the willing’. Call a spade a spade rather than a shovel, the whole world has lost from this sick endeavor.
Hopefully we can knock some sense into these neo-con warmongering fruitcakes, but we still have one hell of a fight on our hands...not with the supposed enemy, but with our misguided government AND the people who continue to support this travesty of justice. Pogo really said a mouthful with, “We have met the enemy, and it is us”.
Report thisBy cann4ing, June 26, 2007 at 8:48 pm #
Rowdy, if “the rest of us” refers to the vast majority of the electorate, the middle and working classes, then you are wrong in stating that there is not one person running who represents “the rest of us.” Go to Kucinich.US. Read what he has to say. On issue-after-issue his positions are our positions.
Report thisBy rowdy, June 26, 2007 at 8:15 pm #
81563 Steve
Report thisi couldn’t said it better. this is damned sure not the country i grew up in. if that pig hilary actually gets the nomination she is no doubt salivating over how much money she and bill will rake in. fuck them all. not a goddamned one of the people running represents the will of the rest of us.
By cann4ing, June 26, 2007 at 5:46 pm #
Poor title for this piece. The intend, even before the invasion, was to install a permanent U.S. base of operations in Iraq. There is no reason for anyone to expect Bush to abandon that goal--not when the gutless, so-called Democratic “leadership” has chosen to fund this fiasco to the end of his Presidency.
Report thisBy euni84, June 26, 2007 at 5:12 pm #
Our government needs to change its course, not continue on with the same ideological path. According to the Borgen Project, we have already spent $340 billion on the Iraq war. Endorsing other campaigns as fruitless as the Iraq war is a mistake.
To really get at the root of national security, global poverty needs to be addressed. The problem isn’t terrorism, it’s the extreme poverty that people live in that fosters the ideology. Coupled with our foreign policy, no good can come out of it all. If our government really wanted to halt terror, war and genocide, it would spend money on helping lesser-developed nations grow economically. Supporting the Millennium Development Goals to end global poverty would be more beneficial than starting wars all over the Middle East and creating more anti-Western sentiment.
Report thisBy ScottP, June 26, 2007 at 3:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
How can “sensible goals” be ones that by definition are impossible, in that you can’t “prevent” something that is already occurring: it’s too late to “prevent the establishment of al-Qaida safe havens in Iraq”, since they weren’t there before 2003 but are now; unless you need Saudi and Jordanian involvement you can’t “prevent a regional war” since already Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine are at war; and according to UN definitions you can’t “prevent genocide” because that’s already in progress based on the death count and destruction of infrastructure and society.
I think it’s time for the author to enter reality-land and recognize that the administration shares none of these goals, even if you replaced “prevent” with “reduce”. If you want the administration’s ear, you’d better talk about power and money, they have little interest in security or peace.
Report thisBy steve, June 26, 2007 at 2:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Although many talk about the different candidates and who can get us out of Iraq the fastest, none of us really have any say in anything short of some kind of armed revolution. I think really this is no longer the same country that any of us grew up in...We are certainly not leaving our military bases in Iraq in the near future if ever. And our elected leadership will answer to no one certainly not the rubber stamp congress.
Report thisBy Sang Ze, June 26, 2007 at 1:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Have no fears, my friends. Everything is going according to the plan.
Report thisBy 911 student, June 26, 2007 at 1:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Gatekeeper Dionne starts us off on the wrong foot, barking up the tree, by opening with ”Quietly, the real debate over Iraq is beginning”.
Sorry, E.J., but Iraq is the wrong debate! (I know, wars and mass deaths and all; it’s rarely easy to see them as mere distractions, but look...):
December 2000 - Pres. election is STOLEN, plain and simple (though the Dem ‘victim’ laid down for it...)
9/11 - the biggest lie(s) of our lifetimes(?) this false-flag legend, this psy-op, this deadly high-tech magic show distracted from the stolen election
Afghanistan, falsely based upon the humongous lies and showck and awe of 9/11, distracted from both.
Iraq, falsely based upon the humongous lies and shock and awe of 9/11 (IOW, lies falsely based upon lies based upon lies), also distracted from the stolen election and the deadly lies of 9/11.
When does Gatekeeper Dionne think [sic] it would be a good time to question the false-flag legend of 9/11 or the ongoing covert domestic subversion of the U.S. Constitution?
Report thisBy Lord B, June 26, 2007 at 1:10 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Get ALL U.S. troops out of Iraq, NOW!
Report thisBy Hammo, June 26, 2007 at 1:08 pm #
Because of the factors Dionne mentions, a military draft in the US could be proposed in the near futures.
Planning for this contingency by those who oppose it (for various reasons) should begin now.
More on this in the article:
“Another view of military waivers: Flexible recruiting avoids draft”
http://www.populistamerica.com/another_view_of_militar y_waivers
Report thisBy Enemy of State, June 26, 2007 at 11:47 am #
i think Bush will manage to finagle himself a couple more Freidman units. The current one runs out in September. A couple more and he can make it to the end of his term. In any case we need to discuss removing the 100,000 contractors as well. Many of these are so-called security guards, and are really unaccountable mercenaries.
Report thisBy Michael Boldin, June 26, 2007 at 11:29 am #
Yup, delaying the inevitable. I recently saw Chalmers Johnson speak and he made the point:
“Things that can’t continue forever....don’t”
I agree. Eventually this will end. But, we must keep pushing to end it sooner rather than later. It’s my opinion that the time to end the war is now.
Not next year, and not in the fall. Today.
Some follow up reading:
“Top-10 Reasons to Get Out of Iraq Now”
Report thishttp://www.populistamerica.com/top_ten_reasons_to_get_ out_of_iraq_now
By Mudwollow, June 26, 2007 at 11:05 am #
We will probably see some staged troop withdrawals to quell the masses. But we did not spend multi-billion dollars building permanent bases with the intention of evacuating them. There’s no way in hell Americans going to leave all that oil “unattended”.
Report thisBy ctbrandon, June 26, 2007 at 10:54 am #
Get them all out, and do it now. Only way we can make it happen is to put people in the Presidency who support a fast withdrawal time table. Namely, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel on the left, and Ron Paul on the right. Dont allow the media to give you two candidates who wont make a change. Dont think that Clinton, Guliani, Romney, or Obama are your only choices. Use your voice.
brandon
Report thishttp://www.actforyourself.org
By GW=MCHammered, June 26, 2007 at 9:26 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The responsible always clean up after the irresponsible but you don’t do it on the incompetent’s terms. We were defrauded into an unjust war and our ‘deciders’ should be relegated to the working end of a fucking shovel. Screw their timetables, people are dying and nations weakened over irreparable ego.
Report thisBy Sang Ze, June 26, 2007 at 5:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bush will do as he pleases, especially now that the Supreme Court has ensured that Big Corporations will remain in charge of the government. The troops will be withdrawn only when Bush decides to so it. In his time in office, he has proven amply that he always gets what he wants, an ability that makes him the most significant president in American history. We owe him much.
Report this