Domenici (R-NM) calls for withdrawal of most U.S. troops by March
posted at 4:35 pm on July 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
That brings the grand total of Republican senators calling for a change of course within the past week to four. This is the last thing Bush wants to hear now, with the next big push for withdrawal by the Democrats set to begin on Monday and John Warner, who’s promising to offer his own plan for a new strategy, already warning ominously that “You’ll be hearing a number of statements from other colleagues.”
They need 16 votes to override a veto. I wonder how close they’ll get.
Sen. Pete Domenici (N.M.), a 36-year Republican veteran of the Senate, abandoned President Bush’s Iraq war policy today by publicly endorsing legislation designed to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by March 2008…
He announced during a press conference in Albuquerque that he was co-sponsoring legislation that would embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which called for a major redeployment that would leave only a limited number of troops in Iraq to focus on counter-terror operations and securing the border.
“I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward,” Domenici said. “I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home.”
Bush’s team has reportedly been murmuring for the past six weeks or so about a Baker-Hamilton resurgence and the House actually passed a measure to resurrect the Group back at the end of June. There’s no question we’re going to adopt some form of that strategy; the question is whether Bush is going to go along and pretend like he thinks it’s a good idea or if he’ll resist until Congress overrides him and then blame the chaos that follows withdrawal on them. Probably the former — I don’t think he could stand to have his war authority diminished the way the latter process would.
Either way, I think the already-dim prospects of a partisan “truce” are finished. The Dems hold the cards. What would they gain?
Meanwhile, the Sadrists are hooking up with Sunni and Kurdish opposition to try to defeat the new oil law. No American or British oil firms in Iraq, says Mookie, as the Kurds watch the prospect of critical foreign investment go up in smoke.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I just don’t know if those people have the juice to run their own show.
saiga on July 5, 2007 at 4:41 PM
It must be so comforting to think that half of those at war can withdraw themselves from that war.
(What kind of padded helmets are these goofballs wearing?)
profitsbeard on July 5, 2007 at 4:42 PM
I wrote him…I hope I don’t get audited.
tomas on July 5, 2007 at 4:43 PM
This is bad. Bad. Bad. Bush is running on fumes. Only 16 to override a veto, eh? Does that include the 4 Republican Senators? Or is it 4 down, 12 to go for the withdrawal side?
Each Senator who folds makes it easier for the next. Any odds that another will fold by this time next week? Or heck, even this weekend? By Labor Day?
The surge report in September is basically a dead letter. No matter what it says by then the momentum to leave will be nearly irresistable. The withdrawal is now all but inevitable, isn’t it?
Final question: now the withdrawal bill says out by March 2008. Could the withdrawal side generate enough power to up the date? Who can imagine an Out By Christmas push? I mean, it markets itself, no?
Thomas the Wraith on July 5, 2007 at 4:45 PM
I guess disagreeing with him on his decision to back terrorists an insurgents was a bit strong. I’m probably in the FBI data base now.
tomas on July 5, 2007 at 4:48 PM
36 years! 36 damn years! There’s the problem with Congress right there.
Well, a lot of Iraqis are in deep doo-doo within the next couple of years. Why don’t these boneheads in DC, the career politicians, at least make a deal to sell Iraq to Iran. We might as well make a few bucks, the Iranians are going to take over the country anyway.
I wonder if there will be cameras on hand whenever these turds pull us out, to capture the scene as the last US helicopters fly out of the green zone, with thousands of soon to be dead Iraqis trying to catch a ride out.
reaganaut on July 5, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Let them damn us all if that’s what it takes.
We have to be adult enough to admit defeat. We don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell with the left owning the media (and about to kill talk radio).
Hopefully Bush has a secret surge to ensure our protection after Socialism takes over here.
unamused on July 5, 2007 at 4:50 PM
According to this press release, the bill he supports is S.1545
bnelson44 on July 5, 2007 at 4:51 PM
His website has a pic with him and Ted Kennedy
tomas on July 5, 2007 at 4:53 PM
The writing on the wall says we will be backing out soon. The Iraqi government is so lame they just can’t deliver the mail. There seems to be no backbone in the silent majority over there to step up and force action to get things done. My confidence in them has dried up.
Nice idea, but wrong stock.
saiga on July 5, 2007 at 4:53 PM
If I am reading S.1545 correctly the redepolyment part is a “sence of the congress” it is not binding. Am I wrong?
bnelson44 on July 5, 2007 at 4:53 PM
And if you guys think that the media will blame the ensuing carnage on anyone BUT conservatives, you’re kidding yourselves.
Teddy Kennedy was one of the career politicians who masterminded our pullout of Viet Nam. Funny how the resulting massacres are not associated with what he did.
The media will spin the new holocaust just like they have all the old ones, and get filthy f#!king rich off of it.
We are The Naked Emporer Nation.
unamused on July 5, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Hugh Fitzgerald – “The United States has no stake in bringing together Sunni and Shi’a. The Bush Administration, unable to recognize its mistakes about Islam and about Iraq, appears determined to continue to invest more and more, of money and material and men’s lives — to pursue a wrong course. In this respect it reminds one of the stubborn, crazed policy pursued during the hideous trench warfare of World War I, for no reasons that made sense, but because, once the thing started, no one could figure out how to stop it.
The generals who have, for the right reasons (not the zinni-ish line of appeasement, but because the war aims in Iraq make no real sense, the “mission” cannot be articulated by Bush because even to try to do so would show up how misguided the whole thing is) opposed the war should speak up. And those who are with tunnel vision thinking only of the “job we have to do” right here in Baghdad are not serving the country well.”
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 4:59 PM
As much as I think withdrawing from Iraq now is a terrible idea that will have terrible reprocussions on us, the fact is that a democracy cannot indefinitely fight a war over the opposition of its people. The American people overwhelmingly have lost support for the war. I think a part of the reason for that loss of support lies at Bush’s feet, because Bush and his administration (1) wildly exaggerated their ability to quickly bring peace to the area (e.g. Cheney’s “we will be greeted as liberators” remark and the “Mission Accomplished” banner) and (2) have never effectively combatted the negative press and Defeatocrats.
But ultimately, the war (at home) is lost. Absent a report from Gen. Petraeus in September indicating a 100% turnaround, the American people will not support our continued involvement in Iraq. So now Bush and the GOP have a choice to make.
If the GOP continues to support the war indefinitely, it will likely lead to huge GOP Congressional losses and a Democrat president. I think the polls and overwhelming popular opinion support that. Any Democrat elected under such circumstances would immediately withdraw the troops in January 2009, quite possibly as that president’s first official act.
On the other hand, if the GOP oversees the withdraw of American troops, Bush and Co. can “soften the blow” on the Iraqis to the maximum possible extent, and give the fledgling democracy its best chance to survive. (As an unrelated advantage, it also will hopefully partially take Iraq off the table in 2008.)
It’s a depressing situation for us, to be sure, but I think Bush and the GOP have to start thinking about it that way. It sounds like they may have.
Outlander on July 5, 2007 at 4:59 PM
You know, it doesn’t take a psychic to see the consequences. It will turn out badly for Iraq, the GWOT, the USA, and most importantly for our troops who sacrificed.
Having said that, GWB has nobody to blame but himself.
Turns out he’s a pussy.
If it works out like it appears its going to, let’s get the troops home and start working on sealing our borders and drilling in ANWR.
there it is on July 5, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Yes, I always find it astonishing how Vietnam is blamed on Nixon by so many.
reaganaut on July 5, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Some politicians may indeed be stupid. (Paul/Gravel)
But all politicians want to be re-elected.
There’s nothing we can do fix stupidity, but we can make them worry about getting elected.
Defeat in Iraq would be worse for the country than amnesty for 20 million aliens.
Every pol advocating the same withdrawal as AQI should hear from the voters. If most voters indeed want us out of Iraq we can only be saved by courageous politicians. Huh, did I use the words courageous and politicians in the same sentence?
TunaTalon on July 5, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Yep.
Their padded helmets have a tinfoil outer shell.
csdeven on July 5, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Cut and Run: it’s not just for Democrats anymore.
Thanks Republican senators!
Kensington on July 5, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Maybe we’ll do the “shock & awe” bombing when we leave?
Our military has done a fantastic job, it’s the politicians who lost this war, just like they did in Vietnam. Should have used the lessons learned from Germany and Japan.
I’ve been wanting our military back ever since I’ve been seeing the Iraqis march in the thousands against us.
moonsbreath on July 5, 2007 at 5:04 PM
70-80% of Iraqis voted in a violent situation…that is a huge number in the history of this planet. The UN left because it was too violent…go figure.
The vacuum isn’t created because Bush didn’t explain himself…What the hell do you guys need beat in your head. Jesus.
The vacuum was a lack of will of the international community as well as our own to step forward and do the right thing in spite of what you think of Bush (this forum has lost site of this fact). The terrorists and insurgents have filled that vacuum because people saw that again the support wasn’t broad enough to stick there necks out once more.
This is insanity. This chance doesn’t come around twice, wake up people and get back on course.
May god have mercy on your souls
tomas on July 5, 2007 at 5:09 PM
For the last several years, I have watched as the media, every day, count up the death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan. But for the last few days the fireworks deaths are front and center.
dingoatemebaby on July 5, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Is Bush stuborn enough to make the Senate override his veto? Sooner or later a few top Republican go to the White House and tell W he has no support, that the tide has turned. Do they wait for the Sept report or do they go sooner? I’d say it’s about even odds now.
Let’s face it: Bush is extremely weak and getting weaker. If one big attack kills a bunch of soldiers then everyone in politics will desert Bush and his Iraq policy.
Thomas the Wraith on July 5, 2007 at 5:11 PM
I dunno. Mixed feelings.
In part, I can see what the bug-out-boogie types are saying: it’s frustrating to watch an Iraqi politcal class as feckless and irresolute as our own, getting nothing done in the national interest because they’re too busy stabbing each other in the back and maneuvering for top position when the entire edifice comes crashing down.
But for the same people, I always wonder if they’ve given any thought to what the consequences would be of a precipitate withdrawal. And the answer I always end up with is, “No.”
Mark Steyn summed it up so well when he observed that too many of our politicians, especially in the Senate, seem to see Iraq as some kind of reality TV show in which we can simply vote ourselves off the island when we get bored or frustrated. I don’t believe their thinking has gone any deeper than that.
What if the country dissolves into a real civil war? Haven’t thought about that.
What if Iraq’s neighbors inervene in the chaos that follows, leading to a larger, regional conflict? Haven’t thought about that.
What would the Iranians’ and Syrians’ reactions be, once they realized that they’d effectively beaten us in a proxy war? Haven’t thought about that.
What would our remaining allies in the region think of our resolution in the aftermath? How long do we suppose Musharraf would last? Haven’t thought about that.
What would happen to the price of oil – or even the simple availability of it – if Iran and Syria become the power-brokers in the middle east? Haven’t thought about that.
What would happen if our enemies, having driven us out of the middle east, decide to (once again) take their fight to our own soil? Haven’t thought about that.
And what would the likelihood be that another 9/11-style event in this country would lead us to have to go right back to the middle east with our military for a third round? Only this time, the Iranians have nukes, and the Pakistanis have gone Islamist with their nukes? Haven’t thought about that…
Whether the blood and treasure we’ve already committed to draining the middle eastern swamp has been worth it so far is of course subject to debate. But one thing’s for certain:: if we want to make sure that our 3,500+ fallen servicemembers have indeed died for nothing, there’s no better way to make it happen than to tuck tail and run.
Spurius Ligustinus on July 5, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Haven’t we been seeing a lot of really good news out of Iraq lately? What is his angle?
csdeven on July 5, 2007 at 5:14 PM
If doing the right thing leads to huge GOP Congressional losses and a Dem in the Whitehouse, then so be it. I am not terribly enthused about voting for a politician that believes the best course of action is the one that keeps him in office.
Surrender in Iraq will validate the jihadist strategy, and will be quickly replicated in Afghanistan. If the left believes that fighting jihadists increases their recruiting, then just wait to see what crowning them with victors’ laurels will do for jihadist recruiting. The only question will be at what grim milestone will politicians’ spines turn to jelly on Afghanistan.
rw on July 5, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I refuse to vote for any incumbent this go round. I could care less, and I know the Dems will keep voting their hypocritical syncophants until they one by one burst an artery, probably on the floor of the Senate expressing outrage against some sort of phantom menace that is going to wipe mankind off the face of the earth, but it is time to get some fresh blood up there.
The thought of a completely controlled, Democrat run federal goverment scares me more then a jihadi with a bomb, but at least the jihadi will holler “Allah akbar” before he attacks. I will rely on my wits and ability to protect myself until such time as people who firmly believe national security is job #1 of the federal goverment can take control. Unfortunately, I fear many Americans will lose their lives and liberties before that happens.
Who will the Dems blame when jihad comes to Omaha? Rhetorical question we all know.
LakeRuins on July 5, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Zawahiri message: The enemy is beginning to see the signs of defeat; no mention of London attacks
“I speak to the Muslim Ummah today as the battles which it is waging against its enemies are raging and as it moves from one victory to another, with Allah’s help and power, and its enemies retreat in front of it and as the good omens of the new dawn of victory have begun to loom on the horizon, with Allah’s permission and will. And the stage preceding victory is normally in the history of nations the stage in which there is most seen an increase in conspiracies, plots, and inciting of discord in an attempt by the enemy, who has begun to see his defeat approach to push back and delay the defeat as much as he can.”
http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/default.asp
bnelson44 on July 5, 2007 at 5:17 PM
The troops have done a fine job. The cause was just. But, a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link. I think for a number of reasons, the iraqis just aint got what it takes. They seem to have the need for some tyrant to slap them around to keep them on task. They hav’nt shown me they are Democracy material. It’s a same, but I hate throwing good money after bad.
saiga on July 5, 2007 at 5:18 PM
I agree that our boys have done a fantastic job. I don’t lay all the blame with the politicians though. For better or worse they mostly follow the will of the public. (with the possible exception of amnesty) The real enemy here is the same one we had in Vietnam. The Media. When you keep telling people thiings suck day after day on all the channels no war can hold up to that. I am afraid that from now on the only wars we have a shot at winning are very short ones, less than two years duration.
conservnut on July 5, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Or ones fought by a Democrat
conservnut on July 5, 2007 at 5:24 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19604814/
Headline is “Bodies found in IRAQ on Rise”
Read it, and it says just the opposite!!!!
Bodies in Baghdad are up, but in Iraq are down….
With the MSM (MSN in this case) sending out this type of enemy disinformation, the public looses confidence, even if we ARE winning.
Romeo13 on July 5, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Iraq…
The lesson America seems to have forgotten from history is that a weak nation will only gain more enemies, not less. Leaving Iraq is only going to make things worse in the long run. Our Allies will now have two historically recent examples that show them we will not be there when things get really hard.
What ever happened to the “you break it you buy it” policy. It seems that in America it is now “you break it you buy it as long as it’s not too expensive”
FireDrake on July 5, 2007 at 5:33 PM
If ‘we the people’ don’t do everything in our power to prevent extra-constitutional congressional interference in a time of war, this country is doomed – and soon I’m afraid.
Our military is not designed to keep the peace – that’s what the police are for. Our military is designed to kill and destroy an enemy. Let them do their job and peace will be the result.
kjspeedial on July 5, 2007 at 5:34 PM
TunaTalon – “Defeat in Iraq would be worse for the country than amnesty for 20 million aliens.”
You have got to be joking.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 5:34 PM
That’s exactly what I mean. It don’t matter how many battles we win, bad guys killed, schools built, power plants up and running or anything else. They will find a way to portray us as losing. And since most of the American people have no other source for news…….there you go.
conservnut on July 5, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Domenici is just one more old Senate Republican who needs to be voted out of office. A new generation of Republican leaders is needed who will stand by our military guys and not stab them in the back.
For those who think that Republicans need to be the ones withdrawing the troops from Iraq or else the Democrats will win in 2008, you are terribly, terribly mistaken. It will only insure a Democrat victory in 2008. Republicans leading the withdrawal movement will only make the Democrats seem to bew the smart ones for being defeatist. What saves the Republicans is to prevail in Iraq, and that means standing behind a gifted commander in General Petraeus and our outstanding military guys.
What is more, it is the right thing to do. If we withdraw from Iraq precipitously and there is massive bloodshed and death as radical Islamists set off bombs and wield the beheading sword, will those of you support withdrawal simply turn your back? Do you ignore that al Qaeda will have a client state from which to launch attacks, as they once did from Taliban controlled Afghanistan? And don’t you think that radical Islamists will be emboldened by what al Qaeda and Iran will trumpet as a victory for radical Islam and to attack us again on American soil? Or do you simply not consider such matters because you think that we should live some kind of repetition of the Vietnam War? If so, how do you handle the parts that the elected South Vietnamese government fell in 1975 because of a massive invasion from North Vietnam after congressional Democrats cut off any funding to the elected South Vietnamese government and that after America left Southeast Asia, all of Vietnam was subject to a rigid Stalinist-type totalitarian dictatorship, Cambodia was under the control of a genocidal radical communist regime, thousands of Vietnamese sought to escape tyranny by taking to the seas in open boats (the “boat people”) and literally millions of those who could not escape died in Cambodia and Vietnam?
Phil Byler on July 5, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Most of our troops killed in Iraq are not killed in fire fights with Al Q, 80% are being killed by IEDs, just driving from point A to point B.
Most probably are not planted by Al Q as there are not all that many Al Q in Iraq. Most are likely planted by non Al Q Sunnis and Shiites, in between their killing each other.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Phil Byler – “Domenici is just one more old Senate Republican who needs to be voted out of office. A new generation of Republican leaders is needed who will stand by our military guys and not stab them in the back.”
Your statement presupposes that most of our guys in Iraq (still) believe in “The Mission” (Nation building for Islamic Iraqi moms and dads) and want to be there as long as it takes to “get the job done”. Stop loss, extended 15 month tours there, 12 months home, etc.
Most don’t.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 5:49 PM
If General Patton were alive today. (I added words in parenthesis.)
“We want to get the hell over there(Iraq). The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs(Iranians) and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit.”
- General George S. Patton, Jr
(addressing to his troops before Operation Overlord, June 5, 1944)
“Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin(Iraq) and Tokyo(Iran). And when we get to Berlin(Iran), I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler(Imadinnerjacket}. Just like I’d shoot a snake!”
- General George S. Patton, Jr
(addressing his troops before Operation Overlord, June 5, 1944)
“You’re never beaten until you admit it.”
- General George S. Patton, Jr
“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”
- General George Patton Jr
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.”
- General George Patton Jr
I wish!
Guardian on July 5, 2007 at 6:07 PM
MB4 you have absolutely no way of knowing that, so why say it?
bnelson44 on July 5, 2007 at 6:09 PM
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 5:49 PM
588 reenlisting on July 4th
Over 2/3rds of some Marine units refusing to redeploy home and instead staying to augment what was meant to be their replacements
The general tone of the letters, emails and blogs written by the troops showing the positive things they are doing and constantly imploring the American public to listen to their stories and not those in mass market media
I think those stories knock down your false assertion.
LakeRuins on July 5, 2007 at 6:09 PM
bnelson44 – “MB4 you have absolutely no way of knowing that, so why say it?”
I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Iraqi “intervention” leaves Army in tatters
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 6:14 PM
As Andrew Jackson said of the Supreme Court ruling his policies unconstitutional, let them try to back it up. The legislative branch, last time I looked, was highly unpopular itself.
Being a constituent of Domenici, he’s eroded his Law Enforcement/Military support over the years and I’m sure my family serving over there right now would have a few choice words that would get me banned.
TheEJS on July 5, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Take particular note of things like “Retired Lt. General Robert G. Gard Jr. observes that half of the West Point class of 2002 has left the service at the earliest date they were legally free of their obligation to stay in the Army.”
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Oh and MB4, that’s a load of crap. Take it from me who takes it from someone who has served in the government from 40 years starting as an enlisted paratrooper embedded with 1st Cav Division in Mosul.
Enough Morale Ascension for you or do I need to quit college/ROTC to enlist?
TheEJS on July 5, 2007 at 6:21 PM
MB4 you still don’t know and haven’t shown that most service people in Iraq don’t support the mission. There is absolutely no way you can know such a thing. Quit trying to support a guess, it is tedious.
bnelson44 on July 5, 2007 at 6:22 PM
MB4
I have daily contact with the guys over there and I could take the time to debunk all the assertions made in that article but it is hardly worth the time or effort. You want us to fail so you can have your “Vietnam”. The end of the story was written long ago, the conclusions made, and everything since then has been structured to support that conclusion. I am tired of articles written using so called military eperts who either have an axe to grind, got passed over for promotion, or felt that their way of fighting this war was the only way to do it and when they got out voted decided to whine to anybody who would listen.
I will tell you this much, you don’t hear that kind of whining out of the ones actually do the job, the job I might add that 99% of this nation won’t do. Thats right the success or failure of this mission is squarely on the shoulders of 1% of the population, that for the most part has been denigrated and spit upon by those who, who because of their own inadeguacies, are not worthy to even wash their soiled BDU’s.
LakeRuins on July 5, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Normal, compare it to any other class.
LakeRuins on July 5, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Well… how about a direct quote…
Romeo 13 (USN Ret.) says “of the Active duty personel I personaly know, I know of VERY few who don’t understand the mission in Iraq, and don’t want to go back…”
and hmmm… West Point is a 5 year obligation on active duty… the earliest they could have gotten out was LAST month. How did this Gen. get this data?
I hereby raise the Bull Shit flag.
Romeo13 on July 5, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Wonder why he didn’t comment on AF grads?
LakeRuins on July 5, 2007 at 6:26 PM
West point is a 5 year obligation, the earliest the class of 2002 could get out is LAST MONTH when the article was written…. just HOW did this Gen. get this data?
I raise a serious Bull S#%t Flag….
Romeo13 on July 5, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Got to disagree. While some have adopted a fairly jaded outlook, nearly none of the men I know want to leave until the job is done. This goes for the self proclaimed “liberals” as well as the hard core “conservatives.” Ideology, while somewhat important, means far less than to most politically active and interested citizens. Instead, what is focused on is the mission and whether or not the job is done. Most of the men I know (mostly Marines but a few soldiers as well) would be MORE than happy to go home, but only after they can leave something behind that won’t immediately fall apart i.e. they finish the job.
The job is not done, ergo we cannot leave.
Militant Bibliophile on July 5, 2007 at 6:28 PM
After the forces of withdrawal get us out of Iraq they will focus on Afghanistan. Yes kids – Afghanistan is next. Canada is buckling under the pressure of having lost 66 men. Never mind that NATO is obliged by treaty and law to fight when one of the NATO members is attacked.
So there you have it. Our supposed “allies” will desert us in Afghanistan and the withdrawal folk will use that as pretext to get us out.
Then the stage will be set: Hillary will be able to put all this nastiness behind us and get on with the real issues of the day, like nationalizing medicine. Oh joy.
Thomas the Wraith on July 5, 2007 at 6:29 PM
MB4 When you have the time read this. It is only a couple of days old but it is form somebody on the ground.
LakeRuins on July 5, 2007 at 6:35 PM
To MB4: your notion that IEDs are not set by al Qaeda is an uninformed speculation. You need to read Senator Joe Leberman’s June 15, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal Online. He presented the military’s estimate that 90% of the suicide bombings in Iraq are by non-Iraqi al Qaeda. Of course, the IEDs may be made in Iran, but that does not help any argument that the enemy in Iraq is not radical Islamism.
Phil Byler on July 5, 2007 at 6:39 PM
To MB4: you are obviosly a left wing troll intent upon living a repetition of an opposition to the Vietnam War. Your statement that the troops don’t believe in the mission is a left wing lie. I hate people like you who suppose they can get away with speaking for, among others, my older son, who is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) serving in harm’s way as an infantry platoon leader. You should go back to Kos.
Phil Byler on July 5, 2007 at 6:43 PM
LakeRuins – “MB4 I have daily contact with the guys over there (I have my independent contacts too. “Low friends” in high places with many contracts of their own, who also have many contacts.) and I could take the time to debunk all the assertions made in that article but it is hardly worth the time or effort (That’s the easy way I suppose). You want us to fail so you can have your “Vietnam”. (That is not accurate at all) The end of the story was written long ago, the conclusions made, and everything since then has been structured to support that conclusion. I am tired of articles written using so called military eperts who either have an axe to grind, got passed over for promotion, or felt that their way of fighting this war was the only way to do it and when they got out voted decided to whine to anybody who would listen (The ancient Greeks shot the messanger too. Well they didn’t actually shot the messanger then as they didn’t have guns).
I will tell you this much, you don’t hear that kind of whining out of the ones actually do the job, the job I might add that 99% of this nation won’t do. Thats right the success or failure of this mission (Jorge “ROP” Arbusto’s “the mission” of bringing a stable rule of law, free democracy that will be an ally in the war on terror to Iraq is impossible.) is squarely on the shoulders of 1% (A lot less than that actually.) of the population, that for the most part has been denigrated and spit upon by those (Not by me.) who, who because of their own inadeguacies (I don’t have any “inadeguacies”.), are not worthy to even wash their soiled BDU’s.”
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Phil Byler – “To MB4: you are obviosly a left wing troll intent upon living a repetition of an opposition to the Vietnam War. Your statement that the troops don’t believe in the mission is a left wing lie. I hate people like you who suppose they can get away with speaking for, among others, my older son, who is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) serving in harm’s way as an infantry platoon leader. You should go back to Kos.”
Don’t give up you day job to try to become a detective.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 6:46 PM
To MB4: your citation in your 6:35 PM post is to a report by a State Department source (which does not mean that it is a soldier in Iraq), and my reading of the report is that there are slwo improvements in the situation in Iraq.
Phil Byler on July 5, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Uhhh… MB4.. since your back…
Want to address my point in the article you posted a link to?
Romeo13 on July 5, 2007 at 6:48 PM
To MB4: My day job is a litigation lawyer who among other things has to make evaluations of what people say in cases. I am comfortable in my assessment of you, and your 6:46 PM post is snide but not a straight forward denial either.
Phil Byler on July 5, 2007 at 6:49 PM
LakeRuins,
From your site, a new video from the Marines of Company G
bnelson44 on July 5, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Actually that was mine and yes it was a state department which made it all the more surprising. But he was there and relaying first hand information and observations. The other commentary was from Matt, the owner of the Blackfive blog.
LakeRuins on July 5, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Phil Byler – “To MB4: My day job is a litigation lawyer who among other things has to make evaluations of what people say in cases. I am comfortable in my assessment of you, and your 6:46 PM post is snide but not a straight forward denial either.”
Well on second thought, maybe you should give up your day job then.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Tick.. tick…. tick….
No answer?
How does a Ret. General have data that would NOT have been compiled yet, on the West Point class of 2002???
How can he know that half have left when their obligation is for FIVE years, and would have ended only LAST MONTH!!!
Especialy as the DOD does not compile ANY numbers on re-enlistments until the END of the MONTH??? And this was WRITEN BEFORE THE END OF THE MONTH??? And even then, they would not have sifted the data like that?
Sorry, but siting blatantly false facts does NOT bolster your arguement.
Romeo13 on July 5, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I love how the Army’s been “broken” yet 2003. So “broken” it’s developed new weapons systems, new doctrines/tactics, had constant retention rates above 100% needed, and new uniforms to top it off.
I do fear the new AF ABU (Airman Battle Uniform). I wakeup in a cold, cold sweat… screaming when I dream about it.
TheEJS on July 5, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Romeo13 – “and hmmm… West Point is a 5 year obligation on active duty… the earliest they could have gotten out was LAST month. How did this Gen. get this data?”
A general is a pretty high rank in the Army. Maybe that had something to do with his having access to some basic information.
BTW, notice to not “re-up” is not put in the day before.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 6:59 PM
A Flag Officer is pretty high up, and though Lt. Gen. does fall below a General, a retiree is well… a retireee. And this argument isn’t based on “maybes”, so don’t try to infer anything you can’t backup.
TheEJS on July 5, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Those who criticize Bush for lacking stones are not worthy to lick his feet. He’s held on in the face of withering criticism and outright lies from the Left’s noise machine for the last four years. When he’s finally managed to change the momentum, his only reward is to be abandoned by near-sighted political hacks who flop in whatever direction the wind is blowing. Not a single one could have done half as well. Not one.
Are you really considering acquiescing to the same damned thing we did for Cambodia and Rwanda and letting those poor Iraqis die? Are you really going to start slinking away because a handful of weal politicians is defecting?
Abandoning Iraq would be a disgrace. A much larger war is on the horizon; this will only precipitate it faster.
ahem on July 5, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Romeo13 – “Especialy as the DOD does not compile ANY numbers on re-enlistments until the END of the MONTH??? And this was WRITEN BEFORE THE END OF THE MONTH??? And even then, they would not have sifted the data like that?
Sorry, but siting blatantly false facts does NOT bolster your arguement.”
Technically Officer retention is not considered to be a “re-enlistment”, unless they have drastically changed things anyway. I put in my “notice” to leave 10 months ahead of my “end of obligation”.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Boy you are naive. You must declare your intentions to reenlist normally 90 days prior. It is one of the methods the military uses to control personnel strength. By knowing in advance who is going to reenlist and who isn’t it allows them to craft their recruitment goals to fill those jobs that may need filling. It is fairly easy to figure this sort stuff out but when your only knowledge of things military related come from watching “Stripes” you can be forgiven.
Well not really.
LakeRuins on July 5, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Spurius Ligustinus:
I have a question: if the factions in Iraq are so querulous and homicidal as to degenerate into mass genocide as soon as we leave, what chance did democracy ever have? Remember, the initial estimates were that we’d have a hugely reduced military presence by now. Either the Bush administration was incompetent in their planning, or they were lying about the scope from the get-go.
rho on July 5, 2007 at 7:10 PM
TheEJSA – “Flag Officer is pretty high up, and though Lt. Gen. does fall below a General
Since when does a Lt. General fall below a General?
A Lt. general IS a General.
Like 3 stars in fact.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 7:10 PM
RETIRED GENERAL!!!!! Get it??? He would NOT have access to active duty information!!! Especialy Data that would NOT have been compiled yet! Unless he somehow had access to the Active duty databases at the Pentagon, and was able to initiate searches on his own, there is NO possible way he could have this data!!! And the key to that is HE IS RETIRED!
You can re-up until your discharge and signing of your DD-214 (discharge).
Romeo13 on July 5, 2007 at 7:11 PM
rho – “I have a question: if the factions in Iraq are so querulous and homicidal as to degenerate into mass genocide as soon as we leave, what chance did democracy ever have?”
I believe that you have answered your own question.
But you knew that I bet.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Bush holds the biggest card of all — the veto card — and we’re entering Budget season.
Shutting down the entire government is an option. Bush can go there, just as Clinton did over getting his priorities enacted into the Fiscal 1995 budget.
Anil Petra on July 5, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Romeo13 – “RETIRED GENERAL!!!!! Get it???
So do you think that no one on active duty talks to him?
You can re-up until your discharge and signing of your DD-214 (discharge).
I put in my “notice” 10 months ahead of my obligations end and as I understood it, that was that.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Umm first all it’s TheEJS, not TheEJSA.
Second you have Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, General, then for those special few, General of the Army/AF (and a special 6 star for Pershing and Washington). I found this out my first day of ROTC. And like 3 stars in fact, he is still below a General, like 4 stars in fact.
Great to see you had proper rank training. I’m guessing you consider SgtMajor to be a Major. I made that mistake when I was like 4 in fact.
TheEJS on July 5, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Here is your chart of officer ranks and yes a LT Gen is lower then a Gen.
See what you learn if you just reach out.
/going to sing kumbaya now with my holistic self awareness ecologicaly sensitive group conselor
LakeRuins on July 5, 2007 at 7:16 PM
To MB4: Your 6:53 PM post is still not a straight forward denial of my assessment of you as a left wing troll asserting what you don’t know. Your smart aleck comments only confirm my assesssment.
Phil Byler on July 5, 2007 at 7:17 PM
he’s right. the president doesn’t have the will to do what is necessary (the use of extreme overwhelming force) in Iraq to actually win the war (making support for it a moot point). And the Iraqi government seems to be sitting on their hands while their countrymen and our troops die.
It’s Over! all I can hope for is that our troops kill as many insurgents as possible.
Opinionnation on July 5, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Ummm… just what “notice” would that be?
I’m retired Navy myself… and don’t remember any “notice” that needed to be given… now you did have to ask permission to stay in….
Sorry, but your lack of rank knowledge… and this little “notice” gem is really straining your credibility.
And once again, I submit a RETIRED General would not have access to information that would not have even been compiled yet.
Romeo13 on July 5, 2007 at 7:28 PM
LakeRuins -
BTW, notice to not “re-up” is not put in the day before.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Boy you are naive. (I think that you must have missed the NOT in my comment. That is the only way I can make any sense of what you said.) You must declare your intentions to reenlist normally 90 days prior. It is one of the methods the military uses to control personnel strength. By knowing in advance who is going to reenlist and who isn’t it allows them to craft their recruitment goals to fill those jobs that may need filling. It is fairly easy to figure this sort stuff out but when your only knowledge of things military related come from watching “Stripes” (You really shouldn’t make things so personal, particuarly as sometimes you end up with egg on your face. dd214 18aug68 to 30jun69, character of service honorable, grade, rate or rank – E5. dd214 30jun69 to 28jan72, character of service honorable, grade, rate or rank CPT, branch – FA.) you can be forgiven.
Well not really.”
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Has anyone on the Left provided a detailed description of what they think will happen to Iraq if we leave it as is?
WisCon on July 5, 2007 at 7:33 PM
TheEJS – “And like 3 stars in fact, he is still below a General, like 4 stars in fact.”
I really have no idea what you are talking about.
Yet again, a Lt. General IS a general (a three star general), that’s why one is called a G-E-N-E-R-A-L!
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Phil Byler – “To MB4: Your 6:53 PM post is still not a straight forward denial of my assessment of you as a left wing troll asserting what you don’t know. Your smart aleck comments only confirm my assesssment.”
You have let being a lawyer go to your head.
As to your “assessments”, the world can just be thankful that you did not become a doctor. Very thankful.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Question MB4: So you spent 10 months enlisted, attaining sergeant strips, then got a battlefield commission? I’m just asking because my dad went through OCS around the same time yet took him 6 months as the standard time frame for an OCS class, that was after he got E-5 from being named the 82nd’s “Trooper of the Month” giving him the automatic promotion.
Then did you get on the fast track for promotion? I’m asking again cause 2 years is a bit fast. 2 years past my dad’s OCS graduation, he was a 1st LT commanding a HQ company in Germany.
TheEJS on July 5, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Phil – It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment – Holmes
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 7:48 PM
MB4- (…dd214 30jun69 to 28jan72, character of service honorable, grade, rate or rank CPT, branch – FA.)I’m also assuming FA means Air Force, but just to check… US Army… no F… US Navy… no F… US Marines… possible F, but part of the Department of the Navy.
TheEJS on July 5, 2007 at 7:58 PM
TheEJS – “Question MB4: So you spent 10 months enlisted (Yes.) , attaining sergeant strips (No.) , then got a battlefield commission? (No.) I’m just asking because my dad went through OCS around the same time yet took him 6 months as the standard time frame for an OCS class, that was after he got E-5 from being named the 82nd’s “Trooper of the Month” giving him the automatic promotion.
Then did you get on the fast track for promotion? (No.) I’m asking again cause 2 years is a bit fast. 2 years past my dad’s OCS graduation, he was a 1st LT commanding a HQ company in Germany.
Yet again, a Lt. General IS a general (a three star general), that’s why one is called a G-E-N-E-R-A-L!
I believe if you’re going to overlook Mr. Romeo’s whole “he’s retired” argument and sweat the small stuff, Mr. LakeRuins comment at 1916 answers it… oh I’m sorry… 7:16PM.”
As I said before, maybe active duty personnel are not shunning a three star general and just maybe still talk to him. If the general was on my email contact list I would ask him for you.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 7:59 PM
TheEJS – “I’m also assuming FA means Air Force, but just to check… US Army… no F… US Navy… no F… US Marines… possible F, but part of the Department of the Navy.”
Quite frankly this is getting more than a little ridiculous. This is not suppose to be about me (or you). It is not suppose to be about the messenger, you or me, but about the message, even if you don’t agree with me or me with you. I would think that AF would mean Air Force. Why would FA mean Air Force? Never assume.
Take a couple more do overs, I’ll tell you if you figure it out. I promise.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 8:05 PM
“I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward,”
TRANSLATION: “I’ve got polling data here that says 65% of Democrats want us out of Iraq now. Therefore as a Republican, I’d better support the Soros wing of my party.”
MCPO Airdale on July 5, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Can a republican President win a substained war? I would ask about dems as well, but I know they don’t have the hang em downs.
I think the 2000 election really f’d this country up.
tomas on July 5, 2007 at 8:12 PM
TheEJS, here is
BIG HINT
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 8:14 PM
To begin with, I never said that all the factions would “degenerate into mass genocide” as soon as we leave. Those are your words, and I disagree with your assumption.
I am lamenting the short-sightedness and narrow self-interest of the Sunni and Shia factions, which makes effective self-governance extremely difficult even without Iranian and Syrian interference and sets the country up for chaos, internal conflict and foreign military intervention if left as it is.
Second, in your choice of conclusions you are engaging in a logical fallacy: “False dilemma.” I reject both of your proferred options as more indicative of BDS than of serious contemplation.
It does seem clear, though, that one of the legacies that Saddam Hussein left behind was a political structure so bereft of any alternative leadership that it’s unrealistic to expect a self-supporting, functional representative government to stand in the short-term.
Is it possible that we overestimated the ability and willingness of the Iraqi (non-Baathist) political class to quickly step up and govern/provide security by themselves? Certainly. I suspect that is indeed the case. An inaccurate estimation, however, does not automatically entail incompetence or dishonesty. That is where your analysis, such as it is, fails.
One of the main problems we have had with the post-Saddam Iraq campaign is its hurried quality. We’ve been so eager – over-eager – to avoid charges of “neo-colonialism” that we’ve short-changed the reconstruction process. We took more time, for example, to reconstruct the south after the Civil War; we took more time to help the Japanese and West Germans to establish their own governments after World War II.
To our and the Iraqis’ credit, there have been multiple valid elections in Iraq. They’ve drafted a constitution of their own. They are rebuilding their economy, security forces and military all at a remarkably fast clip. Their political class, however, still needs a lot of work. They are still, by and large, more interested in jockeying for position and settling old scores than in looking to the long-term future. That’s to be expected when a nation literally has to rebuild its political system and find political leadership willing to step up in the face of intimidation and threats from ex-Baathists, al Qaeda-linked terrorists and foreign-backed agitators.
Can that situation be corrected? There are no guarantees. This is a region of the planet that has not historically lent itself to representative government. If it is possible at all, it will take many years, perhaps decades, to achieve. It’s a certainty, though, that such a desirable outcome won’t happen if we announce in advance that we’re pulling the plug. All that will accomplish is to shatter any confidence among the locals that we’ll back long-term reform, and bring about exactly what we’re trying to avoid: a return to dictatorship at the very least, and possibly even worse.
Spurius Ligustinus on July 5, 2007 at 8:19 PM
MCPO Airdale – “I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward,”
TRANSLATION: “I’ve got polling data here that says 65% of Democrats want us out of Iraq now. Therefore as a Republican, I’d better support the Soros wing of my party.”
MUCH MORE ACCURATE TRANSLATION: “There aren’t enough of the rah, rah, sis-boom-bah, go troops Keyboard Rangers who will sign up for the U.S. Army and help!”
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Spurius Ligustinus – “I am lamenting the short-sightedness and narrow self-interest of the Sunni and Shia factions, which makes effective self-governance extremely difficult even without Iranian and Syrian interference and sets the country up for chaos, internal conflict and foreign military intervention if left as it is.”
You may as well lament that you can not fly like Superman, do about as much good at changing the way that Sunnis and Shiites feel about each other.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 8:26 PM
BDS = Bush Devotion Syndrome.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »