A multi-part series examining Barak Obama’s Iraq Plan. Part I focuses on predictors of success/failure in recent history. Examining similar withdrawal plans in the Middle East and how those have fared; the surge & the conclusions drawn from …

Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday will outline his strategy for dealing with the biggest threats facing the United States, which he says requires bringing the war in Iraq to an end, his campaign said.
Barack Obama doesn’t understand Iraq. When was th…

Obama Proposes An Eighteen Month U.S. Troop “Anti-Surge” From Iraq
By now, we’ve all heard of the “One Hundred Year or Longer Plan” from John McCain and some of us have wondered what plan, if any, his Democratic opponent f…

And why does Obama call Iraq “Mesopotamia” anyway?

So that no one will notice when he calls Israel “Palestine”…

In reality, we’re going to draw down troops in Iraq regardless of which man takes office in January. The rise of the Iraqi Army makes that inevitable and desirable.

Hmmmm. Sounds a lot like “We will stand down as the Iraqi army stands up.” Who have I heard say that before?

Bush was right.

They don’t have to come back all the way to the U.S. during that time. A lot of equipment could just go to Kuwait for a time. And remember, the claims are that all heavy equipment would have to be left behind, not some.

Which makes me wonder? Jumpin Jack Murtha, is that you? Not all the way back to the US? How about a nice interim stop in, say, Okinawa?

Again, in 1971 alone (12 months), over 177,000 American troops were withdrawn from RVN , and without breaking that much of a sweat, and all the equipment was not left behind. By next January there will probably be somewhere around 120,000 (??? )American troops in Iraq.

Sounds to me like you weren’t one of the ones doing the sweating.

The Russians were giddy with glee at the equipment and facilities we left behind in Vietnam. Cam Rahn Bay very quickly became their de facto year round deep water ice free port for naval ops.

Also, at the time, people just didn’t really seem to care about what had been left, what went over the sides of the carriers during the evacuation of the remaining US personnel during the fall of Saigon (which only occurred because the McGovern Democrats in Congress put a noose around the South Vietnamese neck and kicked the stool out from under them. The liberal version of events, of course, is that there was no price too great, no burden too heavy to bear, in order to turn tail and run away as quickly as possible and then pretend it was the right thing to do – and so there really was no direct accounting of the material losses from their phenomenally stupid approach to ‘resolving’ the conflict in Southeast Asia.

Which, if you think about it, is about the way they want to ‘resolve’ Iraq. We should take them at their word when they described Iraq as another Vietnam – in their minds it is – a chance to engineer a humiliating and costly defeat to the United States and a Free Market, Classically liberal Western Civilization in the mold of their most notorious achievement – the debacle which was the Communist takeover of Vietnam and other parts of SouthEast Asia.

In that case, many of them probably thought the ‘good guys’ ‘won’. Which, given Barry’s turn of phrase for what he calls Iraq, might not be too far from the way he thinks things should turn out there, with the ‘good guys’ being Islamic hard liners.

It’s not too much of a stretch to picture the results of the photo op for the Middle East Peace, Brotherhood, and Friendship Conference of 2011, with Barry, Mookie, and Ahkmadin’ttaketimetolearntospellit all in a group hug.

The only question is – will Michelle burqa up, or join the party going on under the bus?

This is true but I don’t believe it figures into the equation. In 1971 the overwhelming majority of our ground forces were truly “foot soldiers”.

“Foot Soldiers”? Infantry? In RVN? That is not correct. Not even close.

Not much heavy equipment to speak of (how many armored units were in Viet Nam as compared to Iraq?).

Not that many tanks in RVN, I don’t think that there are all that many tanks in Iraq right now, but there was a lot of artillery in RVN, much of which was withdrawn in around 1970, when about 140,000 troops were withdrawn.

All you have to do is put them on an airliner back to the states

A lot of the heavy stuff went by ship.

Nowadays, you’re dealing with all kinds of armor, from Hummers to Strykers, Bradleys to Abrams.

They were brought there, the can be brought out. I would think that in whatever decade we withdraw a fair amount of that would be turned over to the Iraqis anyway.

To be clear, I’m certainly not saying there was a dearth of heavy equipment in Viet Nam. I’m simply saying that it was not on a scale with Iraq.

That’s probably fairly true, but as I said, 177,000 troops were brought out in the 12 months of 1971 alone (That’s at a rate of almost 240,000 for a 16 month period and it doesn’t sound like Obama means to withdraw all troops, down to zero)) and by January, 2009 there will be around maybe 120,000, as even the Bush administration is making noises about going down to “pre-surge” levels by then.

I’d imagine that it’s a completely different monster from an embarkation standpoint.

MikeZero on July 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Different, yes, but by no stretch completely different.

If 177,000 troops could be brought back from RVN in 12 months, then 120,000? should be able to get out of Iraq in 16 months. They don’t have to come back all the way to the U.S. during that time. A lot of equipment could just go to Kuwait for a time. And remember, the claims are that all heavy equipment would have to be left behind, not some.

This is the Big Muddle. How large will these residual forces be?

Maybe as long as 100 years…
But he did say these thing:

In a March speech, he said: “We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure.”

- In June, on MSNBC, he said: “I’ve also consistently said that I will consult with military commanders on the ground and that we will always be open to the possibility of tactical adjustments.”

This clown just strung together a load of half-baked, years old Democrat talking points and threw it at a wall at a desperate, half-assed attempt to fool people into thinking he has any business whatsoever running for President.

This guy couldn’t successfully manage the automotive section of the Peoria Wal-Mart, yet he’s considered Presidential material.

Democrats should be walking around with bags on their heads for nominating this mope.

NoDonkey on July 14, 2008 at 10:22 AM

Agreed, this guy doesn’t even have very good propaganda writers. This is an embarrassing effort from a man who says his superior judgment is why he should be President.

Are you saying the military logistics people who said this was not possible without leaving all our equipment are wrong?

a capella on July 14, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Whomever it was that ABC, or whoever, talked to, or said they talked to, is obviously wrong. To say that all the equipment, or even all heavy equipment, would have to be left behind is absurd.

Again, in 1971 alone (12 months), over 177,000 American troops were withdrawn from RVN , and without breaking that much of a sweat, and all the equipment was not left behind. By next January there will probably be somewhere around 120,000 (??? )American troops in Iraq.

(Until I have to throw it under the bus.)

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

That bird don’t fly.

During 1971 alone over 177,000 American troops were withdrawn from RVN and there was no great big sweat worked up in doing it either.

MB4 on July 14, 2008 at 11:04 AM

Are you saying the military logistics people who said this was not possible without leaving all our equipment are wrong? Or, are you advocating leaving the equipment?

During 1971 alone over 177,000 American troops were withdrawn from RVN and there was no great big sweat worked up in doing it either.

This is true but I don’t believe it figures into the equation. In 1971 the overwhelming majority of our ground forces were truly “foot soldiers”. Not much heavy equipment to speak of (how many armored units were in Viet Nam as compared to Iraq?). All you have to do is put them on an airliner back to the states. Nowadays, you’re dealing with all kinds of armor, from Hummers to Strykers, Bradleys to Abrams.

To be clear, I’m certainly not saying there was a dearth of heavy equipment in Viet Nam. I’m simply saying that it was not on a scale with Iraq.

I’d imagine that it’s a completely different monster from an embarkation standpoint.

but he forgets to mention that the same assessment shows their air force and navy to be years away from viability.

What does Iraq need an Air Force and Navy for? To join their Islamic brethren in an attack on Israel?

he reiterates his timetable for redeployment without acknowledging the impossible logistics it suggests.

That bird don’t fly.

During 1971 alone over 177,000 American troops were withdrawn from RVN and there was no great big sweat worked up in doing it either.

The Fort Hood Consortium invited Obama to do just that in August. Obama ran away from the town-hall forum, apparently because John McCain will attend it.

Braaak, Braaak, Braaak.

Then, “how would you compensate for the vacuum you left after those brigades have been withdrawn?”

My guess is that he has no idea what he’s talking about, and would have no answer if asked off the cuff. Even at this late date, he’s probably just mumbling the party line.