"Pull out NOW"...what does that mean, exactly?

[renie408]

Ok, don't hurt me, I am asking a sincere question here.

I hear a lot of people saying we need to get out of Iraq NOW. But in military terms, when you are talking about safely moving over 130,000 (exactly how many people do we have over there now anyway?) people, how fast is that?

I just read a thread about a plan put forward that outlines a phased pullout over the next two years. In this plan, our soldiers are phased out of urban areas first and replaced with Iraqi police. Then as we draw down, neighboring states move in to help keep the country stabilized.

This is not good enough for a lot of people, though. They are saying "Out NOW". I do not understand that, on more than one level. First, how fast is NOW? Second, let's say we can get everybody out of there in a month...what happens then? Won't the insurgency continue and possibly escalate? I was under the impression that a lot of the bombings and violence were specifically against Iraqis.

I guess I am asking how fast those people who want us out of there now would be satisfied with and why a longer, organized pullout (as long as we are really heading OUT) is so bad?

[Wickerman]

1. Its a good question, and military minds should be on it now

instead of worrying about how to procure even larger contracts for friends of Bush.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. How long did it take to get them in? one month? two?

They can be removed in the same....

[renie408]

6. Ok, that's the first part of the question

what about the second part? What happens then? Is it maybe naive to think that the only problem Iraq has is the US army? Or that the problems they have will be bettered or solved by our leaving? Which leads me to another question...What is our responsibility to the Iraqi people? I feel strongly in the 'you broke it, you fix it' rule. It seems to me that we owe them a working country.

[kenny blankenship]

11. what makes you think that's a question any

American EVER had an answer to?

We have fucked it up and WE cannot fix it.

We have a responsibility to pay WAR REPARATIONS to the Iraqi people. That's all we can do for them. Trying to lead them like children as you propose and as Bush has attempted has destroyed anything that worked over there, and bankrupted this country. We also have a responsibility to get out of their lives and let them determine their own destiny.

"we owe them a working country" --GOOD GOD, have you been paying attention, at all?

You seem to be laboring under the same delusion of American omnipotence that afflicts President Bush and his political base.

[renie408]

17. I am sorry, I didn't see my proposal

Could you explain to me what my proposal is? You seem to have a much better idea of what I am thinking than I do, after all.

So I am a freeper because I am asking questions and do not scream "GET OUT NOW" with you?

Yet, other than to say it is not our job to fix what we have fucked up, you have offered me no information that would help me agree with you. Surely it isn't because you are not completely versed in all things Middle Eastern with a total understanding of the area and all of its multifaceted issues. You are so certain of your view, after all.

[LizMoonstar]

23. hey wait a second.

why do you assume people meant that in a creepy paternalistic way?

we broke a lot of their stuff. not in any political or social or whatever way (although we did that too, that's not what i'm addressing). in a strict physical sense, we blew shit up. we should have to put it back the way it was. i don't see how that's paternalistic rather than civilised. their politics and so on, we fucked up, and we can't fix that. but the physical 'stuff', we can build back the way it was.

[renie408]

28. What she said. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

37. 130,000+ troops in a foreign country influencing

its internal politics, and economic distribution is practically a concrete definition of the word paternalism, as it applies to international relations. Frankly I don't care what you or anyone else think you "meant"; the fact of the matter is that any policy carried out by the means of 130,000+ GIs on Iraqi soil is paternalistic by nature: the mere presence of the soldiers asserts that the US retains a veto power over anything that it doesn't outright dictate in Iraqi politics and petroleum. You don't have to think it and you don't have to mean it "that way", it JUST IS. If you don't want your actions interpreted that way by Iraqis, then WITHDRAW YOUR TROOPS. You people have to stop confusing what you self-congratulatingly think of as your "good intentions" with practical realities of OTHER COUNTRIES populated by different people. An occupation force is an occupation force no matter what gloss you put on it, and it will be resented.

Moreover, we are blowing their shit up much faster--even now years after the supposed end of the war--than we are fixing it. (if you'd been paying any attention you'd know that) And that means of course that the war NEVER ACTUALLY ended. Just this week we've launched a new 'regional offensive' in Iraq. WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE IS HAPPENING TO THE TOWNS AND VILLAGES IN THE AREA OF OPERATIONS?
I guarantee you, it's "offensive".


It involves major league "breaking of shit" by aerial bombardment, shit which we won't be sticking around to try and fix because we've got to keep "chasing the insurgents". And by our military's own admission, most of the insurgents got away AGAIN, thus ensuring that our soldiers will return to these same areas AGAIN to kill people and blow stuff up again. (And this was not the first time stuff was blown up in this area. And WHY do the insurgents always get away? Because they are being tipped off by our erstwhile pals in the uniformed Iraqi military, yeah that's right, the very guys we're handing rifles to.) An end has to be put on this cycle of destruction, and since it's very clear now that we cannot impose a peaceful end by military force, SOME OTHER WAY MUST BE FOUND.

You think we're fixing anything? Do you DREAM that we are fixing anything? You think we CAN fix anything over there? You keep talkingh about fixing things and how we have to do it_ AS IF WE COULD! As if we hadn't been aware of the importance or hadn't tried.
In neither your post or the OP is there the SLIGHTEST glimmer of an explanation or awareness of WHY "stuff" is still broken over there.

Well I'll tell you.

We can only fix things with Army engineers that A) we can surround with troops while it's being reconstructed and B) we can protect continuously with a permanent garrison after it's fixed. That's why little has yet been fixed in Iraq. Troops are used, as they must be in any occupation to find and fight the enemy, which is actually various militias and groups under the umbrella term of the "insurgency". There is no head of this insurgency to cut off and thus it has no geographical center that is must defend at all costs, and as far as our military is concerned any land in Iraq not directly under the feet of our troops is under the control of the "insurgency". Stuff that is fixed but not permanently protected by a stationary garrison of troops is thus considered subject to sabotage by insurgents at any moment.

Now as for what cannot be permanently guarded: we cannot fix stuff because the security situation is "too scary" for the companies (American) to do the work (that is the comanies' legal position as relayed to the Pentagon, and relayed from the Pentagon and WH to the US public)

Now then, the security situation is "too scary" for civilian contractors being paid to reconstruct Iraq because....please listen closely ...BECAUSE... WE... ARE... THERE.

Anything or anybody American, or anything or anybody cooperating with Americans, will draw gunfire and carbombs at anyplace, anytime. That goes for the major cities as well as the hinterlands of the Sunni Triangle or the border areas.

It's been a constant theme in the news from Iraq: item A is not fixed yet because it's unsafe to remain in the surrounding area B in order to fix it. The only part you have to supply is the missing logic. The news explains the nut of the problem. It's up to you to figure out that the situation isn't improving and cannot be improved as long as the irritating exacerbating factor of our imperial presence remains.

We CANNOT fix what's broken over there. As long as we're there, we're just breaking more stuff. Haven't you become AWARE of this over time?

How many more "Fallujahs" must be destroyed before you consider Iraq to be fixed?

Only people who are WELCOME IN IRAQ can do the fixing part.

We are not welcome there--why can't you people absorb this SIMPLE FACT?

[renie408]

38. Which leads me to another question

Why is it that some people think that if they couch their ideas in an obnoxiously patronizing and dismissive way, it reflects on anyone other than themselves?

Kenny, you make valid points. Why you feel it necessary to act like an asshole while you do it is a mystery.

[Yupster]

46. I think we also have a responsibility

to get the Iraqi collaberators out before we leave.

There may be a million Iraqis who have actively collaberated with our government.

I don't think we can leave them there to have their heads chopped off or have them hanged from bridges.

We at least have to get them out first.

[JuniperLea]

22. to "which" iraqi people?

that is the main problem, imo. "we" have started a civil war, just like Pappy said would happen. which group of iraqi's do you propose we help? i say it's none of our business; it's their country. these are the kinds of questions that should have been asked before w got that wild hair up his ass. too late now. the longer we are there, the worse it will be. we should pull out and offer support in negotiations and that's sounding dummer by the day because who would trust us as a negotiator when we've obviously made serious mistakes?

[renie408]

29. Very good points

You're right. Help the Sunnis? The Shia? The Kurds? That is such a big part of the problem. Most Iraqis see themselves as one of those before they seen themselves as 'Iraqi'.

[JuniperLea]

39. exactly

their country was divided many years ago and thrown together by some french and american map makers... if i recall the history correctly. i think it is up to the people to decide. that is the only way it can be truly democratic. that being said, who knows what comfort level any of these people have with democracy!?! they may feel more comfortable with another form of government! their culture is far different from ours and i say it's damned arrogant of the bush regime to think they are qualified to make these decisions.

[renie408]

40. I thought it was the British, but the result is the same.

Thing is, Turkey doesn't want a Kurdistan. The Sunnis don't want the chunk that would end up being 'Sunnistan' and 'Shiastan' is just likely to be allied with Iran and in charge of the biggest chunk of oil.

The long term solution is for America to start growing the hell out of some soybeans and convert everything to running on vegetable oil. Then Shiastan can sit on a gigunda chunk of the world's supply of oil and it won't effect us. (I am being silly...sort of)

[JuniperLea]

42. french/british... i think you are right

see how far you can go with this thought? what about a 'united states of iraq'? or three or four separate countries? the possibilities are endless. the point being, 'we' have no business meddling in their affairs. they need to judge for themselves what best suits them culturally and politically. i think the longer we stay involved, the more muddied the waters will become.

[LynnTheDem]

53. The vast majority of Iraqis want us out LONG ago.

So why are we ignoring what the IRAQIS want for their own country?

We broke it, they want us the fuck OUT. Pretty simple.

[Burma Jones]

3. I think this is because 'Pukes will not listen to reasonable offers

If you offer them something reasonable, they will just assume you're weak and ignore you. If you make strong demands, you may get something in return.....

[William769]

4. I am one of the people that say "pull out now".

We have never been any good at Nation building. I may not sound like a nice person when I say this But I don't care about Iraq, I want our men & women home & the Bush cabal behind bars for this war crime. Sorry thats just how I feel.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. I don't care about Iraq either

or Israel or the Palestinians or any of them. I know it is selfish. And I'm not being xenophobic. I "care" on a metaphysical level like I "care" for humanity. I don't know, I guess I am getting to be an old isolationist like Buchanan. But we have a lot to worry about and spend our money on right here.

[renie408]

10. I can respect that. I don't want to HAVE to care

But it looks like, whether we like it or not, we are stuck with the Middle East as an issue we have to face. I tend to think that the world is getting smaller every day. The Middle East used to be REALLY far away. But not so much any more. And the smaller the world gets, the more the ripples from the problems THERE effect us HERE.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. You are correct, of course

and my feelings aren't very admirable... plus we got them into the mess so we have to at least clean it up somewhat.

I guess the trick is knowing which will result in more deaths: pull out immediately and the power vacuume, or a longer process and the insurgent problems.

[renie408]

16. That is where I start getting muddled

Sometimes I think "Either way, they are screwed. So we might as well save ourselves." But then I start to think about things like "How are they going to get water and power? How are they going to maintain and rebuild basic services, rebuild their police force and fight a civil war all at the same time? Who is going to help them and therefore hugely influence them?"

If we leave, is Iran or Syria going to jump in and 'save' Iraq? And if they do, what are the implications for us? Is it naive to pretend that access to oil SHOULDN'T be a concern for this country?

I just don't know. But there are people who feel really sure and I want to hear what thinking is behind what they are saying.

[Yupster]

47. We did okay

in Japan, Germany and Italy.

[Eagle_Eye]

5. Don't expect a pull out anytime soon.

The BFEE needs a standing army in the region in order to invade Iran, keep Saudi Arabia in line, and hold a continuing threat over a good bit of the world's oil supply.
Troops in Iraq = power & influence.

[renie408]

8. Ok, but that didn't answer my question

I don't think anyone really expects Bush to back out of Iraq this week. Or even next week.

But we might reasonably expect the Democratic Party to put together a coherent plan for withdrawal that will offer Americans an alternative to what Bush has offered. But it seems to me that we need to try to get the majority of our Dems on the same page. Or at least within the same chapter. With a large group saying "OUT NOW" and another group saying "Send more troops" and many people saying stuff that falls in between, the Repukes just say, "Hey, we are stinking it up, but it isn't like THEY have a plan either."

Another expectation I don't have is that we can get the entire Democratic Party happily agreeing about this issue. Talk about herding cats...but maybe somebody could come up with an option that the MAJORITY of Dems could live with.

[Eagle_Eye]

27. You are right, I did not answer your question

It has become apparent to me that quite a bit of traffic coming from the people who oppose the bush administration are only throwing out words, and offer little in the way of solutions. "OUT NOW" is only the the start of the process, the next step is to offer a detailed, workable plan to accomplish the goal. It follow other slogans I hear like 'no more tax breaks for the rich'. I say good, no more tax breaks for the rich, but how about a plan to make the tax code more equatable for all Americans, rich and average alike.
If I were in charge of the military (which lucky for all I am not) I would:
1. Immediately order that there would no increase if force levels.
2. Force draw down of a minimum of 1% a month increasing to 5% a month in one year based on current troop levels. There would be no exceptions to this. The commanders are expected to accomplish their objectives now because they will have less to work with later.
3. The troops remaining are instructed to transition from an active combat role to a training role as rapidly as possible.
4. The Iraqi government (what ever one comes to power) is told it is sink or swim time. The United States has given them the opportunity and the means to make their own way. As my redneck buddies would say "Yer on yer own cuz Im outta here!"

[renie408]

30. That is more in line with my thinking

I am more along the lines of "GET OUT ASAP" rather than "GET OUT NOW".

I do think we need to start withdrawing troops both for the sake of the goodwill of OUR people and for the goodwill of the Middle East. I am just not sure I think a month is a reasonable time table.

[kenny blankenship]

9. For YEARS this country was "headed out"

of Vietnam. Over 20,000 more Americans were killed (than had already died), and God only knows how many more Vietnamese lost their lives as the consequence of that typically weaselly centrist dishonesty: "oh, we're leaving, but it will be peace with honor. We're leaving but we have to first stabilize the Saigon Center for Puppetry Arts--then we can go."

"Longer organized pullout" is in practical effect only a front for prolonging and continuing the war. There's always an excuse handy for the warmongers and anything other than "we leave NOW/ASAP" lets them find and exploit those excuses--eg, we can't leave 'til we secure the border areas, we can't leave 'til we get our POWs back, we can't leave with so many MIAs, we can't leave while the insurgency is consolidating its grip on areas we don't control, we can't leave until the Sunni insurgency and the Shia dominated gov't in league with Revolutionary Iran sign some meaningless treaty, etc. ...

If the General staff were told to wrap it up and not charged with the task of killing more American GIs to cover up for Bush's failed war-policy, all uniformed Americans could be out of there in 2 months.

[renie408]

15. While very similar, this isn't Vietnam. It isn't a 'do over' for either

side.

Pulling out of Iraq too soon will not retroactively repair the fact that we pulled out of Vietnam too late.

On the other hand, this isn't a chance for the war enthusiasts to do Vietnam 'better'.

This is Iraq with a unique blend of cultural and social problems. It is also in, whether we like it or not, an extremely sensitive area for the entire world, which Vietnam was not. All of that should have been what kept George from blundering into the area to 'bring Democracy to the Middle East.' But it didn't and we are there now.

BTW...I am not precisely against getting out now. But before I start writing my congressmen that we should leave now, I would like to examine the situation and not just run on gut reaction.

[kenny blankenship]

26. It's not a gut reaction it's a cold hard fact:

we have screwed it up. It's screwed. Bad outcomes were, of course, guaranteed the moment Bush invaded. Many people could see the overwhelmingly likelihood of that before the invasion; but now it's obvious and inescapable. It's a fact. Ever watch someone close to you, like a family member or classmate or friend, screw up their life? After some point in their early life the possibilities for them begin to cloud over and close. In early adulthood they make BIG mistakes with lasting consequences. After a point the damage is done and there's nothing anyone can do to "fix" their problems for them and give them a "working" life again. Watching America go Chimperial in Middle East has been like that. The only real question that remains is: how bad will it already be for us when we wise up, when we "hit bottom" and leave Iraq? Leaving won't be the end of liabilities for us--hardly!-- but it will stanch the ongoing flow of American lives, American money (or maybe I should say instead "Chinese credit") and we can at least begin to put this sordid misadventure in the past. We can begin to put it behind us.

None of their "unique blend of cultural and social problems" over there in Mesopotamia happen to be things we can "fix" with our bombs or tanks. Many of them are older than our Constitution, some are even older than Magna Carta. And we, foreign infidel interlopers on the scene but without a clue, are about the last people on Earth who can sort these problems out for them. Any "help" we offer is received as an insult and a provocation to carbomb. Even the political parties who have benefitted from our invasion want us out. Now.

The dithering position of continuing to fight the War On Iraq while "pulling out in an organized fashion" is much like watching someone bargain with death. You can't. It's here. Failure has happened. Stupidity has happened. You can't bargain with it and make terms. War is a win or lose thing, much like the death it spawns. Death is either here or not here. War is either won or lost. We have lost and many people are dead. Saying that you will withdraw over time--that is, to consent to lose at some future date--doesn't save any face although it's intended to. The only person fooled by doing this is oneself. Some bad things will ensue from withdrawal but those ill after-effects are coming to us and to Iraq whether we leave now or leave later, and many bad things are already happening. You can't make the bad consequences just "go away" by delaying the acknowledgement of defeat. And you can't act like staying there in Iraq (until you get good and ready to face facts) is somehow free of charge. Every week that we stay is ANOTHER billion dollars borrowed with interest from the People's Republic of China. Every week, Americans die for no good reason--and the survivors here at home more and more doubt and distrust their own country because of it. Every week even more Iraqis die, and MORE oaths of blood vengeance are sworn against this country and its citizens. I for one support acknowledging our mistake by leaving, and as soon as possible putting a halt to the continuing injury and insult we are inflicting on the people of that country and that region. If we are sincere about helping them, we will take their point of view seriously and get the hell out, henceforth to offer monetary rebuilding assistance from a RESPECTFUL distance.

[renie408]

33. Very good analogy

I know exactly what you mean and it brings me a fresh perspective that I had not considered. We have lots of kids going in and out of our lives because of my job. I have seen some of them that seemed as grounded and well prepared for life as the rest stumble and just never be able to get back on their feet again. We had one 18 year old come to live with us for about six months. I was convinced that if we could give him a stable home environment, a good job (he worked for my husband) and enough caring, he would be able to get out of the hole he was in. He never did. We finally just had to cut him loose. It was heartbreaking, but it taught me that you can’t ‘fix’ other people. You can throw them the rope, but they have to grab it and pull themselves up.

So, I guess now I am wondering the best way to throw Iraq the rope and when do we cut line if they can’t get themselves back onto their feet?

Also, I think it would be arrogant to try to 'fix' Iraq's social or cultural problems. That is pretty much what got us into trouble in the first place, trying to make them more like us. I am thinking more of the best way to leave Iraq to the Iraqis. I am thinking more of infrastructure and security for your Average Joe Iraqi, not trying to 'make' them be like anything.

One of the things my husband and I frequently talk about is that there in Iraq is couple who love each other very much (like we do), who have two kids who are 9 and 14 (like we have) that they care about more than anything (like we do). We think about what it would be like to try to raise your children in a place where it isn't safe to go outside, you have no reliable power or clean water to drink, where the hospitals are understaffed and undersupplied, where if the situation swings just a little bit one way your wife and daughter will be plunged back into the Middle Ages and where the farthest into the future you can even imagine thinking is where you are going to get the water to cook your next meal. I know things were not Disneyland in Iraq before we went into there. But at least they knew the ground rules and which toes not to step on. And they had SOME working infrastructure. Now it is edging towards chaos. I just want to be able to do something about THAT.

[snappyturtle]

49. Amen.

I don't think staying and gradually pulling out will help the Iraqis.
We got rid of their "evil-doer" and his evil doing sons. It seems as if their problems are exacerbated by our presence....and we're blowing up more and more of their country every day we're there hence more reparations. Their biggest problems are internal and none of our business. We've made a mess of it and I don't believe staying will make it any better. But you know we're building military bases there and an enormous embassy so when do you think the administration will be willing to leave? 2500 NG just left MN this past weekend for 18 month tours!

[leesa]

12. Send lots of transport helicopters now and leave.

[renie408]

18. Yes, I get that we can get out quickly.

But still, nobody can explain WHY that is the best solution.

[jody]

14. An organized retreat would take perhaps 15 -30 days with equipment where

the interim destination is Kuwait. Retreat without major equipment would take perhaps 3-5 days.

[renie408]

19. Wow. That IS fast. Do you think that is the best thing to do?

I swear, I am not trying to obfuscate. Depending on the day, and sometimes several times in a single day, I swing from thinking getting out ASAP is the right thing to do to thinking we need to back out a little more slowly.

I am all about getting out. I just want to be as informed about the options for leaving as possible before I start petitioning my congressmen.

To be dead honest, OUT NOW does not make sense to me. But it seems to make SO much sense to so many other people that I feel like I need to understand it.

[jonnyblitz]

21. the best thing to do, renie408, is to "google "and do some

reading on this like i did awhile back . I don't have the concentration (too many distractions here) or patience to gather my thoughts and write a coherent essay to explain to you in great detail exactly why I think this way (out now). ALL i can say is once we invaded and began occupying all, PERFECT solutions flew out the window and we have the lesser of evils to choose from. TO me, any DEM who thinks THEY have a better plan for occupying is a bit arrogant. the whole point of the big DC march on the 24th was to "get out now", not get out 2 years under a better plan for occupying by the DEMS. Somebody should ask the Iraqi's what they want us to do...

[renie408]

31. I have

I have searched through the internet and read papers, etc. I just like to get the thoughts of 'real' people, too. Also, I see so many people here saying "Out now" and really wondered what they base it on.

Plus, I am chatty so this form of information gathering suits my nature.

[AlphaCat]

20. I think you've asked a GREAT bunch of questions.

[zanne]

24. It's what a fundie woman says to her husband...

after the twelfth kid.

[Spurt]

25. Leaving in another year will..

...be no less damaging than leaving today. Neither option will be without pain.

It is time to stop killing people and breaking things. Too much damage has already been done.

If foreign invaders were in my town, I'd harrass them until they left - so it is with Joe Iraqi.

The current strategy isn't working and isn't going to. Why sustain it a moment longer?

[renie408]

34. You may be right

It just 'feels' wrong for us to go in and throw Iraq into civil unrest, destroy big fat chunks of their infrastructure and then to say, "Sorry, those last guys running our country were real dicks. You can have what's left of your country back now."

[Spurt]

43. It is indeed wrong to just return what's left.

That's why the bills must be paid for what has been broken.
But the rebuilding should be done by the 80% of Iraqi's who are unemployed, not by Halliburton contractors.

[Coexist]

32. that the condom broke?! n/t

sorry, when I read the headline - I laughed out loud.

[Nederland]

35. Or perhaps

...oh my God I forgot to take my pill the past three days?!

[renie408]

36. Jeez, I am slow. I just figured out what the hell you were talking about

[mithnanthy]

44. Or...

What Babs SHOULD HAVE said to GHWbush. (gross thought of them breeding, UGH! sorry)

[welshTerrier2]

41. throwing good money, and lives, after bad ...

we've been in Iraq for 2.5 years ...

to make an argument to remain would require either a belief that 1. progress has been made or 2. changes to the current strategy will be made ...

we should leave Iraq either immediately or in the near-term because 1. no progress has been made ... in fact, things have gotten much worse ... and 2. bush has no intention of changing anything he's doing ... if you haven't noticed, this is NOT an administration that admits its mistakes ...

if we remain in Iraq, we will only bring about more of the same ...

[sandnsea]

45. Cindy says "now" doesn't mean NOW

"CS: When we say now, we don't mean that they can all come home tomorrow. I hope everybody knows that. We have to start by withdrawing our troops from the cities, bringing them to the borders and getting them out. We have to replace our military with something that looks Arabic, something that looks Iraqi, to rebuild their country. You know, they have the technology, they have the skills, but they don't have any jobs right now."

There aren't any political "out now" people who actually mean right NOW. Most of them mean the exact same thing the majority of the Democratic Party means, but for some reason the word "success" baffles the "out now" people to the point that they miss the strategies are the same. I've chatted with some and they say that "out now" is a good buzz phrase and gets people to listen to the details of creating stability and an orderly withdrawal. I think it's confusing as all hell, but what do I know.

Cindy Sheehan interview, 9/29/05:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3204

[Stinky The Clown]

48. This is the most rational thing I've read (apart from the questions) .....

..... in this thread.

'Out Now' is not a literal statement.

The positions on this war are but two:

1. Stay and build empire with a US face on it

2. Get out and leave no trace of American control

I honestly know of no Dem who holds position 1. I honestly think a few Republicans are with them.

I also honestly believe the junta holds position 1, but couches it in position 2 rhetoric. To call them liars is to speak the truth.

So the debate on our side is what 'Out Now' looks like. And that can be an honest debate. I'm neither a military or a middle east expert, so I don't know. The two best plans (albeit neither one is perfectly clear to me and both seem to still be evolving) are those from Feingold and Clark.

Engage the neighbors. Put a local face on things. Beat feet.

The end of blowing up of shit and the killing of the citizenry needs to happen yesterday. The actual removal of American boots from Iraq soil will take longer.

We must also realize that there is an affinity in the middle east for theocracies and Islamic style democracies. We must not only realize that, we must accept it. So, too, must we stop the knee-jerk vilification of Iran and Syria. While they won't be our first choice as invitees to tea, neither are they inherently evil. And they live there and have more right to be involved in their neighbor's business than we do.

Lastly, we need to stop suckling on the teat of oil. At the end of the day, that is the one issue that forms the wedge between us and the middle eastern, oil-rich countries. They have it. We want it and need it. We're stronger and we like to blow shit up. They hate that about us. For that last point, I don't blame them.

We need a massive technological effort to develop alternate energy now. A call, not to arms but to books. Engage our own scietific community. Subsidize the effort. Make the goal .... five years? To have viable, reasonably priced alternate fuel transportation and residential energy. Wean industry later. If we start with the people first, the benefits will be clear to John and Jane Q. and the push to 're-energize' industry will be a popular cause.

lastly, tell the fucking Saudi's to take a hike.

Oh ..... and a **real** state for Palestine. Safe and secure. Bitch slap Israel if need be. In a a nice way, of course.

edited to clarify a statement in the body of this post.

[sandnsea]

50. The 64,000 Dollar Question

What in the hell is so damned different from what your saying and the following, because I just don't get it.

First, we should formally disclaim any interest in permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq;

clearly shift the primary responsibility of defending the country to the Iraqi military (with embedded Coalition troops),

and adopt a joint military strategy based on proven principles of counterinsurgency. The last point means abandoning Vietnam-style "search and destroy" missions against the insurgency, and instead focusing on progressively securing territory where reconstruction can proceed and normal civic life can resume.

Second, we should launch a new political strategy aimed relentlessly at winning Sunni support for the new government, and at isolating jihadists.

Third, we should muster all our diplomatic resources to create a more supportive international environment for the new Iraqi government.

We should cash our sizable chits with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to work directly with Iraqi Sunni Arabs, using economic incentives where possible, to undermine support for insurgency and encourage political engagement.

[Stinky The Clown]

51. I didn't think I was disagreeing with you

As I said, there can be honest debate on the strategy, but the goal has to be complete American withdrawal in as short a time as possible.

Is that a month? Probably not. A year? Maybe/Likely. Two years? In the worst case, but no longer, that's for sure!

[sandnsea]

52. The strategy outlined

is from the DLC. It's not substantially different than the other one I posted, which is Cindy's. We could have a unified voice on Iraq, but because of one word, success, we don't. I think it's the single most abysmal failure of liberals of all stripes, possibly ever. And it's all because of people who have dug themselves into political trenches and absolutely refuse to budge.

[LynnTheDem]

54. What about what the vast majority of IRAQIS want?

Which is us the fuck OUT of THEIR country?

Oh but what would those little people know, we know SO much better what's best for them. And we need to assuage our national guilt over breaking their country.

So let's IGNORE what the Iraqis want and stay...DRIP DRIP DRIP goes the blood.