Maliki's plan contained, preciously phrased, many of the things most experts say need to be done to get us out of this mess but which Bush adamantly opposes:

* Amnesty
* Partial reversal of the de-Baathification
* More restraint on methods used by both Iraq and our troops
* Release of those being detained without charges
* A timetable (not for US withdrawal, but for Iraqi forces to take over, the condition Bush has set)

This raises the possibility that the situation may be resolved by the face-saving means of having Maliki appear to be directing the reversal of course. (Some Bush-friendly papers have even suggested that the White House 'orchestrated' Maliki's list.)

I doubt that they 'orchestrated' it, but may have influenced some aspects.

BTW, the Maliki plan pretty much had to be the plan sooner or later, didn't it?

Pretty much. Still, it's a bit puzzling. We have this for today's news:


All last week, we had Casey himself talking up major troops withdrawals. We have Maliki's ongoing push in Bagdad and environs to demonstrate Iraqis ability to manage their own security, and his remarks yesterday about a near-future change. We have Japan pulling out their troops right now, and Britain not planning to move those scheduled to withdraw from S. Iraq in a month or two. (That is, they're bringing them home, not redeploying them within Iraq.) We have Australia who just took their guys home under the same circumstances, and Canada considering it.

Are they all trying to steamroller Bush on this? Is he fighting his allies, Malikia, his generals on this issue? Does Bush really want to stay in force for an extended time?

There's no reason not to implement some of those options slowly. Gradually get the old Baathists back involved, let out the least dangerous patriotic Iraqis, draw down forces.

But that's a far cry from running screaming into the night to hide in Okinawa so the Democrats can gain a political victory by claiming a US military loss.

Now now, arti, hold the mudslinging in this forum, remember?

That's hardly mud, sarcasm at most, and the facts are democrats do win by continually claiming military defeat.

Of course you're the boss. Feel free to delete my second sentence if you please.

But I'm curious. What's the advantage of implementing them "slowly"? Won't that keep the insurgents trying to drive us out? Give the Shia militia more time to get entrenched? Won't doing it "slowly" merely turn the gas on the fire from a fire hose to a garden hose?

(And no, I don't think we should pull out very far. Keep a lot in Afghan, and a lot still in Qatar, be prepared to move in about 40,000 in a matter of weeks if need be, and keep maybe 10,000 holding the green zone and airport as a bridgehead if needed.)

Apply carrots and sticks as required. Don't just free everyone, reinstall the baathists, pay off all the militias and draw down rapidly. That will appear like just looking for a retreat. Work the most receptive first, then whittle down the resistors until you get to the dregs. Hopefully by then the Iraqis will be doing most of the work.

You folks want a set piece, and this is no simple chess game.

No, it's not. It's a chess game where the longer we keep playing, the more likely we are to lose the match.

Gradually, over 6 months to a year? Yes. Over 3-5 years, as Bush is hinting (we will still have troops there when the next pres takes office)?

That's a losing strategy. We don't HAVE that much time before the situation goes belly up. Now, under the guise of "Iraqi sovreignity", is the best chance we're going to have.

We missed our window of opportunity in the 6-8 months after we deposed Saddam, and now time is not on our side.

The slower, the more painful. Like pulling a bandage off.

Fort Green Zone will take more than 10K to defend methinks. The perimeter goes out a mortar shot's worth. Can't just hold the wall to be safe.

Baghdad must be quieted. The Green Zone is not invulnerable.

I would offer that the qualifying factors here are our experts on the ground, our Generals in the field not our politicians. We should give full confidence to our Generals assessments and recommendations on the time table and implementation of a pull-out of our troops based on their real time evaluation of the Iraqi situation, the security forces ability to take over the policing and protection of the country and the pace of successes, by the Iraqi government, in the integration of segments, if not the whole, of the insurgency and various militias into the new democratic Iraqi society. Once segments of the insurgency and/or militias join in with the government, I believe the rest, less Al-queda, will fall into line, not wanting to loose out on early negotiated opportunities, ie: jobs or integration into the government, and will eventually turn on Al-queda.

I would offer that PM Maliki and staff have a better grasp and understanding of the nuances of the Iraqi people and the desires and concerns of the various sects and tribes and are better qualified to determine what would work best in forming and maintaining a coalition government and society.

`

Zarqawi didn't seem to think so. Dems can only repackage the language of defeat so many ways before it becomes obvious they're openly lobbying for it and using defeatism to hinder the war effort.

It doesn't make it easy, but considering how many wars the area has gone through and how many have died from sanctions and starvation, there is a great opportunity to change things for the positive, but we have to be realistic. The lefties want a simple plan, and there just isn't one. Too many terrorists in too many places.

Well, that would be the mystery. We're on our 3rd general who recommends a drawdown, this one and the last one leaking to the press that they were so recommending. The generals on the ground keep saying our presence is fuelling the insurgency, we went too far with de-Baathification, we/Iraq need the mid-level bureaucrats and commanders back, blah blah the Maliki plan, roughly...

And then they get retired, or reassigned, we get a new general, a few months go by, we start hearing (blah, blah, the Maliki plan again).

How many generals have to say the same thing? Yes, I -do- trust the generals on the ground, and I'm wondering why we keep ignoring their advice.

And on another board Bee is touting the fact there's a planned draw down. The only problem is Murtha isn't getting the credit.

The left can't even stick to one complaint.

I don't think it's a fair assumption to say the Dems are for defeat. I do think it's fair to say that many of them think we have done as much as we can expect to.

It's not even just that, Space. It's a conviction that staying too long will actually start losing us what little we've gained so far, re the overall WOT.

'Arturo_Vandelay,' et al,

All this talk, "stay the course" 'versus' "cut-n-run" is a political ploy. There are no significant elements of American Society that are advocating "defeat."

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 26 2006, 05:37 PM) [snapback]216062[/snapback]

That's hardly mud, sarcasm at most, and the facts are democrats do win by continually claiming military defeat.

Of course you're the boss. Feel free to delete my second sentence if you please.

(COMMENT)

One side uses political dramatics to unfold and display their warrior image and their absolute undying loyalty to a War President in a life and death struggle to preserve America. One side claims to be more patriotic than the other with only the altruistic motive of being totally heroic in saving the defenseless citizenry from the horrors that will be inflected upon them by fanatics if they are subject to and hampered by doctrine, ethics and oversight (DEO). In this epic like drama, against a backdrop of a post-War tragedy, the intrigue of each side playing leaked intelligence against one another, the rebellion of the liberated in the Occupied Territories, and betrayal of the Constitution in the name of the national defense, one side claims the other of anti-Americanism, treason and cowardliness. Only war can save us and victory can only be achieved if we unresistingly bend to the will of the government - which has the only view of the real truth. There is no alternative view that is not dangerous to the national security interest.

Each side pushes the other side away. There is no position that either side will assume that can establish a unity government ("uniter, not a divider"). The loyalty and integrity of former veterans and retired General Officers are tarnished. Each side of the issue exaggerates the truth beyond the reality of what it is. Political lies and distortions have become accentuated beyond imagination. This is the new profile of America, the democracy, the Superpower that must wall itself off from it neighbors.

This is really the outcome of the leadership of today. Can we ever become America again? Or will we win the War on Terrorism in my lifetime?

Most Respectfully,

Not advocating defeat. Portraying and promoting defeat, to gain political benefit from casting blame.

[color="#ff0000"][/color]

The leadership, or the "loyal opposition"? I think your own feelings are fairly obvious, but what about those of us that think uniting BEHIND the president is more important than nitpicking when our representatives have VOTED to send troops into harm's way?

Kerry saying he made a mistake and blaming Republicans is too much like Flip Wilson proclaiming "the devil made me do it".

'Arturo_Vandelay,' et al,

I have a different perspective.

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 27 2006, 11:48 PM) [snapback]216499[/snapback]

Not advocating defeat. Portraying and promoting defeat, to gain political benefit from casting blame.

(COMMENT)

That is simply not accurate. No significant segment of American Society is "promoting defeat." In fact, the war was already won, three years ago. The criticism of the Administration is generally lumped into two broad areas:

• Pre-war pronouncement which were "protrayed" as facts and evidence "promoting" a necessary and sufficient condition for war. (A necessary strategy to rally a pissed-off nation to attack anybody; the 911 card!)
• Post-War administration of the occupied territories and claiming that "no one" foresaw the potential for an insurgency.

This is history, and not merely casting blame. But the biggest criticism which will come in the historical context, is the fact that "valid criticisms" of the post-War occupation was suppressed in order to allow the Administration to continue to make mistakes; and solutions were suppressed until all the windows of opportunity faded away.

The "suppression" of open discussion, being billed as "deatism," is probably the most compelling evidence that the ethics of the American Demcoracy has changed. When I served in Vietnam, there was a famous saying of the time.

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 27 2006, 11:48 PM) [snapback]216499[/snapback]

The leadership, or the "loyal opposition"? I think your own feelings are fairly obvious, but what about those of us that think uniting BEHIND the president is more important than nitpicking when our representatives have VOTED to send troops into harm's way?

(COMMENT)

As I said, supra! We fight for the right for you to support any position you deem worthy. It is your right. But I question, if we were told the unvarnished truth in October 2002, if we would have gone to Iraq at all. Although a case could be made for other regions in the world, much stronger than Iraq, I doubt if we would have gone to Iraq if the truth were known.

Washington was a little bit nuts in those days. There was a lot of plastic patriotism floating around after 911, and I am not sure that the center of the frisbie was not the White House.

When one hears this - "VOTED to send troops into harm's way" - argument, one tends to think that putting troops in "Harm's Way" is natural, and it is Unnatural for a patriot to try and bring them home again - and not send them back for the second, third and fourth time. But, "stay the course" means "keep the troops in Harm's Way;" to continue to expose them to danger that they don't have to be exposed to.

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 27 2006, 11:48 PM) [snapback]216499[/snapback]

Kerry saying he made a mistake and blaming Republicans is too much like Flip Wilson proclaiming "the devil made me do it".

(COMMENT)

The Honorable John Kerry is but one man. If you don't like what he says, don't listen. But I suppose that once someone finds that the facts were slanted, and the reality (once revealed) bears no relationship to the pre-War renderings, can be a justification for a change in position.

Most Respectfully,

Brother Rocco... we don't always agree... and sometimes you make me a little crazy... but I jUSt want to say that I really honestly respect you...

Salute *

Hope I'm permited to go off topic jUSt to say that.

There is no shortage of acid tests here as exemplified by the NYT. It is one thing to be in loyal opposition and another to light the match.

This board is a good example. I would submit that there is no blind and absolute faith in the Republicans by any members on the right. Just acceptance of the lesser of evils.

Contrast that to the attitudes of many here on the left.

What? The "lesser evil" is "staying the undefined course", and the greater lies in pointing out that, whether entering this war was right or wrong, we have already reached our peak of what we're likely going to be able to accomplish, and that as long as we present our occupation as continuing for 3 or 5 more years, or forever, we are eroding those modest gains, and are now going backwards?

It's "treason" to point out that the insurgency continues to grow, primarily because we'ver reached the point where refusing to consider a timetable for exit, we stimulate ever more resisistance to an open-ended occupation, and that thereby "our" (Bush's) refusal to discuss leaving within a couple of years creates, at an accelerating pace, a backlash to 'throw the US out, since it won't leave".

The window of opportunity is closing. Fast. Another 6 months of this, and we'll find our selves in a situation where we can't leave, EVER. If we stay so long, and continue our current daily activities in a way that ever increases man-in-the-street support for throwing us out, added to the risk of making the current "unity" government dependend on the permanent presence of large numbers of US troops which are needful to keep the "unity" government, uh, not-dead...

This returns (and I'm going to violate my own rule against blame-placing) to the initial unclarity about our reasons for going in. If the ACTUAL, not advertized, reason for going in was to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, then of course, "stay the course" is great. Staying the course will produce a lot of grief, but achieve the goal of a permanent presence, for 10, 20, 50 years. Certainly, staying hte present course will produce that outcome, if that is the outcome desired.

But, if that is NOT the desired outcome, defining any withdrawl at any time for any reasons, including a request by our proxy government that we prepare to leave, is going to produce the outcome of a permanent presence, whether that was the desired outcome or not.

We are in a position where, as time passes and events develop and the insurgency grows and the American public (2/3 of it) remains convinced that Bush has no plan, our options drop away, one by one, until we end up with only ONE option: Permanent presence, for decades, because any chance of declaring victory and going home has passed.

It's time to face the reality: The "victory" condition--a stable democratic Iraq that can stand on its own and will not de facto partition under a nominal central gubmit--is receding as a possible outcome. The longer we wait to wean that gubmint off US support, the farther than "victory" condition recedes, until that "victory" becomes an unachielvable phantom, and we are left with only one option.

Acceding to the Maliki option is our last, best, and probably ONLY chance to get out before permanent occuption becomes the only option available. Maliki, and the Iraqis in general and the insurgency in particular, know that we have reached (to use computer programming language), a major "decison node" that will present us with only two options: Withdrawal, as our announced intention, or permanent presence, as our unannounced by inevitable intention.

And, as I have said before, time is not on our side. If we continue to equivocate, the decision is gong to be made FOR us.

Been that way from the start.


I guess somebody forgot to tell Zarqawi. And from the "operational pause" and the talk of 10,000 body bags there's been a segment of the US body politic promoting every setback and downplaying every victory or success.



If we knew how history was going to turn out now we wouldn't be calling it history. I haven't seen a lot of criticism being suppressed. From day one of Bush's admin there's been almost constant criticism.

And I'd just assume not go back to Vietnam, since it's a blueprint for losing the war without losing the battles.Political defeat despite military victory.

'Arturo_Vandelay,' et al,

The sharing of the diversity in which we all see the war is important.

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 28 2006, 04:44 PM) [snapback]216607[/snapback]

Been that way from the start.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! But since the beginning, my views have changed, somewhat.

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 28 2006, 04:44 PM) [snapback]216607[/snapback]

I guess somebody forgot to tell Zarqawi. And from the "operational pause" and the talk of 10,000 body bags there's been a segment of the US body politic promoting every setback and downplaying every victory or success.

(COMMENT)

There are two points to be made here.

• The introduction of the independent terrorist (Abu Masab al-Zarqawi) had no relationship to what people in the US thought, said or demonstrated. He would have come to Iraq even if 100% of the population was for the current Administration's strategy.
  

  QUOTE

  26 March 2003
  
  U.S., Coalition Troop Strength in Iraq Nears 300,000, March 26, 2003
  (Defense Department Report, March 26: Iraq operational update)
  
  There are now 250,000 U.S. ground forces inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition forces, Army Major General Stanley McChrystal, vice director for operations at Joint Staff, said at a Pentagon briefing March 26. Those forces have advanced more than 220 miles in six days in spite of difficult weather, he said.
  SOURCE: http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_03/alia/A3032614.htm
  

  
  
• While I never thought that the US would suffer combat deaths would be as high as 4%-to-5% (KIA (10K/250K)), it was actually not an unreasonable figure to estimate, given that the world was lead to believe that Iraq had and would use NBC weapons. But after the reduction of troops to 150,000 by 2004, the casualty rate jumped. Taking into consideration the outstanding effort by military medical staffs, 2000 post-War dead, and 8000 critically wounded post-War, and another 5000 non-critcal WIA in the theater (post-War), the realism of the estimates were not far off. And, of course, we have not counted the coalition contractors killed or wounded in the line of duty.

QUOTE

"It's just not appropriate yet to be thinking in terms of independent anything in Iraq," LTG Dempsey said (who started the war as a BG). "This, remember, is a nation at war, and although they have taken responsibility for battle space, and large swaths of it . . . they are not independent at this point in time."
SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6062701552.html

Notice how LTG Dempsey characterizes the environment: "A nation at war." He goes out of his way to emphasize it; asking us to remember.

While we are technically not an Occupation Force, having stood-up the Government and are forceably protecting it from being toppled by its own people, we need to critically assess what our "victories" really are.

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 28 2006, 04:44 PM) [snapback]216607[/snapback]

If we knew how history was going to turn out now we wouldn't be calling it history. I haven't seen a lot of criticism being suppressed. From day one of Bush's admin there's been almost constant criticism.

(COMMENT)

I see. You have not heard the "aiding and abetting" claims, the implication of cowardness in the "cut'n'run," or the cry of treason in the "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" chant. I believe that the Party of the Administration is engaged in rhetoric to deflect discussion on what can be done to repair the mistakes made.

I noted today, the hearings on the obsolete pre-1991 Gulf War I CB weapons found abandone on the battlefield. Trying to make hay out of it as justification for the War. Nothing could be more disrespectful of the truth and the reality of what was claimed in the period from 911 to May 2003 and beyond. Yet, we not only allow it, we encourage it. What does that say about our Party and the respect for the truth?

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 28 2006, 04:44 PM) [snapback]216607[/snapback]

And I'd just assume not go back to Vietnam, since it's a blueprint for losing the war without losing the battles. Political defeat despite military victory.

(COMMENT)

Well, actually, I wasn't trying to raise RVN as an issue or comparitive analysis, but to date the time of the saying. However, since you mentioned it, it is easy to win every battle and still lose the war. We certainly don't want to be in Iraq, for a decade, and finally decide it is a losing proposition.

QUOTE

"It's my belief . . . that we're going to be in Iraq for a long time," Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee yesterday. "It's open-ended."
Source: ibib

Most Respectfully,

This is a virtual double of the plan Senate Democrats were calling for and that was denounced as "cut and run." The only difference being the timing of those withdrawals weren't necessarily politically timed to coincide with elections.

Is it? Or not?

The plan appears to be the same. The only difference is in who proposed it. That's blatant dishonesty.

Democratic LAWMAKERS ought to shut the fark up. Let the MILITARY and COMMANDER IN CHIEF make the timetable for MILITARY decisions.

Only with your final sentence, do I agree.

Yet Republican "lawmakers" should schedule troop withdrawals to coincide with electionsn?

Are you really that stupid?

Unfarking believable.

I'm quite sure that any Bush-backers left are the bottom of the barrel in the brains dept.

Look at Katz.

Feel free to delete FJ.





This from the self-proclaimed paragon of "rational" discourse?

Could have fooled me.