Third Party & Independents: Archives

“At what point do we remove ourselves completely from the picture?”

We still have many thousands of troops in Germany nearly sixty years after we defeated the Nazis. Iraq probably won’t be secure without U.S. troops for many years. The neighborhood is dangerous and there are some advatages to having U.S. troops forward deployed. We accepted more or less permanent garrisons in Europe and Asia. Some of these can be drawn down as they have fulfilled their purpose. U.S. troops will be in Iraq for generations and this will be true under Democrats and Republicans.

I think your real question is, how long will they be fighting as they are now? About six months. The bad guys will make as much trouble as possible to try to stop Iraq from being a sovereign country again. We can’t and won’t let that happen. The Kurdish region has had defacto self government for about 12 years and is relatively peaceful. The Shiites know that they will dominate a free Iraq and already are starting to come around. That leaves the Sunni triangle. If elections can’t be held there, the Sunni’s will have no voice in thier own future. As they come to realize that, they too will start to come around. This will not be smooth or bloodless, but it will happen.

Next year at this time, people will be saying how lucky GWB was that things worked out in spite of his policy. It will take about 20 years before he gets credit. The same lag happened with Truman and Reagan.

There is a much more elegant solution to Iraq. Make the case, and it is easily made on the face of it, that should America pull out of Iraq, the ensuing chaos and influx of fighters from surrounding countries, Iran, Turkey (Kurds), etc., will embroil Middle Eastern nations in conflicts that will spill over into their own borders.

Then, announce a date certain, say January, on which the U.S. WILL PULL OUT! Tell the Middle Eastern nations to fill the void or waste decades of resources fighting the spill over and consequences of inaction.

Idea generated by myself upon reading Mr. Martin’s excellent article. It has merit, can be rationally defended in lieu of alternatives and alternative outcomes, and places American lives as a priority, places American taxes as a priority, and places American economic future as a priority. If America believes people should be responsible for themselves, then let them.

Jack,
It’s hard to imagine a long-term national concensus for Iraq being built upon lies. It’s plain and demonstrable, the invasion of Iraq was based upon lies, and foisted upon the public by the Bush administration.
Perhaps you disagree or deny that US policy there has been based upon lies. Maybe it was just a ‘miscalculation.’ But surely you’d agree, there is no concensus!
I don’t see how Bush or Kerry can avoid a loss in Iraq. We could turn the country into a parking lot, but I don’t count that as a win. Rotating troops into Iraq from Germany & Korea would alleviate the logistical nightmare for a little longer, as long as nothing happens anywhere else in the world.
I do not thing that’s a good assumption.
Iraqi elections are not even close to happening in January.
The end game is predictable. Iran will either control the entire country through the Shia majority in the south, or, more likely, civil war will split the country, still leaving Iran in control of the southern provinces.
I simply do not see how or why the Sunnis would accede to Shia ‘democracy.’ Given their history & animosity, it would be hard to come up with a surer way to deny the Sunnis their voice than to include them in a country dominated by a fundamentalist Shia majority.
Dividing the country into thirds seems like a logical resolution, except for these problems:
1) The Sunni portion would not have oil reserves,
2) The Shia portion would be allied with Iran, and placing a large portion of the worlds oil reserves under Iranian control will be bitter pill for the US to swallow, and 3) no neighboring country wants an independent Kurdish entity, since the neighbors have restive Kurdish minorities & histories of conflict.
Ever wonder why Iraq was ruled by a dictator?

Where do we go from here in Iraq depends much on the people of Iraq and the international community. America has the military and will to totally whip out every person opposing Iraq’s future. However, forcing a government on the people will only make things worse.

Listen to the Senate Forgien Relation Committee and you will see that Congress has an idea on how to win the war, But Bush is still refusing to accept their lead.

Jack—

I dearly hope you are right, but I fear you are not. What have the Sunni’s done up to this point to make you believe that they would ever capitulate, give up their arms, and willingly submit to rule by the Shia, their very old and bitter enemies? I submit it will never happen, but time I suppose will tell.

David—

Yours is a rather harsh solution, especially since we created the problem in the first place. Is it wise to cut and run leaving the Iraqi people to fend for themselves? Granted, I am temped to accept your solution but American has to try and regain some of the leadership and respect we have lost in the proceeding four years under Bush.

Perhaps a better solution could be found in partnership with Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the gulf states, which would find them providing security forces to replace U.S. forces. As you adroitly pointed out, providing troops would be in their own self interest. And then perhaps the Arab League can find a solution where we cannot, and bring peace and stability to Iraq and the whole region.

The only sticking point I see is Iran with its majority Sunni population. Would Iran help or hinder progress in Iraq, and would it come to the aid, militarily, if hailed by their Sunni brethren in Iraq against the Shia majority?

I like David’s Idea. I wonder if Iraq would become Syria and Iran’s stepchild then though? How would that leave the Saudi’s and Kuwaiti’s?

Another Lebanon in turmoil, adding Turkey and the Kurds in the mIx?

GW has dug us a monumental hole. There are those think tanks that say GW would be left with little choice, but to expand the conflict into Syria or maybe even Iran given their nuclear rattling.

If anyone has a chance to ameliorating the Bush Blunder, it is John Kerry. Putin might even sigh a bit of relief at not restarting the cold war in the middleast.

Perhaps the sane memebers of the GOP will push aside Rummy and Dick and allow wiser heads to prevail. Perhaps 41 will take 43 to the woodshed for a talk. I prefer my chances with Kerry. The GOP were the loudest of cheerleaders and need to be held accountable, too.

Look guys, we can’t treat this as if we just stepped in something and now are trying to find a place to wipe it off our collective shoes.
As I have posted before, American politicians seem to like to go into countries, screw around for awhile and then try to make nice.
It would be immoral to leave Iraq now or any time in the near future, without creating some sort of stability.
I realize that many of you could give a rat’s patute about how the other countries of the world think about America, but if we don’t do something , and do something soon, Iraq will seem like small potatoes compared to what’s going to break out everywhere else.
George you stepped in it, now do something about it.

jeeze-o-pete that post got messed up, here’s it corrected:

Although brutal, David’s plan seems to be our best option. Nothing good can come of us staying in Iraq, at the rate things are going it looks like we will end up turning it into a parking lot anyway.

Israel would never allow any sort of agreement with the Arab states. Any move made that would strengthen any of the Arab states would be met with swift Israeli upheaval. The last thing I want to see is more Palestinians get screwed as a result of our poor judgment.

I say, let them work it out for themselves. It wouldn’t be pretty, it might not work, and if it does it definitely will take some time. But all that is better than wasting American resources in a hopeless situation.

As for trying to regain respect, let’s be firm where it counts. Pressure China to cut N. Korea off, Pressure Putin to expand rather than rescind Russia’s democratic achievement, stop endorsing blatant dictatorships like Pakistan, and do something about situations like Sudan. We don’t need to be wasting our time in Iraq when there is more important work to be done.

David:

To leave Iraq prematurely would simply allow those with the most weaponry to take control. Would that kind of chaotic anarchy make it wrth having lost 1000 men and women? Do we not owe it to them, and to the rest of the soldiers to at least leave the possibility of a workable plan in Iraq?

We will be in Iraq a long time, not in the same numbers, but rather in a fashion similar to that of Germany. We need to allow Iraq to grow, but just as you do not take a young infant child and expect him to survive on his own, neither can we expect Iraq to survive without help.

V.Ed:

Imagine how our world would look had the Allies turned tail and ran during the Battle of the Bulge. WWII had started looking a bit better, and then all of a sudden, we were losing ground and taking immense casualties. What had gone wrong? Nothing—-rather, it was a last ditch effort by the Germans to break us.

Thank God and thank our political leaders who had the courage and will and fortitude to continue. Those are the same type of leaders we require now.

David, your option is notable, yet the outcome would leave America’s flanks wide open and force us to surrender our leadership in the world. However I commend you on thinking of a solution.

So, tell me what you think of my idea as a good starting point.

Yes, Bush has put our country in a very big and deep hole by using our troops as the World Police Department. The very subject Democrats and Republicans have been arguing for years in Congress. 9/11 did not change the question of the debate; however, the invasion of Iraq squarely has changed it. Now, where do we go from here?

First, America must do some hard arm twisting of all the major players involved. Iraq needs to have qualified leaders to bring peace to their land. Therefore, step one should be to have Belgium train 5,000 Iraq civilians as paramilitary and civilian leaders. The next step for Iraq should be to use our troops to secure a given area so the Iraq civilians can begin utilizing the 18 million dollars to bring basic services. As one area is squared away, our troops capture, secure, and let Iraq build their nation. Continue this policy until all of Iraq is rebuilt and civil order is in control.

Second, the international leaders with or without the consent of the UN must enforce the security of those countries that directly border Iraq. Multiple choose; A.) Neighboring countries establish no man zones and defend against all border crossings. B.) Iraq establishes no man zones and have US Air Force defend any violations. C.) America pushes for the establishment of a new United Federation of World Leaders which would have the ability to bring in their troops to settle armed disputes between the inhabitants of that land.

Third and a definite must for Iraq is to put their people to work. Somehow the international political and business leaders must find a way to reduce the 30% unemployment to 5% within the next year. Although this idea is not easily accomplished, money or lack of should not be the reason to allow the people of Iraq the right to earn a living.

The Living Standard Income of the entire world’s unskilled labor (High School Graduates) is totally out of harmony with the Professional (College Degree) Living Standard Income which the government caters to. Yes, a brain is a terrible thing to waste, but which part of society would the professional group like to give up? Unskilled labor has throughout history built the land of this earth to suit the current elite group of “Idiots in Charge.” America does have an option to the question;”Where do we go from here?” The question Bush and Kerry needs to answer right now is simple. “How do you plan on talking your way out of this one?”

jbod said: “To leave Iraq prematurely would simply allow those with the most weaponry to take control.”

WE HAVE THE MOST WEAPONRY, and we cannot take control, jbod. There is no logic in your statement.

Mr. Martin said “Is it wise to cut and run leaving the Iraqi people to fend for themselves?”

Is it wise Mr. Martin to stay and continually act as a magnet for terrorists, as a catalyst for anti-Americanism, and as a reminder of the most monumentally stupid strategic move ever made by an American administration?

To remain serves NONE of our ends in the long run, it only serves to save face for George W. Bush, et.al. at a cost to EVERYONE else.

If Kerry wants votes, let him stand for pulling out, else let him stand for Bush light, and fade into history as a wannabe.

Greg asked : “I wonder if Iraq would become Syria and Iran’s stepchild then though? How would that leave the Saudi’s and Kuwaiti’s?”

Greg, these are unanswerable questions. There are so bloody many variables in play in Iraq that not even a supercomputer could make accurate modelling predictions as to what will happen if we pull out. But, it does not take a supercomputer or a college degree to see that for the U.S. to remain indefinitely toward some goal of installing democracy and Iraqi stability in the region will have costs attached to it that far, Far, FAR outweigh removing one of the largest variables to instability, U.S. Presence and psuedo-control.

Look, Bush has changed the reasons for invading a number of times. Let us go back to the original premise: To remove Saddam Hussein and his regime. Mission Accomplished. Now, we need to prepare the Middle Eastern countries and their allies to pick up the ball, or not, and reinstate order in their own back yard. It has been shown in headline after headline since the invasion that our presence continues to destabilize the region, act as a magnet for terrorists and a catalyst for the growth of terrorism and its recruits.

Let us not revive the history of the Crusades in the name of such as GW Bush. The costs will be far too high, and GW Bush will not pay them, everyone else will.

Rocky said: “It would be immoral to leave Iraq now or any time in the near future, without creating some sort of stability.”

Perhaps, Rocky. But it will far far far more immoral to spend thousands more American lives, a half trillion American tax dollars or more bankrupting America, only to find that stability was never in the cards.

Look, with all the factions with impassioned cultural, historical, and religious conflicts dating back for generations, where can stability be found. Democracy and stability come with a unified people with a common passion, a common history, and a common trust in the political power governing them. To make bread you need a minimum of basic materials, yeast, flour, water, and heat. The basic ingredients for democracy and stability in Iraq are simply absent and the U.S. cannot give the Iraqis those ingredients.

All we can give Iraqis in the long run is a common enemy, US! And when we inevitably leave, they will still have to fight their civil war to find the resolution. And to delay it is to simply waste American lives, American tax dollars, American opportunities our resources could better be spent on with some guaranteed results and payback. Now that is the greatest immorality of all.

We went to eradicate the Saddam Hussein Regime which was outlaw. We did that. We are not magicians. We cannot fabricate peace and tranquility in Iraq out of thin air. We accomplished our mission. Now leave, giving the Middle East sufficient notice that the Saddam problem was theirs and ours. We fixed it. The rest is now their problem. Resolve it or pay for not resolving it. Our job is done.

Dan said, ” As for trying to regain respect, let’s be firm where it counts. Pressure China to cut N. Korea off, Pressure Putin to expand rather than rescind Russia’s democratic achievement, stop endorsing blatant dictatorships like Pakistan, and do something about situations like Sudan.”

Commendable, Dan. The opportunity cost in Iraq is enormous. As long as we are mired in Iraq militarily, we are effectively paralyzed militarily everywhere else in the world. The opportunity cost of staying in Iraq is just too damn high, and could also be perilous in our future.

It looks like whoever will be president next term will pull out of Iraq as soon as possible.

David-

The stated policy of the Bush admin is to use Iraq and Afghanistan as a foothold for democracy in the Middle East. All of the surrounding countries are led by people that would stand to loose a great deal if their country were to revolt for democracy. This has a couple of results.

1. Of course the progress in Iraq will cause unrest in the Middle East that was the plan to begin with. The enemy knows that democracy in Iraq will spread, and kill their fundamental dreams. So, they are putting all their effort into stopping progress in Iraq. Notice how the focus of most international terrorism has shifted away from hurting America to stopping Iraq from reaching stability?

2. Since the neighbors have a vested interest in stopping Iraq from reaching a stable democracy it would be counter-productive to give them a larger role in the countries stability.

3. Right now it appears that the foreign fighters are the ones driving this increase in violence. They are attacking the police because they know that the end is coming and they are doing anything to try and stall progress.

Now is not the time to cut and run, war is hard, and we are at war with terrorist. Our job is to kill more of them then they can handle. So far our military is doing an outstanding job. As long as they are there killing bad guys, let them do their job.

-D

Joe—

I would hardly equate what is going on in Iraq as a Battle of the Bulge type effort. It more like an ever widening pre-staged, well planned engagement. I do not advocate that we cut and run, rather that we come up with a plan to win this war decisively, and that will require more troops and a re-institution of the draft. Like it or not there it is.

We are either committed to winning this war or we are not, and if we are not, we will in the end be defeated as we were in Vietnam. Not only that but we run the risk of Afghanistan falling back into the hands of the Taliban of we do not get it together there as well.

The twin Wars have bee ill-run and ill-planned from the beginning. War is not a game; it is not a place for too many wrong decisions and then staying the course, committed to those wrong decisions. War should never be entered into lightly, or because we want to test some new theory of war formulated by those who have never set foot on a battlefield!

If the Powel Doctrine had been adhered to in Afghanistan, Iraq would never have been possible. So now my question still stands: Where do we go from here?

Mr. Remer—

It may not be wise to stay and continue to be a lighting rod for terrorist, but we made this bed and now we have to lie in it long enough to find a viable solution. I would love to see us leave, but to do so would at this juncture would be immoral and unjust.

What we need is a President not afraid to make the hard decisions and actually lead with wisdom and intelligence and not by lies, disinformation, platitudes, and sound-bites. This war is winnable if we give the military the resources to win it decisively.

David,
We’ve been hosing the people in these countries for decades. Mainly because it has been in the best interests of American big business.

Belive me, I don’t think we should have gone in there to begin with.
The problem is we have a delusional President who belives that God talks to him, and America is on a “crusade”, his word not mine, to make the world a safer place for democracy.
David, as for our soldiers, they knew what the job was when they signed up. That may sound callous to you, but if we cut and run now we might as well sit down and shut up as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
We shouldn’t be there but we are, those are the facts.
Let’s do the right thing and see this one through.

David:

So apparently you are advocating leaving Iraq and letting the people fend for themselves. Such a noble thing. Let’s transplant that idea to the Sudan and suggest that those innocent people fend for themselves too. Hell, its THEIR country, so why should we care if a few thousand, or perhaps a couple hundred thousand, people die.

You see how noble that idea is? Lets take it to Bosnia, where we should have allowed Milosevic free rein to ethnically cleanse the whole region.

John Kerry in the early 1970’s fought for the US to leave Viet Nam—-in doing so, he claimed there would be no real bloodbath. Yet thousands upon thousands died at the hands of butchers who were left unchecked. Is this the kind of solution you want now?

David, simply because you disagree with this war is no reason to abandon the people of Iraq.

Joebagodunts said:
“So apparently you are advocating leaving Iraq and letting the people fend for themselves. Such a noble thing. Let’s transplant that idea to the Sudan and suggest that those innocent people fend for themselves too. Hell, its THEIR country, so why should we care if a few thousand, or perhaps a couple hundred thousand, people die.”

It isnt pretty Joe, but frankly it doesn’t seem like we car if a few thousand die in the current situation either. At about 13,000 Iraqi civilians dead now, we don’t seem to be showing much concern for them.

To the Iraqi people, we are the overriding enemy right now. Everything else is put on hold until they get us to leave. The people will not accept us now, or in the future. Especially if we send more troops there and step up our military effort.

Sure if we leave the Iraqis will struggle for power and many more are sure to die, but if we stay even more Iraqi people are going to die fighting against us. This will only lead to more waste. Personally I think 200 biillion dollars is enough to spend on somthing that matters so little to our country.

Time to cut our losses and get out.

Joseph,
You stole my thunder with the link to today’s column by Novak. Apparently he liked my first post! Actually, it’s just putting together the pieces. The deal is already done, & we’re just waiting for the denouement. It doesn’t matter who wins the election. We’ll be out of Iraq in a year, like it or not, it’s just a matter of logistics.
Take a look at the link provided by Joseph.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html
Novak is simply laying the cards on the table, and it’s apparent what’s coming.
Here’s where the real fun begins!
Neither side can admit we’ll be pulling out soon, it’s political suicide. Watch those election speeches, and watch Kerry & Bush squirm. They both know it, but they can’t say it.
If Kerry wins, and Kerry draws down the troops next year, he’ll be castigated for weakness, and for abandoning the Iraqis to civil war. Have fun, Dems! That’s the sound of conservatives smacking their lips in anticipation of a 4 course meal of John Kerry.
If Bush wins, and withdraws, the administration will be excorciated for lying some more. Bush will claim victory for tossing out Saddam, but get real quiet about the results. Have fun, Repubs! Do I hear the Dems sharpening the long knives? Bon appetit!

Is Novak reading WatchBlog and borrowing ideas from folks here? Very interesting that his article appears a day after my Sept. 19 5PM assessment that the U.S. has no choice but to pull out.

At least it is nice to know thoughts originated here can also originate in D.C., even if only by pundits.

V.Ed:

I agree that we need to have good solid plans to win this war, and that leaving prematurely is not an option. I’d like to ask a question about your thoughts on the draft, and the need for it. In advance, I want you to know I’m asking an honest question—-not one directing blame at any past President.

The question revolves around the long held US idea of having sufficient military troops and machinery to handle a war on two separate fronts at one time. We are currently seeming to have trouble manning a war on a single front (I’m considering Afghanistan and Iraq a single Mid East front, just as we would have in the past considered Germany, France etc a single European front).

Why are we having this kind of trouble? Many hold to the idea that Clinton downsized and cut the military—is this part of the problem? If not, how did our military get to a point where we do not have sufficient manpower to handle even one front, and this with the massive use of the Reserves? Any thoughts?

Sorry, Don.

The Bush administration has been giving plenty of hints they’ve given up on Iraq in every way except the stopgap military presence and the campaign marketing. The way they managed the transfer of sovereignty gave a good impression of how fast they want out of there. They gave up on the idea of a secular Iraqi democracy around the same time. The redeployment announcement and the reappropriation of $3bn for Iraq security are definite signals that they have developed a new plan. And the new plan hasn’t been used in the campaign so I imagine it’s because it wouldn’t mesh with the gist: Bush/Cheney Any Port in a Storm Stay the Course.

Mr. Martin said: “This war is winnable if we give the military the resources to win it decisively. “

Mr. Martin, the military has the resources to win Iraq decisively. We have nuclear weapons. I can think of no more decisive and absolute strategic plan to guarantee elimination of the insurgency and terrorist elements in Iraq. Therefore, the problem is not, as you postulate, giving the military resources. The problem is, if we use necessary resources toward a decisive victory in Iraq, we will indeed, lose our leadership role in the world. That is the no-win crux of the matter.

There is Bush’s plan, with a hocus pocus notion of victory with honor in Iraq (remember those words from President’s in the Viet Name War era), which experts and the adminstration agree will likely take a decade or more of American blood and 1/2 trillion dollars or more, and there is pulling out. Anything in the middle is a half-assed version of Bush’s non-plan plan.

delzario said: “Notice how the focus of most international terrorism has shifted away from hurting America to stopping Iraq from reaching stability?”

If you believe that, I have a Brooklyn Bridge to sell. Also if it is true, I want my tax dollars back being spent on homeland defense, by your argument our presence in Iraq is making us safer. How utterly unfactual and illogical that seems to me.

Our job is to kill more of them then they can handle.

No, delzario, our job is to kill more terrorists than our presence in Iraq creates around the world. And as long as we are in Iraq, we will not be able to accomplish that job. Precisely because our occupation of Iraq is growing terrorist faster than we are killing them, and because the terrorists being recruited are not in Iraq, where we are. Hence, we can’t do our job against terrorists while we are fighting Iraqi insurgents in Iraq. We leave, and Iraqi insurgents will begin their civil war focusing on each other, instead of us. We leave Iraq, and al-Queda can’t use occupation in Iraq for the next decade as a recruitment poster. We leave Iraq, and we will have the forces necessary to go after terrorist sponsors in N. Korea, Iran, and elsewhere.

Right now it appears that the foreign fighters are the ones driving this increase in violence.

Appears to whom? Intelligence and State Dep’t. reports indicate only a percent or so of violence in Iraq is fomented from outsiders. 99% of the violence is perpetrated by Iraqis. It is important to attend facts if rational decisions are to be made. Something I wish Bush would realize.

Since the neighbors have a vested interest in stopping Iraq from reaching a stable democracy it would be counter-productive to give them a larger role in the countries stability.

There will be no stable democracy in Iraq until AFTER the Iraqis have fought their civil war amongst their varied cultural and religious factions. Any read of the history of the peoples of Iraq, and for that matter, intelligence analysis reported to Congress since the invasion, will tell you that is so.

As we know, Bush never read the intelligence reports, which is why agents in the community are leaking it our everywhere, trying to get public opinion to force Bush to read the stuff.

Rocky said “Let’s do the right thing and see this one through.”

I would agree with you, Rocky, if seeing it through would not be a waste of more American lives and huge sums of tax dollars and enormous loss of standing and respect in the world. Novak is pointing to the same arguments I am making, there simply cannot be a unified stable Iraq without an iron-handed military dictator making it so using barbaric means. Civil war in Iraq is inevitable, and every day we spend our lives and resources delaying it is a waste of very dear American resourcs. Leaving Saddam in power would have had negative consequences. Removing him is also having negative consequences. It is the very definition of a no-win situation and quagmire defines our options, continuation of the quagmire or exiting it.

We are not going to exit Iraq ever under any realistic circumstances with honor, only with far greater casualties than were necessary had we pulled out far sooner. We must put the case to surrounding regional countries that what happens in Iraq is their problem since after our pullout, the ravages of Iraq’s civil war will spill over into their nations. It is in their interest to prevent civil war in Iraq, or their cost if they don’t. There is no dignified exit for the U.S. It is something Bush failed to see, despite the fact, that the analysts and State Dep’t. already knew that.

jbod said: “So apparently you are advocating leaving Iraq and letting the people fend for themselves.”

Precisely. Would you have Russia or China or Great Britian to have intervened in our Civil War to determine our fate?

Such a noble thing.

And your proposition is to throw ever more good red American blood and tax dollars and international alliances into a stable democracy idea for Iraq that cannot be without a civil war there first? jbod, invading was a mistake though removing Saddam was not without arguable merit. But, it is clear from the history, analysis, and current events in the country that we will pay dearly for 5 or 10 or more years (by the Administration’s own assessment, as well as inteliigence assessments and the State Dep’t.,) of playing cowboys in white hats in a situation that will crumble the instant we pull out whether that be in January 2005 or January 2015.

Joe—

The doctrine of a two front war was always a pipe dream in my opinion, which started to unravel when Bush Sr. started down-sizing the military after the first Gulf War, cutting the Army from 18 divisions to 12, cutting the Navy by a third, and the Air Force by two wings (I believe). The Clinton Administration cut the Army by a further one division, and continued the Navy’s downsizing. I was in the Navy at the time and well remember the early retirement incentives!

I am not for a large standing military in peacetime, if our commitments can be maintained. However in War we must come to the realization that the endeavor is a shared sacrifice, and that we need boot on the ground is large numbers. This in my mind can only be fulfilled by the draft. I hold to my assertion that that Army needs at least two new Corps, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, in order to get the job done right. Correct me if it am off base here.

I know well your misgivings about “conscripts,” but they are necessary evil. We are fighting a two front war now (Iraq & Afghanistan) and both fronts are being short changed, wouldn’t you agree? How else can we get sufficient “boots on the ground” when the regular forces are tapped and the Guard * Reserves are being over-utilized. If we want to win these twin wars we have to put more troops on the ground, anything less is to invite two more Vietnams into out lexicon of military failures.

Mr. Martin, if we reinstate the draft you had better change your rhetoric to a 3 front war. The third front will be with American young people facing a draft at the hands of a President not of their party.

Now I am all for bringing back the best parts of the sixties, but, massive anti-draft, anti-war demonstrations fueling an ever tightening grip on civil liberties in the name of martial law to stem the protests is not an aspect of the sixties I want to see returned.

Now, some Kool-Aid love ins, would be nice.

Mr. Remer—

I don’t think anyone would advocate the use of nuclear weapons, so let me clarify my statement. The war is winnable if we give the military the conventional resources to win it decisively.

I fully understand your position, I hate that we are in Iraq, but I can’t cotton cutting and running when we created the mess to begin with. If we can get the other Arab states to play ball we can extricate ourselves from Iraq with a modicum of dignity, and self respect.

But all this debate might be meaningless given Novaks’ assertion that no matter who wins the U.S. is getting out of Iraq next year and leaving the Iraqi to their much anticipated civil war. No more war, no draft, but what about Afghanistan?

Mr. Martin, you said ” I hate that we are in Iraq, but I can’t cotton cutting and running when we created the mess to begin with.”

The underlying premise of this statement is that we created the mess. I can see how Democrats and Bush opposers would like to see it this way. But, the premise is false.

The mess predates our invasion. The only reason the mess blew up onto international headlines is because the dictator who previously prevented it was removed. The U.S. is not responsible for the historical cultural and religious rifts that exist between the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds. That was there long ago and were it not for Hussein or someone like him, Iraq would have had its civil war decades ago, and might even now be a far more stable society, albeit, absent the other two populations.

Saddam was a dictator who did in fact violate UN resolutions and continued to attack the US no fly barricades. Taking him out can be justified. But, that does not make us responsible for healing historic hatred and warring differences among the various populations of Iraq. In fact, even if we want to be responsible, we do not have the power erase those differences if we wanted to. The Iraq civil war was put on hold by Hussein’s dictatorship, and democracy hasn’t a prayer in Iraq until those differences are resolved.

It is fine to talk rational empirical logic and societal principles here about our society, but, such concepts and arguments have no meaning for Iraqis. They must fight for their nation, bleed and die for its independence and its unity and solidarity just as we did in the Revolutionary War and our own Civil War. Do you really want to insist that we assume the role of King George in our Revolutionary War for the Iraqis?

By forcing Iraqis focus on the US and the collateral damage and instability our very presence causes, we only delay the inevitable civil war they must fight amongst themselves to define who and what they are to be as a people, just as we did.

Joe,
Take a look at a book by Thomas Barnett, “The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century.” A filmd lecture of this book appeared recently on C-Span. You can also see comments on it in the right hand column.
The US military is, in fact, completely dominant. One front, two fronts, not a problem- no other country is even close to matching us on the battlefield.
The problem is, no country is going to meet the United States on a battlefield anymore. Think about the conflicts we’ve seen since the dissolution of the USSR: Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo.
Anyway, take a look if you get the chance…

One front, two fronts, not a problem- no other country is even close to matching us on the battlefield. The problem is, no country is going to meet the United States on a battlefield anymore.

In other words, the other guys changed the rules and we’re having a hard time catching up.

Conflict is conflict. If we can’t master low-intensity warfare, we’re in trouble.

Mr. Remer—

I do understand and agree with your logic in this situation. It is true the like Yugoslavia, Iraq was being held together by a strong central figure, and absence him (and the U.S.), Iraqi’s would most likely fall upon themselves and engage in Civil War. Whether this is a good thing—as you advocate—or bad for the region and the world, only time will tell.

I am almost inclined to agree with your stance but for the fact that we did, by our invasion and subsequent toppling of Saddam, cause the current crisis, and we are therefore morally responsible for the lose of life taking place there. As such we must do all we can to avert further Iraqi bloodshed.

In my mind Saddam continued failed attacks on our aircraft could have been dealt with by other means short of all out war. Iraq posed no clear and present danger to the security of the U.S. and therefore should never have been invaded and occupied.

Mr. Martin, I appreciate the hurdle you can’t quite get over regarding what you perceive to be our responsibility. It too is a logical argument.

Your position is that spilling more American blood is worth saving Iraqi blood. Mine is the opposite, but, only because I cannot see a future of a stable democracy in Iraq without our continuing to spill American blood in Iraqi sands for another decade or more and even then, civil war may be inevitable. And if it is, as it appears likely to be at this point, when we do eventually leave, all of the blood spilled from now until then will have been wasted for nothing. That to me is neither honorable to our troops, moral justifiable, nor strategically defensible.

But, I think we have exhausted our differences and we have a great deal we agree upon. We can agree to disagree here with respect. And I do respect your position.

David and V.Ed:

You two are showing far too much respect for each other, what with the Mr. This and Mr. That stuff. Get back in the mud and wallow with the rest. LOL

Actually, I read your contrasting views with much interest, and appreciated the intelligent comments from both sides. Both sides have merit, which I would not have thought at the beginning of the posts. While I tend to remain on the side of V. Ed (aka Mr Martin) on this issue, I learned from reading David’s (aka Mr Remer) posts that there is an intelligent differing viewpoint.

Thanks for allowing me to voyeuristically view your discussion and learn from both parties.\

Now…..back to the mudpit….

David,
You’re right none of us can see the future, however I think it is necessary to look at the big picture here.
If we fail to bring even a semblance of stability to this reigon, it wil make that much harder to convince the population of the world of our resolve in this matter, it may even sway those that are now on the fence away from us and towards those we are trying to defeat.
Politics on a world wide scale is a very delicate thing. People, through out the world hate us because of Bush. To pull out now would only serve to convince the rest of the world that we are not serious about the freedoms and democracy that we claim we are trying to win for the rest of the people of this planet.
The point here is not necessarily to put more of our own troops into Iraq. We need to start twisting arms around the world, calling in markers if you will. It’s time to get the rest of the world involved.
The line has been drawn in the sand. If we lose in Iraq, the world loses. That whole area will be gone forever. If we pull out before stability is restored we might as well pull all our troops from around the world and get ready for World War Three.
It doesn’t matter that we are the most powerful country with the most powerful military.
If we can’t even win the hearts and minds of the folks we are fighting for why are we there.

Rocky said: If we fail to bring even a semblance of stability to this reigon, it wil make that much harder to convince the population of the world of our resolve in this matter,

This is the classic definition of a quagmire, Rocky, if terrorism continues to grow in response to our presence, we lose. If we pull out, we lose. But there is still an advantage to one of those options, pulling out does not waste the blood of our soldiers and multi billions of dollars which would produce a much greater return to Americans if spent elsewhere like Homeland Defense.

But I acknowledge that little word “if” can only be determined by walking down the path of peril. Having been in the Army from 72 to 75, I witnessed the wasted lives, bodies, and minds of many of our soldiers, young men who moved to Canada, and those who died at Kent State. It never needed to happen if those Presidents had faced the futility of trying to fight a non-nuclear battle against a guerilla army engaged in a civil war for their own homeland.

Iraq I am convinced is going to have to fight its civil war before stability and unity can come to pass, with or without our being in the middle of it, just like Viet Nam.

I simply can’t buy the argument that pulling out is untenable. We simply declare the truth which all the world already knows, we invaded to take out Saddam, pure and simple.

We accomplished our mission. Now we announce to regional authorities and the Security Council that we are pulling out in 6 months. Therefore, regional nations and the Security Council have ample opportunity to fill the void if they wish.

If no one steps in and we leave, and Iraq falls into civil war, that is not our responsibility. I know the President announced at the U.N. great and lofty goals, of taking democracy and freedom to oppressed peoples in the Middle East, but, this is the same President who has absolutely no regard or conscience about whether Americans carrying a 7.7 Trillion dollar national debt which will be at least over 9 trillion in just a few short years, can afford such an effort without destroying ourselves here at home.

Let’s be honest here, if Bush is intent on engaging in multi fronted wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc, and occupy those nations for decades for the purpose of taking quality of life, freedom, and democracy to those peoples, he will be doing so at the expense of Americans quality of life and freedom here at home.

Such long term engagements will make the U.S. the target of immensely more terrorists for 10 or 20 years or more, than would be the case if we pulled out and told the world they need to pick up the slack.

Kerry won’t get my vote, but, he is making this one very important and realistic point. We can choose to fund freedom, democracy, and quality of life for those who have no idea how create that for themselves, or we can invest in a real and concrete homeland defense and invest in our own American people, children and future. But, our national debt will not permit doing both.

And that is the bottom line. We must not bankrupt our future trying to take America overseas, as corporations are want for us to do, on the backs of working taxpayers. We can play important roles in working with multi-lateral national efforts to oppose despotism, but, we cannot, and must not, choose to foolishly and blindly bet and hock our future on the hopes that Iraqis will accept democracy and make it work for themselves. That would be the height of penny wise, and pound foolish.

Joe—

My pleasure and I am sure David (Mr. Remer) enjoyed the exchange as well. It is nice to be able come to a place where intelligent debate can take place without the participants resorting (most of the time) to bickering to name-calling and backstabbing!

jbod, your comments regarding the discussion between Mr. Martin and myself are constitute the highest compliment that can be made to WatchBlog. Since WB’s intended purpose is to inform through political perspective and debate.

WB is a unique and valuable place to participate and it is because of intelligent and rational folks such as yourself and Mr. Martin.

We lost Vietnam because the war was run by politicians in DC rather than the military on the ground where the battle was raging.

This is what is happening in Iraq. The pull out in Fallujah was the harbinger of that failed policy being repeated.

We could win this war if it were left to the military and not to the politicians. Iraqi people understand strong arm policies and do not fear it as much as we would think. But by not letting the military run this war, American men and women will die needlessly. It has become a political quagmire, not a military quagmire and unfortunately Americans simply do not have the stomach for the type of commitment it takes to win.

For that reason, all that have posted on this thread are correct, we may back out of Iraq next year, or if Bush is reelected, he will indeed leave the fighting up to the military since he will be termed out and will not be faced with the political repercussions in an election year. At least this is my hope.

As for the draft; under no circumstance would I like to see a repeat of that fiasco and the absolute disruption that would ensue as a result.

If we do back out I only hope that we back out with a better plan than we had when we went in.

These were just a few thoughts that came to mind as I was reading through the insightful opinions on this thread.