Setting a Date to Withdraw Coalition Troops from Iraq

[Felix_Nietsche]

I'm for setting a date for withdrawing US soldiers from Iraq.
I think 12-24 months after the ratification of the Iraqi constitution is plenty of time. This will roughly occur at the end of the Bush43 administration and perhaps into the next administration.

I know the admin says giving a deadline will embolden the insurgents. No one can prove whether this is true or not. I do think a public deadline will light a fire under the average Iraqi who does not want to live in an Islamic-Fascist regime and encourage them to support the new govt.

We can't hold their hands forever. If the govt should fall and Iraq slip into civil war then the USA can send support to the Kurds. A Kurdish dictatorship is better than an Al-Qaeda regime.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm for setting a date for withdrawing US soldiers from Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

Despite the wackiness you usually type, keep writing sentences like the one above and I'll go to that 2+2 cabinet thread and recommend you.

-ptmusic

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't hold their hands forever. If the govt should fall and Iraq slip into civil war then the USA can send support to the Kurds. A Kurdish dictatorship is better than an Al-Qaeda regime.

[/ QUOTE ]
The one thing that heartens me about Bush is when he says that we cannot set a timetable to leave Iraq. Not b/c it would "hearten the insurgents," but b/c things are obviously not going well enough, and we have not reformed the Iraqis to the point that they can handle democracy. It took us DECADES in Japan and Germany, and will likely take longer in Iraq since we have much more potential for ethnic violence.

The main reason: pulling out will be based on the disengenous argument that we have done them a favor by invading. "We took away Saddam, and that should be enough." Please!

[ QUOTE ]
We can't hold their hands forever.

[/ QUOTE ]
God this is immoral, especially if you supported the invasion. I am not trying to say you, Felix, are an immoral person, but I hope you would rethink the morality of this position. We interfered with their self determination, remember? That, IMO, oblidges us to take care of the people of Iraq for as long as it takes for them to be stable and respect basic human rights. It is what I expect from my country. We are the United States, a great country, and we should live up to our moral obligations. Meanwhile -- and I say this as a liberal Democrat -- I am thankful that President Bush at least has the moral conviction to follow through on his obligations.

I didn't agree with the invasion. But that is irrelevant now. By invading, we made a commitment to Iraqis. If we abandon Iraq, it will be one of the great moral failures of this country. We are better than that (I hope).

[Felix_Nietsche]

Quote:
We can't hold their hands forever.


God this is immoral, especially if you supported the invasion.
************************************************
Immoral is not a word I would use...
Anyway....***IF*** the USA left 3 months after the invasion then this would be bad because it would almost guarantee a civil war and thousands of deaths.

But it hasn't been 3 months has it? On the time table I proposed, US soldiers would have been in Iraq for 7 years before troop reductions began. Meanwhile the Iraqis have a new govt, a constitution, billions of dollars in aid, rebuilt roads/sewer systems/schools/Police Force/Army.

I think you're underestimating the USA and the Iraqis.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm for setting a date for withdrawing US soldiers from Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well it worked so well in Vietnam why not try it again.

[lehighguy]

It's interesting, I have two good Vietnamese friends in my dorm. One said to me once that he really wishes we had won the war. He thinks that if people had realized how shitty communism was, and how shitty the country would end up becomming, then they wouldn't have fought so hard. All they saw was the foriegn invader and getting him out, they didn't stop to think who they were fighting to put in power.

This is not to say he liked the war, or the Americans. It's this wierd dual posistion where he hates the foriegner and the things he did but can't help but analyze after the fact that it would have been better for his people if his people had lost.

[ACPlayer]

It seems that your Vietnamese friends dont quite understand the history of VN.

Anyway, I spent an absolutely delightful year last year in Vietnam (well seven months). Sai Gon is a bustling bee hive of entrepreneurial spirit. As Asian countries go it is vibrant active and yet still maintains the old world style. As Asian countries go, it is not particularly poorer than most and better off than others.

It does have some interesting communist idiosyncracies (like the official news broadcast on loud speakers twice a day). Otherwise, I would not have thought I was living in a communist run country.

Your friends need to better understand their country. Perhaps if they travelled into Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia and some of the other Asian countries they would realize that VN is not a "shitty" country.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Sai Gon is a bustling bee hive of entrepreneurial spirit. As Asian countries go it is vibrant active and yet still maintains the old world style. As Asian countries go, it is not particularly poorer than most and better off than others.
************************************************** *******
Saigon has become a "bustling bee hive of entrepreneurial spirit" because the the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s showed them that communism was an economic failure. The economic improvement that has been occuring in Vietnam has been because they are moving away from communism.

Your year in Vietnam would not have been so delightful in the years where the communists were on murdering spree of political dissidents.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Well it worked so well in Vietnam why not try it again.
************************************************** ********
I'm calling bull**** on this.
Please provide a link supporting this.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm for setting a date for withdrawing US soldiers from Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to play poker tonight. I am going to play for 8 hours nonstop. If the table is really tight and I'm losing my shirt I'm still going to play. If I'm tired and my concentration is shot to the point where I can't remember who raised preflop, I'm still going to play. If somebody sits down who is the biggest fish in the world and wants to raise the stakes at 7 hours and 59 minutes I'm not going to play. Assessing the situation is for morons. Setting a deadline and sticking with it is the smart way to live. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

Yes seven years is a short time to assess the situation.
You're right. Better make it 20 years just to be safe.

[MMMMMM]

I say we publicly set a date, with the provision that the insurgency is by then somewhat more under control---and then break that date.

The insurgents will attempt to wait us out, toning down their attacks a bit in the meantime in order to see us leave and to conserve resources for wide-open warfare right after we leave. This would give us more and better opportunities for building the government and for training Iraqis for critical posts. Meanwhile we can continue to hunt the insurgents and terrorists down in their lairs and strongholds--a task which should be given equally high priority as training Iraqis.

Then, when the date arrives and the insurgents are expecting us to leave, it will be HAHAHAHA suckers! We aren't leaving until the insurgency is kaput, and the government is operating fully and Iraq is growing and prospering! So fight us and the now-well-trained Iraqis now, or wait to be hunted down like the rest of the rats! Suckers!!!

This plan would be diplomacy and strategic thinking in action.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
Well it worked so well in Vietnam why not try it again.
************************************************** ********
I'm calling bull**** on this.
Please provide a link supporting this.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you want a link to a history book? Go to amazon and do a search, after you read it you'll know exactly what I was talking about.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
This plan would be diplomacy and strategic thinking in action.

[/ QUOTE ]

And piss off a lot of the family members in the US.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This plan would be diplomacy and strategic thinking in action.


[/ QUOTE ]


And piss off a lot of the family members in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Concurrent with this plan would be the recruitment remedy of doubling the pay of all military personnel, and tripling the pay of those in hazardous areas such as Iraq. Then there wouldn't be a recruitment shortfall; there'd be a surplus. So almost nobody would be forced to stay in Iraq who didn't really want to.

This plan would be funded by abolishing many unneeded social services and pork barrel projects right here in the USA.

Just off the top of my head, of course;-)

[MMMMMM]

Wacki, I hope you can tell from the tone of my post that I'm actually half-joking.

Of course, that also means that I'm actually half-serious.

[Felix_Nietsche]

What do you want a link to a history book?
*********************************************
I want you to back up your claims.
Nixon ended the war when it became obvious the South Vietnamese did not have the will to continue.

We left Vietnam because despite winning every pitch battle, we were politically defeated. The cause was already lost. THE OUTCOME WAS ALREADY DETERMINED and yet you are trying to apply a false analogy to Iraq when the outcome is yet to be determined.

[shots]

We signed a peace agreement with the north Vietnamese and set a date to pull troops out, as soon as we did that they just waited for us to leave so they could take over the south. The analogy is apt in that the terrorists will do the same thing if we announce a date to pull troops out of iraq they'll wait for us to leave and then all hell will break loose.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I say we publicly set a date, with the provision that the insurgency is by then somewhat more under control---and then break that date.

The insurgents will attempt to wait us out, toning down their attacks a bit in the meantime in order to see us leave and to conserve resources for wide-open warfare right after we leave. This would give us more and better opportunities for building the government and for training Iraqis for critical posts. Meanwhile we can continue to hunt the insurgents and terrorists down in their lairs and strongholds--a task which should be given equally high priority as training Iraqis.

Then, when the date arrives and the insurgents are expecting us to leave, it will be HAHAHAHA suckers! We aren't leaving until the insurgency is kaput, and the government is operating fully and Iraq is growing and prospering! So fight us and the now-well-trained Iraqis now, or wait to be hunted down like the rest of the rats! Suckers!!!
************************************************** ***
You assume that the insurgents will go underground and wait us out. Time is against them. The longer the new Iraqi govt stays in place, the more stable the new govt will become. If this happens, the insurgents WILL LOSE! If the USA announces a withdraw of troops at the beginning of a new admin and the insurgents go underground, the insurgents will lose credability while the new govt gains crediability.

If the insurgents are dumb enough to go underground then by all means lets give them a deadline.

[MMMMMM]

I would guess that they wouldn't go completely underground faced with such a dateline, but would conserve some resources in anticipation thereof. Meanwhile we keep training, building, and hunting.

[player24]

Quoting Donald Rumsfeld: "'if the coalition were to leave before the Iraqi security forces are able to assume responsibility, we would one day again have to confront another Iraqi regime -- perhaps even more dangerous than the last."

I think Rumsfeld has done a pretty bad job in Iraq, but I agree with his remark.

[Felix_Nietsche]

It did not the Oracle of Delphi to know that without the support of US Troops the S.Vietnamese govt would collapse and the communist would take over. The peace treaty was a sham to allow the USA to save face and score political points with the voters.

ANSWER THIS:
Are you claiming that if the US TROOPS had stayed another 5 years in Vietnam the outcome would have resulted in a victory?

Again your trying to compare a lost war, with a war in progress. 7 years is plenty of time to help the Iraqis. Just as in Vietnam success will be ULTIMATELY up to the Iraqi people. If they fail and the country slips into civil war then I'm for giving military aid to the Kurds to help them win it. Better a Kurdish dictatorship than an al qaeda govt.

Anyway the point is moot. Any troop reductions won't be discussed until the next admin. I would like to see the 2nd ID move from S.Korea into Iraq to help. US ground forces are no longer need there since the S.Korea's army is stronger than the North's army.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
It did not the Oracle of Delphi to know that without the support of US Troops the S.Vietnamese govt would collapse and the communist would take over. The peace treaty was a sham to allow the USA to save face and score political points with the voters.

[/ QUOTE ]

True but similarily you don't need a crystal ball to know that the iraqi government would have fallen long ago without the support of US troops so again my analogy is apt.

[ QUOTE ]
ANSWER THIS:
Are you claiming that if the US TROOPS had stayed another 5 years in Vietnam the outcome would have resulted in a victory?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't claim to know the answer to that but if the US had gone all out against the north viets and been prepared to stay for the long haul it's possible that victory could have been acieved.

[ QUOTE ]
Again your trying to compare a lost war, with a war in progress. 7 years is plenty of time to help the Iraqis. Just as in Vietnam success will be ULTIMATELY up to the Iraqi people. If they fail and the country slips into civil war then I'm for giving military aid to the Kurds to help them win it. Better a Kurdish dictatorship than an al qaeda govt.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I am not comparing the two wars I simply said that we should have learned a lesson from what happend when we announced we were pulling out of Vietnam and apparently the Bush adminastration has learned that lesson.
I find the second part of your statement particularily disturbing. We should let the country slip into civil war (it's all but a certainty if we pull out prematurely) then back the Kurds? Why don't we just arm the Kurds now and allow them to kill everyone else it's essentially the same thing. Yes it will be ultimately up to the Iraqi people to make their country work but we have to finish what we started. Only then can we leave it in their hands to do the rest, otherwise we really will have commited an attrocity in that part of the world. We'll pull our troops out when the job is done and there is no magic day when that will be.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway the point is moot. Any troop reductions won't be discussed until the next admin. I would like to see the 2nd ID move from S.Korea into Iraq to help. US ground forces are no longer need there since the S.Korea's army is stronger than the North's army.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that Bush won't announce troop reductions in another year or so but when he does it won't because of arbitrary political preassure to set a date it'll be because he feels the time is right.

As far as pulling troops out of Korea last I heard the KPA (north) was estimated to have 700 000 troops while the ROKA (south) only had 550 000. I belive the North Koreans also have superior weaponery (like nukes)

[Felix_Nietsche]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050627/ap_on_re_mi_ea/britain_iraq_14

Success or failure in Iraq lies with the Iraqis. Lets hope they man up.

[BCPVP]

Felix, I'm still confused as to why to set a deadline. It seems your only reasonis to light a fire under the Iraqi civilians (which I think is probably more unprovable than saying the terrorists will grow stronger).

OTOH, NOT setting a public deadline keeps our strategy secret keeps pressure on the terrorists. You wouldn't play a game of Risk and then tell your opponent exactly what you're going to do, would you?

We should stay until the job is finished and the Iraqis can take care of themselves, however long that takes.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Lets use Vietnam as an example.
The US Troops won every major engagement with the VietCong and NVA. If we wished, we could have kept a stalemate going for years in Vietnam and have continued to support the South Vietnamese govt. My point is there comes a time where the people have to man-up fight for their freedom. With regard to Vietnam, the communists were ruthless killers and the average South Vietnamese citiizen did not feel strongly enough for their govt to resist these people.

To use an analogy. Some parents support their kids until their 18 and kick them out of the house. Some wait till they graduate from college. I just don't want a 40 kid still living with me.

[shots]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. I don't want us to be in Iraq forever either. I just think that setting a date is useless and if it does get us out of Iraq faster it'll be for the wrong reasons.

[BCPVP]

Could you explain how setting a deadline will make the Iraqis "man up". Pretend the Iraqis weren't ready to take care of themselves by the time this deadline occured; should we just say, too bad, we're leaving?

[Felix_Nietsche]

The MININMUM time will will leave will be 7 years.... With a phased withdrawl it will be longer. I don't think it is too much to ask to see some man-uping in a seven year period.

Please know that I think the USA has been making good progress in Iraq. I think they will be ready for a phased withdrawl at the beginning of the beginning of the next presidential term. But perhaps I'm more optimistic than you seem to be.

[BCPVP]

Believe me, I'm optimistic about Iraq. I just feel that setting a timetable sends the message that we're leaving regardless of the situation in Iraq. Please note, I'm not talking about your 7 year example, but the general call for a timetable by the Ted Kennedys. If you're done before the timetable date, why would you stick around/what was the point. If you're not done by the date, then we're sentencing who knows how many thousands to death for leaving too soon.

[andyfox]

An endless war against an evil enemy, whose only goal is to wreak havoc.

Sound familiar?