Cut and Run

Hastily going to Iraq was a mistake.....hastily pull-out will be a bigger mistake.

gutless fags show why it`s so easy to manipulate the aam junta into supporting a war...

Is it any surprise that the hildebeast, the dem hope for 2008, is a bigger supporter of the war than any of the neocon warmongers? Now we have the SOB Joe Lieberman getting in the Dick ``I`ll say anything Hannity wants to hear`` Morris bandwagon..

The gatekeepers of the status quo rule DC..The best hope if for the focus to shift away from Iraq giving Dubya the room to sneak US forces out by next year...

Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks

By Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A01

Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders` rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean`s declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that ``the idea that we`re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.``

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Op-Ed Contributor

The Next Iraq Offensive

By WESLEY K. CLARK
Published: December 6, 2005
Doha, Qatar

WHILE the Bush administration and its critics escalated the debate last week over how long our troops should stay in Iraq, I was able to see the issue through the eyes of America`s friends in the Persian Gulf region. The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush`s new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It`s a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct.

While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq`s neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran`s power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel.

The American approach shows little sense of Middle Eastern history and politics. As one prominent Kuwaiti academic explained to me, in the Muslim world the best way to deal with your enemies has always been to assimilate them - you never succeed in killing them all, and by trying to do so you just make more enemies. Instead, you must woo them to rejoin society and the government. Military pressure should be used in a calibrated way, to help in the wooing.

If this critique is correct - and it is difficult to argue against it - then we must face its implications. ``Staying the course`` risks a slow and costly departure of American forces with Iraq increasingly factionalized and aligned with Iran. Yet a more rapid departure of American troops along a timeline, as some Democrats are calling for, simply reduces our ability to affect the outcome and risks broader regional conflict.

We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy far more drastically than anything President Bush called for last week.

On the military side, American and Iraqi forces must take greater control of the country`s borders, not only on the Syrian side but also in the east, on the Iranian side. The current strategy of clearing areas near Syria of insurgents and then posting Iraqi troops, backed up by mobile American units, has had success. But it needs to be expanded, especially in the heavily Shiite regions in the southeast, where there has been continuing cross-border traffic from Iran and where the loyalties of the Iraqi troops will be especially tested.

We need to deploy three or four American brigades, some 20,000 troops, with adequate aerial reconnaissance, to provide training, supervision and backup along Iraq`s several thousand miles of vulnerable border. And even then, the borders won`t be ``sealed``; they`ll just be more challenging to penetrate.

We must also continue military efforts against insurgent strongholds and bases in the Sunni areas, in conjunction with Iraqi forces. Over the next year or so, this will probably require four to six brigade combat teams, plus an operational reserve, maybe 30,000 troops.

But these efforts must go hand-in-glove with intensified outreach to Iraqi insurgents, to seek their reassimilation into society and their assistance in wiping out residual foreign jihadists. Iraqi and American officials have had sporadic communications with insurgent leaders, but these must lead to deeper discussions on issues like amnesty for insurgents who lay down their arms and opportunities for their further participation in public and private life.

Iraq, for its part, must begin to enforce the ban on armed militias that was enshrined in the new Constitution, especially in the south. Ideally, this should be achieved voluntarily, through political means. But American muscle will have to be made available as a last resort. The Iraqi government should request that for the next two years, six to eight American brigades serve as a backup, available as a last resort if there is trouble in cities with large militia factions like Baghdad, Basra and Najaf. And it is vital that the Pentagon provide our forces with better crowd-control training and many more translators than they have now.

As important as these military changes are, they won`t matter at all unless our political strategy is rethought. First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week`s parliamentary elections. Most important, oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces. And the federal concept must be modified to preclude the creation of a Shiite autonomous region in the south.

Also, a broad initiative to reduce sectarian influence within government institutions is long overdue. The elections, in which Sunnis will participate, will help; but the government must do more to ensure that all ethnic and religious groups are represented within ministries, police forces, the army, the judiciary and other overarching federal institutions.

And we must start using America`s diplomatic strength with Syria and Iran. The political weakness of Bashar al-Assad opens the door for significant Syrian concessions on controlling the border and cutting support for the jihadists. We also have to stop ignoring Tehran`s meddling and begin a public dialogue on respecting Iraqi independence, which will make it far easier to get international support against the Iranians if (and when) they break their word.

Yes, our military forces are dangerously overstretched. Recruiting and retention are suffering; among retired officers, there is deep concern that the Bush administration`s attitude on the treatment of detainees has jeopardized not only the safety of our troops but the moral purpose of our effort.

Still, none of this necessitates a pullout until the job is done. After the elections, we should be able to draw down by 30,000 troops from the 160,000 now there. Don`t bet against our troops.

What a disaster it would be if the real winner in Iraq turned out to be Iran, a country that supports terrorism and opposes most of what we stand for. Surely, we can summon the wisdom, resources and bipartisan leadership to change the American course before it is too late.

Getting rid of Saddam`s rule was the right thing to do. Pulling out of Iraq right now would be catastrophic. The Coalition Forces should first establish law and order and an Iraqi government before any pull out. As President Bush has correctly stated...``As the Iraqi forces stand up, the Coalition Forces will stand down.``

For more on Joe Lieberman and Iraq click on the URL below:
http://www.alternet.org/story/29108/

Here are a few excerpts from the story...

Carrying the `White Man`s Burden` in Iraq
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on December 7, 2005, Printed on December 7, 2005
Last week, on the precious real estate of the right`s flagship, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Iraq war-hawk Sen. Joe Lieberman (D?-CT) let slip another unspoken reason why we remain in Iraq more than two and a half years after achieving our stated goal of ``disarming`` Saddam Hussein.

Lieberman wrote that the Iraqis are on the brink of transitioning ``from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood.`` That is, ``unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.``

It`s noteworthy that Lieberman portrayed the old government as ``primitive,`` despite the fact that we were talked into attacking Iraq because it had what President Bush called the ``deadliest`` weapons ``known to mankind.`` They were, presumably, quite modern.

And that fits reality. Iraq under the Baathists was many things, but primitive wasn`t one of them. Before two decades of infrastructure-smashing war, Iraq was considered to be as advanced as many countries in Western Europe. Its universities were the envy of the Arabic world, as was its health care system, which featured the most modern hospitals in the region.

Lieberman contrasts this ``primitive`` Iraq with the ``modern`` self-governance that the ``great American military has given them.``

If this strikes a familiar note with students of history, it should. In earlier iterations, the notion that the West had an obligation to drag their primitive charges into the present was embedded in the ``civilizing missions`` undertaken by the French and British in India and Africa, it was in the White Man`s Burden invoked by Kipling and the ``Hamitic Myth`` favored by German intellectuals to justify its colonial possessions.

#6 HP

``With India hitting the skids in stupid political fights and its inability to convince the US of its role in the International and regional politics, Pakistan has certainly emerged as the force to reckon with in the area. ``

India is playing its cards in this game from behind and reaping good returns. Pakistan, though visible from the front, does not get anything in return, as compared to what India gets. It is only Prez.Musharaff who gets his seat.

``Two things that are working for Pakistan: 1) The US grip on Afghanistan and the Karzai govt in Afghanistan are now completely dependent on Pakistan. 2) Pakistan holds all the big guns of Alquaeda thus making it impossible to end the war on terrorism without its support and capture of the Alquaeda leadership. ``

Pakistan, unfortunately, is a mere pawn in the hands of USA in this game. Do you really think a few men sitting in some obscure mountanious caves can control and launch such an operation, worldwide? Even after four years of WOT and with the latest technology and equipments at their disposal, the ``allies`` cannot even trace the foot-steps of these men. Do they really exist or they have been made to be existing?

There is no clamor to “cut and run”. Even Murtha hasn’t called for cut and run.

Iraq is now a bitter pill that no one is ready to swallow. Bush can’t get out of it easily so he will continue his rhetoric. The dems are testing waters, sending out trial balloons to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

People that can take the heat in elections or have safe seats will continue to speak for withdrawal. But the other part of the dems would just continue to hold the line until they are sure which way the wind is blowing.
The US public is going against the war but the sentiment is still very soft. Any incident, minor or large, would send the war support skyrocketing again.

Dean is right when he says that US can’t win this war because there is nothing there to win in Iraq. The real issue is that this war is linked with the war on terrorism- would leaving Iraq means losing the war on terrorism? That is where the problem lies. The Bush admin or even establishment Dems are not ready to close this chapter.

Has anybody ever thought of who is the biggest beneficiary of the War on Terrorism?
Unbelievable; but it is Pakistan! Pakistan lost a big stake in Afghanistan in 2001 but GWOT turns out to be an even bigger winner for Pakistan.

With India hitting the skids in stupid political fights and its inability to convince the US of its role in the International and regional politics, Pakistan has certainly emerged as the force to reckon with in the area.

Two things that are working for Pakistan: 1) The US grip on Afghanistan and the Karzai govt in Afghanistan are now completely dependent on Pakistan. 2) Pakistan holds all the big guns of Alquaeda thus making it impossible to end the war on terrorism without its support and capture of the Alquaeda leadership.

# 7 mirmir: {I also wonder how many of the ``Chowkies`` who insist on ``staying the course`` have experienced combat in any of the U.S.`s wars. } You are totally stupid to wonder this thought on Chowk. This is totally irrelevant and absurd.

Mohammad Gill quotes Rep. Murtha:

``Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region…Our military has done everything asked of them, the US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home. (John Murtha)``

I wonder why it is that U.S. combat veterans like John Murtha and I think that ``it is time to bring them home`` while the most belligerent of the hawks (Bush, Cheney, Rice) who never served in the military and, in the case of Bush and Cheney (variously called draft dodgers, chichen hawks, etc.) actively and successfully avoided the draft while the U.S. was at war in Vietnam, insist on ``staying the course.``

I also wonder how many of the ``Chowkies`` who insist on ``staying the course`` have experienced combat in any of the U.S.`s wars.

mirmir #7:
The war in Iraq has degenerated into a civil war; Shiites and Kurds are pitted against the Sunnis, the so-called insurgents. The US is fighting on the side of the Shiites. It is causing a great deal of frustration in the army. Murtha has the inside information of the army`s frustration. The generals are terrified by the administration and they don`t vent this frustration openly. If the American army succeeded to put down the insurgency and install the Shiite government, it is feared that the new Iraq will be another Iran in the Middle East. The argument for staying the course may be true but the outcome also is not very favorable for the US. I have developed this argument in another article which is under review with Chowk. It appears that the US is caught in the horns of a dilemma.
Mohammad Gill

#8 by freethinker on December 7, 2005 12:15pm PT


The war in Iraq has degenerated into a civil war; Shiites and Kurds are pitted against the Sunnis, the so-called insurgents.


Fantastic...

Arm the shias and kurds...they`ll pay us back in oil...They`ll use the arms to take care of the sunni ``insurgents``..American forces back by xmas 2006...


Americans get out and get to buy oil and sell weapons.
Shias and kurds take control of their own destiny.
sunnis insurgents get to meet their designated 72 virgins..


Sounds like a win-win-win..

It is absolutely critical that the US stays the course and installs a freely and democratically elected government in Iraq. The US must pressure Shias and Kurds to bring the disenfranchised Sunnis to the central government. The Sunnis must realize that they are no longer the ruling elite and must accept their minority position. These three major communities must share the oil revenues proportionally. The coalition forces should then invite NATO forces to help out, and to gradually move out of the urban areas. Muslim nations could help out with their forces. UN can become the guarantor of an effective regime in Iraq.

And here`s what another combat veteran says about U.S. presence in Iraq (go here for the full story: http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051201-054122-4745r):

General Odom Calls for Immediate Exit from Iraq
United Press International

Friday 02 December 2005

Washington - The US general who used to head the National Security Agency says the only way to stabilize the Middle East is to leave Iraq.

Retired three star Lt. Gen. William Odom, writing for NiemanWatchdog.org, wrote that while President George W. Bush wants to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East, the only way to achieve that goal is for the US armed forces to get out of Iraq now.

Odom, one of the most respected US military analysts and a prominent figure at the conservative Hudson Institute in Washington, wrote, ``We have seen most of our allies stand aside and engage in Schadenfreude over our painful bog-down in Iraq. Winston Churchill`s glib observation, `the only thing worse that having allies is having none,` was once again vindicated.

``There is no chance that our allies will join us in Iraq,`` he wrote. ``... Iraq is the worst place to fight a battle for regional stability. Whose interests were best served by the US invasion of Iraq in the first place? It turns out that Iran and al-Qaida benefited the most, and that continues to be true every day US forces remain there.``

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601707.html


Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks

By Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A01

Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders` rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean`s declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that ``the idea that we`re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.``

The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president`s growing political problems on the war and other issues. ``Dean`s take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful,`` said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean`s famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi`s recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.

These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush`s hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races.

``What I want Democrats to be discussing is what the president`s policies have led to,`` Emanuel said. He added that once discussion turns to a formal timeline for troop withdrawals, ``the how and when gets buried`` and many voters take away only an impression that Democrats favor retreat.

Pelosi last week endorsed a plan by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq within six months, putting her at odds with most other Democratic leaders and leading foreign policy experts in her party.

Democrats, who have not controlled the White House since 2000 and the House in more than a decade, have tried over the past year to put aside deep philosophical differences and rally behind a two-pronged strategy to return to power: Highlight the growing number of GOP scandals and score Bush`s unpopular war management.

While the party is divided over the specifics of Iraq policy, most Democratic legislators are slowly coalescing around a political plan, according to lawmakers and party operatives. This would involve setting a broad time frame for drawing down U.S. troops, starting with National Guard and reserve units, internationalizing the reconstruction effort, and blaming Bush for misleading the country into a war without a victory plan.

The aim is to provide the party enough maneuvering room to allow Democrats to adjust their position as conditions in Iraq change -- and fix public attention mostly on Bush`s policies rather the details of a Democratic alternative. A new Time magazine poll found 60 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Bush`s handling of Iraq.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) embodies this cautious approach. He has resisted adopting a concrete Iraq policy and persuaded most Democratic senators to vote for a recent Senate resolution calling 2006 ``a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty`` and to compel the administration ``to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq.`` While Republicans introduced the resolution, it was prompted by a Democratic plan.

Democratic Reps. Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher, both of California, plan to push House Democrats to adopt a similar position during a closed-door meeting today that is to include debate on the Pelosi position.

Despite Pelosi`s claims that she echoes the views of most members in her caucus, plenty of Democrats are cringing at her new high profile on an Iraq withdrawal. Not only did she back a position that polls show most Americans do not support, but she also did this when Bush is trying to move off the defensive by accusing Democrats of supporting a de facto surrender.

``We have not blown our chance`` of winning back the House but ``we have jeopardized it,`` said a top strategist to House Democrats, who requested anonymity to speak freely about influential party leaders. ``It raises questions about whether we are capable of seizing political opportunities or whether we cannot help ourselves and blow it`` by playing to the liberal base of the party.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said that while Pelosi estimates more than half of House Democrats favor a speedy withdrawal, she will lobby members in today`s meeting against adopting this as a caucus position.

Without naming Pelosi, Vice President Cheney told troops yesterday that terrorists will prevail ``if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission,`` saying such precipitous move ``would be unwise in the extreme.`` Cheney, addressing Army units at Fort Drum, N.Y., said that ``any decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground and the judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C.``

In his comments Monday, Dean likened the president`s optimistic assessment to those offered by the government during the Vietnam War. Bush fired back yesterday. ``There are pessimists . . . and politicians who try to score points. But our strategy is one that is -- will lead us to victory,`` Bush said in response to a question about Dean`s comments after a meeting with Lee Jong Wook, director general of the World Health Organization. ``Our troops need to hear not only are they supported, but that we have got a strategy that will win.``

DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said Dean`s comments were taken out of context. Dean, she said, meant the war was unwinnable unless the Bush administration adopts a new strategy. Still, a number of Democrats distanced themselves from Dean. ``I think Howard Dean . . . represents himself when he speaks,`` Tauscher said. ``He does not represent me.``

Democratic candidates said their biggest concern is that voters will misconstrue comments by party leaders about Bush`s handling of the war as criticism of U.S. troops who are fighting in Iraq. ``I absolutely disagree`` with Dean, said Patrick Murphy, a Democrat who is running for the suburban Philadelphia House seat now occupied by GOP Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick.

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who represents a district Bush won easily in 2004, said he disagrees with Pelosi and Dean but does not see that as a problem. ``The national press is playing up the fact that Democrats do not speak with one voice on Iraq,`` he said. ``We should wear it as a badge of honor because it shows we are not playing a political line with war and peace.``

Here`s more of Gen. Odom`s commentary (go to this URL for his complete statement: http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=0063&stoplayout=true&print=true )

Withdrawal is the Precondition to Progress

Once we recognize these two realities, it becomes clear that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is the precondition to winning the support of our allies and a few others for a joint approach to the region. Until that has been completed, they will not join such a coalition. And until that has happened, even we in the United States cannot think clearly about what constitutes our interests there, much let gain agreement about common interests for a coalition.

By contrast, any argument for ``staying course,`` or seeking more stability before we withdraw -- or pointing out tragic consequences that withdrawal will cause -- is bound to be wrong, or at least unpersuasive. Putting it bluntly, those who insist on staying in Iraq longer make the consequences of withdrawal more terrible and make it harder to find an alternative strategy for achieving regional stability.

Once the invasion began in March 2003, all of the ensuing unhappy results became inevitable. The invasion of Iraq may well turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history. In any event, the longer we stay, the worse it will be. Until that is understood, we will make no progress with our allies or in devising a promising alternative strategy.

``Staying the course`` may make a good sound bite, but it can be disastrous for strategy. Several of Hitler`s generals told him that ``staying the course`` at Stalingrad in 1942 was a strategic mistake, that he should allow the Sixth Army to be withdrawn, saving it to fight defensive actions on reduced frontage against the growing Red Army. He refused, lost the Sixth Army entirely, and left his commanders with fewer forces to defend a wider front. Thus he made the subsequent Soviet offensives westward easier.

To argue, as some do, that we cannot leave Iraq because ``we broke it and therefore we own it`` is to reason precisely the way Hitler did with his commanders. Of course we broke it! But the Middle East is not a pottery store. It is the site of major military conflict with several different forces that the United States is galvanizing into an alliance against America. To hang on to an untenable position is the height of irresponsibility. Beware of anyone, including the president, who insists that this is ``responsible`` or ``the patriotic`` thing to do.

Ref: Cut and Run by Mohammad Gill

By all means no one here should fail to read this article by Gen. Odom:

``What`s Wrong With Cutting and Running?``

You can find it at this address: http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129