Five Years Later, Five Years of the Same

4 thoughts on “Five Years Later, Five Years of the Same”

1. .
   
   Telling lies to convince the nation to support going to war is bad.  
   
   The people who told those lies are bad.  
   
   Killing a million innocent civilians is bad, even if they’re not Americans.  
   
   Occupying a foreign country and brutalizing the citizens is bad.
   
   Going into a pre-emptive war to secure access to oil is bad.  

   Bad, bad, bad.

   OK.

   Quit living in the past.
   
   ……………………………..

   It is more important to have a dialogue over what to do now,
   
   now that we are where we are.  

   ……………………………..

   Some folks are saying it would be a strain on our military to force them to pull out at a rate faster than one Brigade Combat Team per month.  
   
   Therefore, one of the Democratic Candidates says, that should be how fast we pull out.  
   
   Bologna.  

   If the National Command Authority decides to,
   
   we can pull out of Iraq completely,
   
   all ~105,000 combat troops and ~55,000 support troops,
   
   in 60 days.  

   We shouldn’t pull out as fast as possible just because we can.
   
   We should pull out at the rate that best supports US national security.  

   Right now, the mission of US military forces in Iraq is to make sure that things stay on an even keel until after President Bush leaves office.  
   
   The military isn’t trying to secure vast new territories,
   
   it is conducting a delaying action.
   
   From Diyala to Nineveh,
   
   the watchword is,
   
   “just keep your head down until January.  After that, the mission changes.”  

   Unfortunately, the situation is not going to get any better between now and then, since we have surrendered the initiative.  
   
   But there’s a good chance it won’t get much worse, since Iraqis don’t want to do anything to make us change our minds and stay longer.  

   So,
   
   what happens when the new President takes over ?  
   
   If the new President is Mike Gravel, who’s still in the race,
   
   then we give the military a new mission:
   
   FIRST, prepare the provinces and cities and towns and neighborhoods,
   
   prepare all of the communities in Iraq to defend themselves from their neighbors.  
   
   SECOND, help these communities work our deals with their neighbors for mutual self-defense, or at least agree not to fight each other and find areas of cooperation.  
   
   THIRD, after about 2 – 4 months of the above, start an orderly withdrawal.  

   What happens if Obama becomes President ?  Or Clinton ?
   
   That answer is less clear.  
   
   My impression is that we start the 16-month withdrawal, without bothering to get the Iraqis prepared for the new security environment after we’re gone.  
   
   After a couple of months, we find this arrangement unsatisfactory, and stop the drawdown while we develop a plan.  
   
   A real plan, as opposed to the currently stated plan, “I’m going to immediately start withdrawal in January, until we have 30,000 troops left to defend the Embassy and to conduct ‘freedom of action’ limited strikes.”

   And what if McCain wins ?
   
   Stay the mindless course.  
   
   .  

   Log in to Reply

   1. We need to develop a legal framework for handling PMCs.  Even if the US stops hiring them, they will remain a problem.  As the US pulls out their presence will increase.  

      I want our troops out of Iraq, but I don’t want them replaced by mercenaries operating under vague laws.

      on another note: I’ve tried to envision what is the best case for the US in Iraq and I’ve kind of decided we want to swap position with Iran: lots of influence, the ability to upset the apple cart or protect our friends, but no responsibility for security.   Just like we were suckered into fighting this war, we have to sucker the Iranians into overplaying their hand so that we can just hang back and influence things instead of trying to control things.  I know its a little real politik, but I can’t see a way of disentangling fully without having Kurdistan/turkey death spiral and saudi/Iran proxy war breaking out.

      Log in to Reply

   2. One of us, one of us, one of us?

      I thought I was the only Gravel supporter on here (or in CO), and hey, I’m a Gravel staffer!

      Log in to Reply

      1. .
         
         most of my life, my one issue was opposition to abortion.  

         Now I’m a little more targeted.
         
         I’m opposed to the Iraq abortion.  

         Gravel is the only one still in the race who is unabashedly for advancing US interests vis-a-vis Iraq,
         
         which necessarily means getting out.

         Clinton and Obama are both indebted to interests that support continuation of the train wreck.  

         Regardless of what they say for public consumption,
         
         both have signaled that they recognize how important it is to keep bleeding any potential adversaries of one particular political party in Israel.

         The Iraq mess, big picture, is worse for Israel than it is for us.
         
         But just like the GOP in the US,
         
         the “conservatives” in Israel would destroy their country if they can make money off of it.
         
         .  

         Log in to Reply