Troops in Iraq Are Coming Home!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Obama had a hard time saying it was a success during the campaign so we're not talking ancient history here.

That is true. I remember McCain bringing up the surge and it's success during the debates.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The surge was the only right decision that could have been made at the time - but Bush was forced into making it.

The surge was not popular at the time and Bush made a decision against public sentiment during calls for timetables for withdrawal. it took a long time for people to concede it was the correct course of action even if belatedly so. Obama had a hard time saying it was a success during the campaign so we're not talking ancient history here.

Of course it wasn't popular at the time - the administration spent months dithering after they realised that they made major mistakes early on (notably - disbanding the Iraqi army) because Rumsfeld in his infinite wisdom decided to ignore advice of the generals and commit too few troops, all with no specific plan to ensure the reconstruction of the country. All this while the evening news was reporting nightly casualty reports and stories of sectarian violence.

Noone wanted to send more troops - by the time the WH got around to considering it, the public at large was already disillusioned by the whole thing and there were calls to get out entirely.

As I say - they were forced into making a decision, and had to sell it to a public who had already started to distrust them.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Lets not forget that the "good decision" came out of the Bush administration after months of indecision, punctuated by "stay the course".

His administration had tied its hands on the policy and didn't want to be seen to have made a mistake (i.e having no advance plans to ensure reconstruction of the country) so they stuck with the status quo hoping that things would improve. They didn't and the public got increasingly dissatisfied with the administration's rhetoricising of the issue until the public outcry essentially forced the WH into changing its strategy.

The surge was the only right decision that could have been made at the time - but Bush was forced into making it.

So, I guess you disagree with the conventional wisdom at the time, especially on the left. By the way, who, or what, forced 43 into making that decision?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The surge was the only right decision that could have been made at the time - but Bush was forced into making it.

The surge was not popular at the time and Bush made a decision against public sentiment during calls for timetables for withdrawal. it took a long time for people to concede it was the correct course of action even if belatedly so. Obama had a hard time saying it was a success during the campaign so we're not talking ancient history here.

Of course it wasn't popular at the time - the administration spent months dithering after they realised that they made major mistakes early on (notably - disbanding the Iraqi army) because Rumsfeld in his infinite wisdom decided to ignore advice of the generals and commit too few troops, all with no specific plan to ensure the reconstruction of the country. All this while the evening news was reporting nightly casualty reports and stories of sectarian violence.

Noone wanted to send more troops - by the time the WH got around to considering it, the public at large was already disillusioned by the whole thing and there were calls to get out entirely.

As I say - they were forced into making a decision, and had to sell it to a public who had already started to distrust them.

You forget that the original plan was to marshall in the north, amongst the Kurds, before heading to Bagdad. But, as we were massing forces to execute that plan, Turkey denied us that front. By then, we were already committed to a course of action, and forced to continue under less than ideal conditions, through a longer, narrower corridor from Kuwait in the south.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stabilizing Iraq couldn't have ever been achieved militarily. That's the difference and it's an important one that Obama was talking about during the campaign. The Bush Administration had focused it's resources and efforts through military means while ignoring the advice and expertise of people who know the region inside and out. General Petreus did a superb job militarily, but however well executed that strategy was, it did not bring about the eventual stabilization of the tribal conflicts. There is still conflict there, but it was never about Al-Qaeda trying to run Iraq. The whole notion of, "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" was beyond silly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From the Independent Institute:

Ivan Eland

The media, egged on by John McCain and his campaign, are going to twist the arm of Barack Obama until he cries "uncle" and admits the U.S. troop "surge" has worked in Iraq. So far, Obama has not cracked under the pressure and, for reasons of political expediency, admitted this dubious proposition.

The smart political course of action for Obama—but not the correct one—would be to admit the surge has worked to reduce violence but to observe that that's little solace after a needless invasion and five-year (and counting) occupation that has cost more than 4,000 lives and about $600 billion. So far, Obama has stuck to the correct, and maybe even charitable, conclusion that the surge is only one of many factors that has reduced the carnage in Iraq.

Using logic, if the U.S. troop surge had been the cause of the diminished violence, then why did the mayhem go up in 2005 when the United States undertook a troop surge of similar magnitude? Moreover, because little true political reconciliation has occurred in Iraq since the surge began, if the additional troops were the cause of the new tranquility, that calm should be evaporating now that U.S. forces are being reduced to pre-surge levels. Yet so far, no spike in violence is occurring. Thus, the logical conclusion is that other factors are likely to have been more important in improving conditions than the addition of more troops.

For example, many experts believe that the prior violent cleansing of ethno-sectarian populations has separated the battling Shi'i and Sunni groups and thus reduced the internecine warfare. Also, the U.S. military finally implemented a true counterinsurgency strategy in which it eschewed killing lots of guerrillas (and civilians collaterally) with heavy firepower and moved toward holding ground and winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi population. One would have thought it would not have taken the U.S. military so long to relearn this lesson after the searing experience of the Vietnam War.

Finally, and maybe most important, the U.S. decided to negotiate with (Moktada al-Sadr and his Shi'i militia) and pay off (the Sunni guerrillas) enemies to get their forces to quit attacking U.S. troops. U.S. politicians, thinking it is not macho to do either, have either downplayed these factors or preferred to refer to the latter by euphemism. The former is especially embarrassing to the politicians because the United States has criticized the new Pakistani government for negotiating with, instead of fighting, the Taliban and other Pakistani militants, while the U.S. government has pursued the same strategy in Iraq with the al-Sadr Shi'i militia. The latter is embarrassing because it is considered wimpy to pay off, rather than do battle, with your enemies.

....edited

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2277

Edited February 25, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[NickD 203]

How does this set with you all?

During VN we were bringing VN guys here for training by the tens of thousands, teaching them our tactics that ended up being used against us. Is this a good idea?

And exactly what are security forces? Is this just another name for an army? And with an army, you have power that can create even more problems.

How about we just disarmed Iraq and leave? Disarming was the first thing we did in Japan and Germany, but fortunately back then, we had leaders with brains.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Although I like the idea of bringing the troops home, my one concern is that we're leaving Iraq in a very destabilized state. Maybe we caused it, but that means we should also clean it up.

If we don't do something about Iraq's current situation, they'll not only get "taken over" by bordering countries (like Iran), but we'll have inadvertently created a new generation of people who despise the United States. Do we really need that? Maybe the U.S. isn't among the average Iraqi's favorite nation, but they'll hate us even more if we leave them now while telling them to clean up our mess.

[NickD 203]

Although I like the idea of bringing the troops home, my one concern is that we're leaving Iraq in a very destabilized state. Maybe we caused it, but that means we should also clean it up.

If we don't do something about Iraq's current situation, they'll not only get "taken over" by bordering countries (like Iran), but we'll have inadvertently created a new generation of people who despise the United States. Do we really need that? Maybe the U.S. isn't among the average Iraqi's favorite nation, but they'll hate us even more if we leave them now while telling them to clean up our mess.

Let's just send Bush and his administration there to clean it up. The rest of us have to clean up our own messes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The surge was the only right decision that could have been made at the time - but Bush was forced into making it.

The surge was not popular at the time and Bush made a decision against public sentiment during calls for timetables for withdrawal. it took a long time for people to concede it was the correct course of action even if belatedly so. Obama had a hard time saying it was a success during the campaign so we're not talking ancient history here.

Of course it wasn't popular at the time - the administration spent months dithering after they realised that they made major mistakes early on (notably - disbanding the Iraqi army) because Rumsfeld in his infinite wisdom decided to ignore advice of the generals and commit too few troops, all with no specific plan to ensure the reconstruction of the country. All this while the evening news was reporting nightly casualty reports and stories of sectarian violence.

Noone wanted to send more troops - by the time the WH got around to considering it, the public at large was already disillusioned by the whole thing and there were calls to get out entirely.

As I say - they were forced into making a decision, and had to sell it to a public who had already started to distrust them.

You forget that the original plan was to marshall in the north, amongst the Kurds, before heading to Bagdad. But, as we were massing forces to execute that plan, Turkey denied us that front. By then, we were already committed to a course of action, and forced to continue under less than ideal conditions, through a longer, narrower corridor from Kuwait in the south.

Whatever the original plan was, its clear that it, like the rest of the prewar planning was half baked and badly conceived. Little of what happened was "hindsight", the insurgency was entirely predictable and made a certainty by rumsfelds shoddy planning. It didn't help of course that the administration wiped its ####### over international relations, alienating not only its strongest allies, but regional powers too (like turkey).

The bush administration was arrogant and ended up playing itself into a corner with extremely limited options and playing politics with the failure.

[Shad and Dani 3]

I hope everyone is ready when civil war breaks out in Iraq! Oil prices will sky rocket and take our economy even further down the tubes. Get your guns and ammunition ready...lol

[alienlovechild 75]

The whole notion of, "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" was beyond silly.

"And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away."

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/stor...&siteid=rss

Bush? Nope, Obama LAST NIGHT!

It didn't help of course that the administration wiped its ####### over international relations, alienating not only its strongest allies, but regional powers too (like turkey).

It highly unlikely any other allied nations would jump into the war(s) no matter how polite Bush. It's not an invitation to tea party and I still haven't heard f a single nation suddenly step with a big increase in troops (besides the U.S.) for Afghanistan or anywhere else with Obama in command. It was a myth then and now.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why would anyone "jump in" with us on the war just because Bush et al are out of office?

I don't know where you've been over the last 5-6 years, but the foreign leaders that did throw in their lot with the US in 2003 took a hell of a lot of flak from their constituent populations, and the emphasis has very much been on extricating themselves from the situation and repairing political damage at home.

The idea that the election of a new President will suddenly force some sort of policy turnaround is... strange, quite frankly.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[NickD 203]

ABC, I think it was ABC, had a program on last night about our Homeland Security and what a great job our DEA, ICE, CBP, FBI, CIA, POE, and local police are doing. We don't have anything to worry about.

Ha, this one guy was fined 300 bucks for carrying a sandwich in his luggage his mom fixed for him that he didn't eat. Could have cost us billions in ruined crops they said. A Colombian was caught trying to get into Canada from Minnesota that overstayed his visa, said he met a woman in Canada and wanted to see him. Really thought this guy was an idiot for getting caught, but they deported him back to Colombia.

Suppose if logic were applied, they couldn't show people that didn't get caught, like the other 12-20 million, but didn't show one terrorist. But it did warn me, if my mother-in-law, she is always concerned if I have enough to eat, fixes me a sandwich for the plane, I better damn well eat it before landing.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

The smart political course of action for Obama—but not the correct one—would be to admit the surge has worked to reduce violence but to observe that that's little solace after a needless invasion and five-year (and counting) occupation that has cost more than 4,000 lives and about $600 billion.

5 year long "dubious war" = 600 billion = bad

"dubious" stimulus = 800 billion = good.