Our vice president is right about Iraq

[true_blue_bill]

Looks like the plan is to let his father's buddy bail his a$$ out once again.

Former top aide may offer Bush way out of Iraq (via Reuters)

So, "phased withdrawal" mentioned by Dems equals "cut and run", but when proposed by one of the Bush family confidants it's an exit strategy.  Wonder how they'll sell "dialogue with Syria and Iran"?

809448[/snapback]

Hey, don't be surprised if Bush simply ignores Baker, too. He really wants to stretch this thing out and dump it on another President

[Bungee Jumper]

Hey, don't be surprised if Bush simply ignores Baker, too. He really wants to stretch this thing out and dump it on another President

809515[/snapback]

 

Hey, it's the American Way: "Ignore it and it goes away. If it doesn't...you're only in office for eight years, max, so !@#$ it."

[KRC]

I haven't yet heard a Democrat publicly espouse a "phased withdrawal". 

809464[/snapback]

 

Patrick Murphy (Dem candidate for U.S. House) calls his plan a "Phased Withdrawal," but it is basically a "phased withdrawal" immediately. I think his "plan" has all troops out within 6 months.

[Johnny Coli]

Patrick Murphy (Dem candidate for U.S. House) calls his plan a "Phased Withdrawal," but it is basically a "phased withdrawal" immediately.  I think his "plan" has all troops out within 6 months.

809755[/snapback]

I just took a look at his campaign site. He's an Iraq War vet (Army paratrooper), a Bronze Star recipient, and taught at West Point. I would think that if anyone was qualified to discuss Iraq it would be Patrick Murphy.

 

Here is his plan for redeployment. His plan does not call for all troops to be withdrawn in six months, just the Guard and Reserves.

The plan I proposed in December of 2005 was based on a simple idea — that the Iraqi people would begin fighting for their democracy only when it became clear that the American military wouldn’t be there forever. I proposed a phased redeployment for American troops: (1) bring all Guard and Reserve troops home within six months and turn over law enforcement responsibilities to the Iraqis; (2) after bringing the Guard and Reserve home, another 50,000 troops would come home by the end of 2006; and, (3) keep a strike force in the region, either in remote Iraq or Kuwait, made up of elite forces from the Marine Corps or the Army’s 82nd Airborne, who could continue training Iraqi Defense Forces and serve as a force to deter Iranian aggression.

 

[snip]

 

1) Redeploy our National Guard: Bring our National Guard troops home from Iraq in the next six months. Then they can redeploy to protecting our homeland. In Pennsylvania they can help secure our chemical plants, our nine nuclear reactors, and our mass transit.

 

(2) Redeploy our regular military: Bring home most of the remaining 130,000 troops by the end of 2007. Redeploy thousands of troops to reinforce the 18,000 troops we have in Afghanistan fighting resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda forces.

 

(3) Keep a strike force in theater: Maintain an over-the-horizon strategic strike force in remote Iraq or Kuwait to help train Iraqi Defense Forces and serve as a force to deter Iranian aggression.

 

(4) Commence Aggressive Regional Diplomacy: Convene a Dayton Accords-style summit to bring Arab nations and Iraqi factions into the peace process. Have Richard Holbrooke— who successfully brokered the Bosnia peace agreement — lead this initiative to give it bipartisan and international credibility.

 

(5) Fund Redevelopment with Accountability: The Iraqi government must take responsibility for rebuilding their country. But the United States must work with the international community and other major donors to provide humanitarian and economic assistance to Iraq. Any assistance must emphasize stability, security and have strict accountability to ensure that no additional taxpayer dollars are wasted.

 

(6) Hold our Leaders Accountable: Donald Rumsfeld must resign or be fired. Unless there is a change in our nation’s leadership little will change in how we engage and eventually defeat Al Qaeda. We need leaders who know how to take the fight to our enemy while securing our homeland. I agree with fellow veteran Governor Rendell and question Rumsfeld’s decision to cut six brigades of our National Guard and Reserves during a time of war.

 

I don't see anything unreasonable with this plan, and had it been implemented last December, it would take two full years to redeploy the troops. That's not a cut and run strategy.

[KRC]

I would think that if anyone was qualified to discuss Iraq it would be Patrick Murphy.

809778[/snapback]

 

After reading your posts, he is qualified because he agrees with you. Other qualifications are meaningless.

[Bungee Jumper]

I don't see anything unreasonable with this plan, and had it been implemented last December, it would take two full years to redeploy the troops.  That's not a cut and run strategy.

809778[/snapback]

 

You mean withdrawing completely, then negotiating while throwing money at them contingent on security they can't provide seems reasonable to you?

 

The only upside to that plan is that it won't be Americans being killed. Everything else is pretty much tailored to make things worse.

[Johnny Coli]

After reading your posts, he is qualified because he agrees with you. Other qualifications are meaningless.

809902[/snapback]

So a decorated Iraq war veteran isn't qualified to discuss Iraq because I happen to share his point of view?

[Johnny Coli]

You mean withdrawing completely, then negotiating while throwing money at them contingent on security they can't provide seems reasonable to you? 

 

The only upside to that plan is that it won't be Americans being killed.  Everything else is pretty much tailored to make things worse.

809911[/snapback]

There is no plan in place right now. None. You and Ken can continue to put forth the nonsense that Bush and Rummy have a clue and are victims of bad PR, but reality is telling a completely different story. I do not have the answers. But it has become crystal clear that Bush, Rummy, et al have no answers either.

 

Multiple people from retired generals, to people currently in the military, to former administration members (including Bush I), to members of the GOP, to the Dems are calling for a change in direction. You can continue to maintain that all are complete idiots and aren't qualified to discuss a different strategy for Iraq , but it is becoming clearer who the real idiots are.

 

 

EDIT:

In re-reading this post it could possibly be interpreted that I am calling Ken and Tom idiots. That is not the case.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Johnny Coli

[UConn James]

So a decorated Iraq war veteran isn't qualified to discuss Iraq because I happen to share his point of view?

809955[/snapback]

 

Right. And Ken Crippen is qualified to discuss Iraq b/c of all the time he personally spent there... and he got 300 votes when he ran for President.

[VABills]

So a decorated Iraq war veteran isn't qualified to discuss Iraq because I happen to share his point of view?

809955[/snapback]

And Murtha was a Marine. But if you ask 99.9% of current and former Marine he's a traitor for what he has said and done to the Marine Corps over the last year, only to "further" his political career. I am curious to see if he has the balls to show up at the Marine Museum dedication. I'm guessing no.

[Bungee Jumper]

There is no plan in place right now.  None.  You and Ken can continue to put forth the nonsense that Bush and Rummy have a clue and are victims of bad PR, but reality is telling a completely different story.  I do not have the answers.  But it has become crystal clear that Bush, Rummy, et al have no answers either. 

 

Multiple people from retired generals, to people currently in the military, to former administration members (including Bush I), to members of the GOP, to the Dems are calling for a change in direction.  You can continue to maintain that all are complete idiots and aren't qualified to discuss a different strategy for Iraq , but it is becoming clearer who the real idiots are.

809980[/snapback]

 

Actually, I thought the plan was pretty clear to anyone with half a brain:

 

1) Invade country

2) Stabilize country

3) "Create" a democratic government

4) Gradually transition security responsibilities from US troops to Iraqi forces

5) Draw down US troop levels.

 

That the plan isn't very good (ignoring, as it does, reality) is a completely different issue. It is poor policy, for reasons I mentioned earlier, but it's main failing is that its implementation has been poor (at best). It's also dated; the administration seems to use the phrase "stay the course" as an excuse to not adapt to conditions on the ground...hence while the plan may have been workable early on when the violence was more characterized by anti-occupation and anti-government fighting, it's execrably futile now that the violence is more sectarian.

 

HOWEVER...it still seems to me a damn sight better than "Let's get the hell out and talk things over while the Iraqis kill themselves", which is nothing more than a designed and intended failure and abrogation of foreign policy in the classic Clinton mold of not addressing issues. And Murphy thinks that doing that while pursuing "aggressive regional diplomacy" is going to increase US credibility? Because it worked with the Dayton Accords? News flash, Mr. Murphy: the US didn't have any credibility in Bosnia until we put troops on the ground, Dayton notwithstanding.

 

And this is why I'm so contemptuous of the Democratic Party. Their idea of foreign policy is pure, willful, pollyannaish ignorance. It's about as poorly grounded in reality as the administration's policy, but with the added stupidity of being almost totally reactive.

[KRC]

So a decorated Iraq war veteran isn't qualified to discuss Iraq because I happen to share his point of view?

809955[/snapback]

 

If someone of higher qualifications were to say that Murphy's idea is a POS, then you would be whining that they are nothing more than a Bush apologist. Thanks for continuing your usual trend. Agree with you: credible. Disagree: RNC shill.

[Johnny Coli]

HOWEVER...it still seems to me a damn sight better than "Let's get the hell out and talk things over while the Iraqis kill themselves", which is nothing more than a designed and intended failure and abrogation of foreign policy in the classic Clinton mold of not addressing issues.  And Murphy thinks that doing that while pursuing "aggressive regional diplomacy" is going to increase US credibility?  Because it worked with the Dayton Accords?  News flash, Mr. Murphy: the US didn't have any credibility in Bosnia until we put troops on the ground, Dayton notwithstanding. 

 

And this is why I'm so contemptuous of the Democratic Party.  Their idea of foreign policy is pure, willful, pollyannaish ignorance.  It's about as poorly grounded in reality as the administration's policy, but with the added stupidity of being almost totally reactive.

810016[/snapback]

"Aggressive regional diplomacy" is a tactic being put forth by James Baker as well.

U.S. may have weeks, not months, to avert civil war, adviser warns

The co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, former Secretary of State James Baker, has already made headlines by saying that "stay the course" is no longer a viable strategy and that some kind of change will be required. The study group's final report is not due until after the November election, but Baker has insisted in several interviews over the past two weeks that the United States must place greater emphasis on diplomacy, including talks with avowed U.S. foes such as Syria and Iran, in an effort to stabilize Iraq. He has said the United States should place less emphasis on military force alone.

 

"I believe in talking to your enemies,'' Baker said in an interview on ABC. "'It's got to be hard-nosed, it's got to be determined. You don't give away anything, but in my view, it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies."

 

(emphasis added)

 

The Iraq Study Group is also suggesting a redeployment within as little as 18 months, or three years at the most.

 

The United States should also announce plans for a flexible drawdown of troops over a period of from 18 months to 3 years, he said. Some troops should be redeployed to other countries in the region, such as Kuwait and Qatar, to ensure that the United States can respond swiftly to any crises, but a substantial number should return to their U.S. bases, he said.

 

That sounds exactly like the plan Murphy has on his website. Redeployment with a strike force in the region.

 

Surely everyone calling for a gradual drawdown and redeployment can't all be considered idiots. At some point it has to be made known to the iraqi people that the US is leaving and their security will be up to them. I don't care if it has to be handed over city by city, town by town, block by block or even freaking house by house, the US should leave and the iraqis should be left to deal with their own country.