Have we been sold out by Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats on the Iraq war?

Great Debates
281

[QUOTE=harveyc]
I am not the only person to call for this. Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Rep. Mutha and many others have as well. You appear to be under the impression that we have been fighting a well planned war so far in Iraq. A plan based on Murtha’s framework is just as viable as the “plan” we are currently pursuing. So why not save our soldiers lives if we are going to lose this war anyhow?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, the various statements by the politicians you have mentioned, (including those by Rep. Murtha), have all been rather vague regarding specific actions and planning. You initiated this thread by excoriating the Democratic leadership for not immediately implementing their “plan” and my point is that neither you nor they have actually presented a “plan” and it is my contention that executing part of a(n unidentified) “plan” is more foolish than taking the time to create an actual plan.

Suppose we go with your “redeploy” scenario. We lose all the contacts that on-site units have established with local neighborhoods, thereby eliminating any communications and intelligence that our on-site units have developed, making our troops even more blind than they currently are, and then we discover that we need to go back into an area–an area where we no longer have intelligence or understanding of the community–resetting the clock to April, 2003–and where we may have even alienated people who believe we have abandoned them (or now believe that we will eventually abandon them) and are now more willing to join one of the fractional insurgent groups. What have we accomplished?

I do not say that “redeployment” is inherently bad. I say that there has been no serious plan put forth to explain how it would work–certainly not by you–and that, therfore, your condemnation of the Democratic leadership prior to there being a plan established is unwarranted.

It is, perhaps, true that the U.S. military should not be used as cops. However, it was the U.S. military that refused the requests of various anti-Hussein divisions to to be allowed to keep their commands intact, thus setting the stage for them to take their personal arms and go home as mobs and future insurgents.

No aspect of this stupid war has been handled intelligently, but we did create the situation in which armed thugs would vie for power. Slapping the dust off our hands and claiming “If the Iraqi’s can’t take care of that, we are in really big trouble.” may give you a sense of self-satisfied righteousness, but it does not address the issue that we are directly responsible for creating the situation.

I do not know the best way to resolve the problems. However, pretending that “redeployment” is, by itself, a “plan” (as you have done) is irresponsible in the extreme.

282

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
… However, pretending that “redeployment” is, by itself, a “plan” (as you have done) is irresponsible in the extreme.
[/QUOTE]

I think you have this concept that there is some absolute level of detail required to make a plan “responsible.” Soldiers dying in a losing cause is not responsible. You seem to be saying, let’s lose more soldiers lives, because you haven’t seen a detailed plan down to what the military and political efforts will be everyday, let alone not even knowing what those requirements will be day to day.

If you have a detailed plan, versus strategic plan, when we went into Iraq, please share. We already know, sending our soldiers, 4th ID, through Turkey was changed at the very start.

How much and what level of detail do you require to satisfy your concerns?

A Murtha type plan is a good strategic plan which can be filled in by military planners at the Pentagon, for the military aspects, based on the conditions. Plus, there are many more detailed ideas and plans proposed which the Pentagon and State Department can draw from. For illustrative purposes only:

We don’t an army of 150,000 on the ground to obtain intelligence, when has that ever been a requirement for the CIA, NSC, etc.?

283

[QUOTE=Bugles]
I like dogs. If that offends anybody at all, I apologize.
[/QUOTE]

:slight_smile: Not at all! What’s your favorite recipe?

284

A vague statement that we need to “redeploy” without an exact specification of the bases and troops involved in the redeployment cannot be carried out on the afternoon that the current Congress is inaugurated, so, at minimum, if you want to dump this “planning” on the Pentagon, you have to wait until they draw up the plans before you can execute them.

Therefore, the anger you expressed to initiate this thread is baseless.

If you do not understand the differences between S2 and G2 and between G2 and the CIA, you are displaying a significant ignorance about a topic on which you feel free to make bold (if uninformed) pronouncements.

285

I suggest the OP watch 60 Minutes tomorrow night.

"In an interview set to air on this Sunday’s 60 Minutes, President George W. Bush vows to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq “no matter what” the Democratic-controlled Congress tries to do. …

“Now I fully understand they will,” Bush continued, “they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I’ve made my decision and we’re going forward,”

Link

286

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
A vague statement that we need to “redeploy” without an exact specification of the bases and troops involved in the redeployment cannot be carried out on the afternoon that the current Congress is inaugurated, so, at minimum, if you want to dump this “planning” on the Pentagon, you have to wait until they draw up the plans before you can execute them.

Therefore, the anger you expressed to initiate this thread is baseless.

If you do not understand the differences between S2 and G2 and between G2 and the CIA, you are displaying a significant ignorance about a topic on which you feel free to make bold (if uninformed) pronouncements.
[/QUOTE]

Why don’t you provide us with your plan for Iraq? Based on your posts, it is apparently between the Administration’s and redeployment. A strategic approach will be fine to start. We can compare it point by point.

Imo and with all due respect, your ignorance was clearly displayed in this thread, as I commented on, when you attempted to justify 150,000 combat troops on the ground to, fighting groups of 5 to 10 people, Iran/Turkey involvement, remote insertions, intelligence, etc. Screw G2, S2, we don’t need 150,000 combat troops on the ground to conduct intelligence, that is absolutely ludicrous.

So far you have said nothing except, we need a detailed plan, i.e. a detailed plan is better, even though it is a disaster, no matter how many lives it cost and is better than a sound strategic plan that has to be flushed out.

Are you telling us, that if the President said to redeploy the US soldiers in Iraq today, it couldn’t be done? I’ll await your plan for Iraq.

287

[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
I suggest the OP watch 60 Minutes tomorrow night.

"In an interview set to air on this Sunday’s 60 Minutes, President George W. Bush vows to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq “no matter what” the Democratic-controlled Congress tries to do. …

“Now I fully understand they will,” Bush continued, “they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I’ve made my decision and we’re going forward,”

Link
[/QUOTE]

He is delusional and apparently doesn’t even understand the power of Congress. Of course, this isn’t the first thing he hasn’t understood:

McCain: "According to the Constitution, they have the power to cut off funding, like they did during the Vietnam War,” McCain said. "I respect the views of my colleagues in the Senate . . . We need the debate, but I’m convinced that if we do not give this a chance to succeed, [the terrorists] will follow us home.”

Feingold: “I have consistently called for the redeployment of our military from Iraq, but now Congress must use its main power - the power of the purse - to put an end to our involvement in this disastrous war,” he said at the hearing.

McConnell: “Congress is completely incapable of dictating the tactics in a war,” he said, adding that if Democrats are so unhappy, they should cut off funding.

“What they want to do, apparently, is to leave,” Mr. McConnell said. “And there is only one effective device of Congress that can be employed to bring about that result, and that opportunity will be provided when the supplemental appropriation comes up in February. If they want to cut off money for the troops, that’s the time to do it.”

288

[QUOTE=harveyc]
Why don’t you provide us with your plan for Iraq?
[/quote]
Because I have already noted that i do not have a plan. On the other hand, you keep insisting that we “redeploy” immediately with absolutely no indication that you understand what that word means in the context of the issues of Iraq and continue to castigate anyone who asks that we have an actual plan to perform this redeployment before we send all the troops in Iraq out on the highways to wander around looking for unidentified bases to which to deploy.

[QUOTE=harveyc]
Imo and with all due respect, your ignorance was clearly displayed in this thread, as I commented on, when you attempted to justify 150,000 combat troops on the ground to, fighting groups of 5 to 10 people, Iran/Turkey involvement, remote insertions, intelligence, etc. Screw G2, S2, we don’t need 150,000 combat troops on the ground to conduct intelligence, that is absolutely ludicrous.
[/quote]
If you are incapable of understanding the exact points I made (and, thus, choose to discount them because you are unable to understand them), then I suggest that I am not the poster demonstrating ignorance. In addition, your characterization of my statements to construe them to claim that we need 150,000 troops on the ground to gather intelligence is either a demonstration of a complete lack of comprehension or a deliberate falsehood.

Since you are simply going to repeat your mantra, over and over, without consideration, I will withdraw from the diascussion. However, if you continue to simply repeat your mantra without providing anything of substance, I will have to move this rant to the BBQ Pit.

289

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Because I have already noted that i do not have a plan. On the other hand, you keep insisting that we “redeploy” immediately with absolutely no indication that you understand what that word means in the context of the issues of Iraq and continue to castigate anyone who asks that we have an actual plan to perform this redeployment before we send all the troops in Iraq out on the highways to wander around looking for unidentified bases to which to deploy.

If you are incapable of understanding the exact points I made (and, thus, choose to discount them because you are unable to understand them), then I suggest that I am not the poster demonstrating ignorance. In addition, your characterization of my statements to construe them to claim that we need 150,000 troops on the ground to gather intelligence is either a demonstration of a complete lack of comprehension or a deliberate falsehood.

Since you are simply going to repeat your mantra, over and over, without consideration, I will withdraw from the diascussion. However, if you continue to simply repeat your mantra without providing anything of substance, I will have to move this rant to the BBQ Pit.
[/QUOTE]

I listen and, in fact, learn from other people’s opinions in debates. It makes me more aware of the arguments that have to be made to support us getting out of Iraq. I thought that was what the purpose of this BB and the others I particpate in.

Repeating my mantra? I have addressed every comment here, from “Congress can’t defund a war”, “The President will find funds from other sources” to “It is Political Suicide.”

If I misconstrued your statement as follows, please clarify:

290

Currently, U.S. troops are based near Iraqi neighborhoods. (Some would say that they are actually already based too far from actual neighborhoods, (see Allessan’s comments, earlier).) However, at the platoon level they are often detailed to work with either Iraqi police or Iraqi military to help secure neighborhoods to make them safer. In this situation, they develop relationships with their corresponding army units, police units, and the citizens. To the extent that they do their jobs well, (certainly arguable in many cases), they begin to build a trust relationship so that they can work with the Iraqi army or police to forestall problems. They also begin to get information from local citizens regarding other Iraqis who may have joined the insurgents or who may be carrying on feuds with other groups or hear reports regarding non-Iraqis who have come into a neighborhood to recruit insurgents or otherwise raise hell.

If the troops are pulled out to remote locations so that the Iraqi people never see them, all of the trust (and all of the information/intelligence) that it provides goes away, completely. No Iraqi citizen will (or even could) go to a U.S. officer and tell him about a planned attack on a power line or a pumping station. If word comes down from the Iraqi government that some person or group must be attacked, forces on the ground, who may have better intelligence and recognize that the attack order probably originated among Sadr’s groups to be handed down from Maliki, can challenge that information. Without that contact, the U.S. military becomes nothing more than the bullies who are called in to provide firepower for whichever group can manipulate parts of the Iraqi government on a tribal level.

Now, it is all fine to say that “we” should not be police and that “they” should handle their own affairs, but “we” are the ones who created the situation in which the majority of Iraqi citizens are subject to whichever group happens to have weapons in a neighborhood. I agree that we have botched this situation, but it is entirely unethical to walk away and claim that it is not our problem.

291

Apparently. “some” people here are privy to civilian-military relationships in Iraq that are not being reported in any media.

292

If our soldiers weren’t in the role of policemen in Iraq, sectarian violence info/intel wouldn’t and shouldn’t be a major focus of a standing army of 150,000 combat troops.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Currently, U.S. troops are based near Iraqi neighborhoods. (Some would say that they are actually already based too far from actual neighborhoods, (see Allessan’s comments, earlier).) However, at the platoon level they are often detailed to work with either Iraqi police or Iraqi military to help secure neighborhoods to make them safer. In this situation, they develop relationships with their corresponding army units, police units, and the citizens. To the extent that they do their jobs well, (certainly arguable in many cases), they begin to build a trust relationship so that they can work with the Iraqi army or police to forestall problems. They also begin to get information from local citizens regarding other Iraqis who may have joined the insurgents or who may be carrying on feuds with other groups or hear reports regarding non-Iraqis who have come into a neighborhood to recruit insurgents or otherwise raise hell.
[/quote]

“never see them?”, poll after poll indicates that the Iraqi’s don’t want to see our soldiers there.

I agree, we “broke it” because of an incompetent President, but we did the same thing in Vietnam. It became clear that we couldn’t win in Vietnam and we brought our soldiers home. Today, there are no effects due to our redeployment from Vietnam. It saved US soldier lives and the dominos did not fall!

I think you raise some valid points, but they don’t rise anywhere close to discounting redeployment as a viable strategy for getting our soldiers out of Iraq.

293

John Edwards calls on Congress to speak out and use its power to defund Iraq war escalation.

“Speak out and stop this escalation now. You have the power, members of Congress, to prohibit this president from spending any money to escalate this war — use that power.” - January 14, 2007

http://www.nysun.com/article/46672