Bush's two-sided argument

As alluded to this morning by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), since January of 2007 the Bush Administration has had a puzzling argument about the need for a large US troop presence there.  When the violence was out of control, the Administration said that underscored why the US needed to remain there.  When violence subsided somewhat this last winter, they also used that as justification to keep troops there.  Now with violence flaring up once again, both Bush and McCain say that proves why the US can't get out of Iraq.

So then let's beg the question.  Under what circumstance would it be OK for US troops to withdraw?  From what Bush and McCain are hinting at, there isn't such a circumstance.  They want to keep our young men and women there indefinitely.  A vote for McCain is a vote for indefinite involvement in a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on our country.

Comments

[RJ]

Todd, if we pull out of Iraq and the country does fall into chaos, with mass ethnic killings, etc... what, in your opinion, would be our next step? Remember, I am not advocating staying the course or withdrawal. I just want to know what you believe we will do if it happens. As a retired military member, I've never been fond of war, especially the few I served in. But atleast the ones I participated in were mostly supported by our full gov't and people. I would hate to be in Iraq right now thinking that half of the country aren't behind my mission and in one year, what I've done to help this place will be a moot point because of a new political leaderships motives.
Secondly, did McCain ever state that he was for the invasion of Iraq because Saddam attacked our country or was it because of other reasons? Please don't tell me about is "100 Years" statement that is perpetually misquoted.
Also, it took roughly 10 years to stabilize Germany after WW2, should we have walked away after 5 years? Should we walk away now after 60? It took from 1776 through 1789 for the Colonists to defeat England and to come up with the US constitution. Should the French, our main fighting ally during the time, have abandoned us after five years?
If the country would stand united against the Iranian and Syrian meddling and come out with one voice (Dem and Rep)saying we'll do what it takes to settle the conflict -- would it shunt the resolve of our enemies to cause chaos? Or is it more politically beneficial to just berate the other political party no matter what the real path should be. Remember, the Repub's berating Clinton's plans for Somolia, Bosnia, etc... just to try to score political points? When do we as a nation stop trying to score cheap politcal points and start to have the resolve of a nation as we did in WW2, Desert Storm, etc..? Or should we just keep trying to catch a few cheap political points by making statements such as
" A vote for McCain is a vote for indefinite involvement in a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on our country"

[Chief Editor: Todd]

I apologize in advance if this comes off as condescending. But as a poli-sci major and someone who wants to get his Masters Degree in IR, and who spent endless hours in the library on a number of reports comparing and contrasting the symmetrical warfare in WWII with the asymmetrical counterinsurgency in Iraq, it's rather sad when anyone compares post-WWII Germany to anything that is happening today in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The tactics being used today in Iraq by David Petraeus, who is a good student of counterinsurgency, in comparison to the tactics used in WWII, aren't even remotely similar. Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush have tried lumping the two wars together, and they aren't even close.

Also, with regard to military force levels in Iraq, how does that have anything to do with political stability. The surge has helped the situation militarily, not politically. The political progress that was made in Anbar was not due to the surge. In fact, we didn't even surge in Al Anbar. Political progress was made due to treaties between tribes, and agreements between those same tribes to fight al Qaeda.

Also, consider the fact that we are spending $12 billion per month there. Some of that money should be used to target al Qaeda directly, not manage a civil war. There are ways of targeting al Qaeda in Iraq besides having an American presence in a Muslim holy land.

[RJ]

Nice reply, all wars are different, but you didn't answer the questions.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Which in particular? The one about withdrawing troops from Iraq? Actually, the chances of Iraq spiraling into chaos are not dependent on force size. They are actually dependent on POLITICAL progress.

More than anything, we have to get away from the idea that there is some magic solution to get ourselves out of the mess in Iraq. There is a civil war right now. There's just a truce at the moment (and on the verge of being broken). Obama is not saying that getting troops out will solve all our problems. Obama, Hillary and Edwards just think that getting troops out is the most pragmatic way to go.

Think of it as a business. Whenever you make a decision, you weigh your opportunity cost. What's the good and bad that can come out of each decision. In the end, you choose the one with the highest net-positive. When it's all said and done -- militarily, politically, socially and economically -- getting out of Iraq is a higher net-positive than staying there. That's all.

[RJ]

First, I don't like the way this war is going, just like you. I would differ from your opinion in that I believe this is a co-dependent issue, force size (military/police progress) and political progress. It is true that there must be a steady state of no unrest for political initiatives to take hold. Without stability, the government is just constantly reacting to crisis and chaos, instead of proactively instituting their agenda. The surge was supposed to set this up. It may or may not have, but there has been opportunity for the political efforts to be put in, and they (Iraqi government) have failed. They are trying to appease too many masters (tribes, groups, etc…). Again, military progress must set the stage, but it will take political progress to seal the deal. So it is dependent on both and neither will succeed without the other.
I agree there is no magical solution, but does that mean we just leave? As an International Relations candidate, you must know the repercussions throughout time for such a deed. Right now two of our allies have elected a more pro-American government, Germany and France. They seem to be leaning more toward getting Iraq up-and-running, than cut-and-running.
While no one wants this to drag on any more, do we want to deal with the post quick-withdrawal Iraq? We may look foolish now to our Middle East friends, but how will the US be perceived if we leave them a mess in their backyard. How will Europe feel about American resolve if there happens to be a problem in their area? What about Columbia, trying to stick-up to Chavez/Venezuela right now? We’re their main ally in this area. Can he depend on us if the going gets tough or will we only back him if the political polling says it would help a Dem get elected? Is Bin Laden correct when he stated that America was a paper-tiger?
This isn’t a business, this is war. Wars are run for effectiveness not efficiency. The effective side wins. Getting out of Iraq has a higher net positive in the short run. In the long run it will have a negative effect – military morale first goes up as they (troops) are relieved of stress, then goes down as they are now viewed as retreating losers. Don’t believe me -- Ask any Vietnam vet – I know many who have lived with this for years. I served with them in later years and they were beaten inside, always saying we could have…..
Our allies, who know of our military might, now for generations will be hesitant for our force’s backing – we walked away from a fight when it got tough. Generations of Middle Easterners will hold the same view as Bin Laden – wait it out, take away the peoples’ (at home) will to fight and the politicians will make sure America retreats.
Although I am no fan of how this war was run, I am glad Saddam is gone. If this were done… or if that were done… has no bearing now. We’re here now, we need to leave a stable country when we exit or we will live with a more unstable Middle East, that our next generation will have to battle again.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

First, who said we will withdraw from Iraq quickly? Obama never said that. I never said that either. And I can see Rush Limbaugh's bumper sticker slogan "cut and run" caught on with you. Maybe you are misunderstanding my point. Either that or my 10-hour-per-day job is clogging my brain so much that when I work on my web site each night I don't do a superb job anymore of elaborating. With that said, when we withdraw from Iraq over time, as Obama, Richardson, Webb and all the other Democrats are suggesting, we engage in a diplomatic surge with Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Middle East states to develop a plan. Today we notice that Iraq's neighbors have not really done much of anything to help. That's why we should include them in determining the fate of Iraq.

Also, we are NOT better off with Saddam out of power. Not at all. Following the first Gulf War, which I do think was a pragmatic war, Saddam was successfully contained. Condi and Colin said it themselves. Saddam kept Iraq under control. What he did morally was another issue. But there is no stabilizing leader in Iraq. That's why in the post-US involvement phase we need to back the local leaders in Iraq. Backing the current Iraqi government is pointless because it is thought of by the locals (with the exception of the Kirkuk and Mosul area) as illegitimate. They consider their religious leaders legitimate. Let's support those leaders and let them govern as long as they agree to oppose al Qaeda.

And to be honest, RJ, I don't think al Qaeda really has a future in Iraq. We saw the way local Sunnis rallied together in Al Anbar against the Sunni al Qaeda foreigners. Iraqis don't like foreigners. They don't want Americans there. And they definitely don't want al Qaeda there. That's why our long-term military goals, as far as fighting al Qaeda is concerned, are in Afghanistan.

[RJ]

I agree with the last half of you post,but I am reluctant that we are going to get any meaningful help or negotiation from Iran or Syria. Also, I used the "cut and run" to make a point, it's not a saying I believe is true, but in each debate, Obama, Edwards and Hillary did try to out-do each other in who would get the forces out quicker -- almost like the old game show -- "I can name that tune in XX notes". Now that there's no debate going on, each candidate has come out with a more sensible plan. I think Hillary and Obama both know it wll take a few years to fully disengage (pull-out). Alright, thanks for discussing this with me. I think we have more in common than you may be lead to believe. One day, if you come to Alabama, we can have dinner, some discussion and a good laugh. RJ.