Trial Balloon for W's Cut-and-Run Strategy?

[hgc]

NC Republican wants Iraq pullout

U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican and close ally of President Bush, says the United States should consider pulling out of war-ravaged Iraq.

Coble is one of the first members of Congress to suggest a withdrawal publicly.

The 10-term congressman said in an interview with the News & Record of Greensboro that he's "fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading that we've lost another five or 10 of our young men and women in Iraq."

...

He started getting "fed up" on November 3, 2004 I'd guess. And now let's see how Bush's political case for an Iraq pullout demonstrates much more thorough planning and skillful execution than the Iraq occupation ever enjoyed.

 

[Ladewig]

Silly rabbit, it is not going to be a cut-and-run strategy, it is going to be a we-won-and-now-we-are-going-home strategy. Don't forget, we are dealing with people who said that unexpected casualities were the result of our winning more quickly than we had planned.

 

[Nasarius]

He started getting "fed up" on November 3, 2004 I'd guess.

Perhaps. I don't know if it would get much support, though. Speaking as someone who has opposed the invasion from the beginning, I think pulling out now would be sheer insanity (not to mention blatantly selfish), as it would almost certainly lead to a civil war.

If it's serious, I think we'll hear rumblings about involving the UN again, and how Bush suddenly realized it might be a good idea. But I doubt it.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Trial Balloon for W's Cut-and-Run Strategy?

Perhaps. I don't know if it would get much support, though. Speaking as someone who has opposed the invasion from the beginning, I think pulling out now would be sheer insanity (not to mention blatantly selfish), as it would almost certainly lead to a civil war.

So you are in the optomist camp. Want makes you think that any internal conflict in iraq will not draw the sourding countries into it?

If it's serious, I think we'll hear rumblings about involving the UN again, and how Bush suddenly realized it might be a good idea. But I doubt it.

Partly because the UN will not do anything. The collerlition started the mess so it's going to be up to us to sort it out.

 

[hammegk]

Opening salvo in selling the El Salvador option -- Iraqi's with SpecOps minders as we reduce US groundpounder levels & train Iraqis.

Syria here we come.

 

[hgc]

Opening salvo in selling the El Salvador option -- Iraqi's with SpecOps minders as we reduce US groundpounder levels & train Iraqis.

Hmmm. El Salvador never hosted U.S. troops, other than advisors and a few mercanaries. There wasn't a big commitment to cut and run from. But I am interested in what you think the similarities are.

Syria here we come.

Perchance does you winky-smiley mask a true lust for more military misadventures? You should try distracting to something a little more attractive.

 

[hammegk]

Hmmm. El Salvador never hosted U.S. troops, other than advisors and a few mercanaries. There wasn't a big commitment to cut and run from. But I am interested in what you think the similarities are.

Hit squads comprised of locals(with a few "advisors" & maybe a merc or 2), targeting insurgent leaders and facilities. Who was that Iraqi cleric with thousands of armed supporters? And why was he allowed the opportunity to become that organized?

The cut & run problem means Iraq is becoming a Vietnam style grass-roots insurgency, one that conventional troops do not win, and nope, the US is not going to keep losing men indefinitely imo.

However, 'nam had the Hanoi connection, one that was never touched. Bombing it into the stone-age would have made military sense in that supplies & reinforcements would have ceased.

Perchance does you winky-smiley mask a true lust for more military misadventures? You should try distracting to something a little more attractive.

Viola, Syria. Let's (in a SpecOps sense w/ an Iraqi face) go after comm & logistics.

 

[WildCat]

Hmmm... I cvould read the link hgc provided when I first clicked it, now they want me to register. But I think it said we should consider a pullout if the Iraqi's are unwilling to let their own security forces do what is necessary to put down the Sunni rebellion. Could be this is meant as a warning to the winners of the election that the coalition isn't willing to do the job all by themselves, and they'd better get serious about taking on the insurgency. Right now, some of the Iraqi's in power are trying to have it both ways, blame the coalition for the security situation but don't take the political risks inherent in taking on the insurgency.

 

[hgc]

Hmmm... I cvould read the link hgc provided when I first clicked it, now they want me to register. But I think it said we should consider a pullout if the Iraqi's are unwilling to let their own security forces do what is necessary to put down the Sunni rebellion. Could be this is meant as a warning to the winners of the election that the coalition isn't willing to do the job all by themselves, and they'd better get serious about taking on the insurgency. Right now, some of the Iraqi's in power are trying to have it both ways, blame the coalition for the security situation but don't take the political risks inherent in taking on the insurgency.

OK. Now I'm starting to get a vision of how Bush's propagandabots will frame the argument: If the Iraqi government isn't willing to take on their responsibility, then the civil war to come will have been their fault.

 

[hgc]

Here's a link to another story on Coble, no registration required.

 

[Ed]

OK. Now I'm starting to get a vision of how Bush's propagandabots will frame the argument: If the Iraqi government isn't willing to take on their responsibility, then the civil war to come will have been their fault.

Orielly has been suggesting that the Iraqi's will not defend them selves and won't pull their own weight for some time now. It is a short step from that suggestion to saying "see, we tried but these ballsless bastards don't want it badly enough". I can hear the spin now.

OTOH

If it is a no-win, what else can be done?

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

El Salvador never hosted U.S. troops, other than advisors and a few mercanaries. There wasn't a big commitment to cut and run from. But I am interested in what you think the similarities are.

This isn't precisely a similarity, but it's far from irrelevant...

 

[geni]

OTOH

If it is a no-win, what else can be done?

That rather depends on what your aims really are.

 

[Anathema]

All the new Iraq Security Forces need to do to "put down the insurgency" is re-implement the measures that have historically kept that cauldron stable. I'm sure Saddam's playbooks are still lying around, and the US has provided an updated model for the handling of dissidents; bringing Hussein's venerable Abu Ghraib into the 21st century under new management. Welcome to living by the sword...

 

[Daylight]

What if we just nuked the Sunni triangle? Wouldn’t that get the point across both internally and externally? And let the spin doctors say it appears the insurgents set it off on accident because they don’t know how to handle nuclear weapons.

 

[Zep]

If Bush's Barmy Boosters decide to make a strategic reassignment of currently deployed military personnel from Iraq to their home bases, they had better do it soon. This one is a no-win situation, so if the Repubs don't want to be on the nose forever after, better to do it early in a lame-duck president's term and give the proles 3-4 years to forget it happened.

 

[geni]

What if we just nuked the Sunni triangle? Wouldn’t that get the point across both internally and externally? And let the spin doctors say it appears the insurgents set it off on accident because they don’t know how to handle nuclear weapons.

Neutralising the major threat to kurds in Iraq may not be a great idea after all that just leaves turkey.

There are a number of options from the occupiers hand book for this situation:

Play the groups off against each other. Right now the sunnis are a problem so start a civil war and back the other groups. If these get two popwerful switch to backing the sunnis.

Let the local power sturctures form undewr the mullars or whatever and move in on top of them. Sure you don't have as much control this way and you may run into the odd leader you can't control but tghis is nothing the odd assination a mess with the internal politics can't sort out.

Kill anyone who looks like oposing you and anyone standing near them. Don't imprsion them that never seems to work out in the long run.

find a meme that is strongar than islam and play the two off against each other (this one is really not a good idea in the long term).


Sure this may not play to well with the people at home but that is nothing that can't be solved by cultivating a bit of raceism.

 

[a_unique_person]

Orielly has been suggesting that the Iraqi's will not defend them selves and won't pull their own weight for some time now. It is a short step from that suggestion to saying "see, we tried but these ballsless bastards don't want it badly enough". I can hear the spin now.

OTOH

If it is a no-win, what else can be done?

He was saying the same thing about the Vietnamese. He is the lowest form of filth.

 

[Ed]

If Bush's Barmy Boosters decide to make a strategic reassignment of currently deployed military personnel from Iraq to their home bases, they had better do it soon. This one is a no-win situation, so if the Repubs don't want to be on the nose forever after, better to do it early in a lame-duck president's term and give the proles 3-4 years to forget it happened.

or be prepared to say "Yes, Madame President".

And, this concern is, I wager, more important to them than any concept of Iraqi "democracy". Surely that is smething that we can all agree on.

 

[Ed]

That rather depends on what your aims really are.

The aim is, I wager, to prevent Hillary from getting elected in 'o8.

 

[hgc]

The aim is, I wager, to prevent Hillary from getting elected in 'o8.

I think they've got a lot more pressing concerns than that. Actually that sounds like the kind of trivialization of the unholy mess Bush has gotten us into that distracts from elephant in the room.

As for the El Salvador option, that sounds like a slick way to try to associate Iraq with some nominally successful policy elsewhere (successful = friendly govt in place). Of course the association is laughable, and the coming civil war in Iraq will make El Salvador's civil war look like a wedding reception bunny-hop.

 

[Nasarius]

The aim is, I wager, to prevent Hillary from getting elected in 'o8.

Look, there's no way Hillary is going to be a Presidential candidate. The Democrats aren't that stupid...right? Right?!

She's fine as a Senator in a liberal state, but she's been smeared too much (rightly and wrongfully) to gain any kind of moderate support. Hillary in 08 is what every Republican wants, because Hillary in 08 = Republican landslide.

 

[Zep]

And, this concern is, I wager, more important to them than any concept of Iraqi "democracy". Surely that is something that we can all agree on.

Perhaps we are getting too old and sarcastic for politics, Ed. Yes, I agree that their main goals for the next few years will be (a) stopping Hillary, and (b) retaining Repub control of the Whitehouse. And if a strategic withdrawal (or, indeed, a massive evacuation) from Iraq will help these causes then they will happen.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Perhaps we are getting too old and sarcastic for politics, Ed. Yes, I agree that their main goals for the next few years will be (a) stopping Hillary, and (b) retaining Repub control of the Whitehouse. And if a strategic withdrawal (or, indeed, a massive evacuation) from Iraq will help these causes then they will happen.

I think the Demos will take out Hillary by themselves. I predict a shake-up in the Democrat Party power structure before 2008, even though Hillary is going to try and sell herself as a "compassionate conservative" before this is over. They need another smooth talking slimeball, look for a governor or some other figure than a Senator. Senators are usually lackluster politicians.

The Whitehouse will be locked up for years to come. As much as I like a Republican House and Senate, there needs to be term limits. Some of these beggars dig themselves in for 20 years or more.

The Democrat Party is in a tailspin and probably won't be able to pull out before hitting the ground.

 

[peptoabysmal]

NC Republican wants Iraq pullout

He started getting "fed up" on November 3, 2004 I'd guess. And now let's see how Bush's political case for an Iraq pullout demonstrates much more thorough planning and skillful execution than the Iraq occupation ever enjoyed.

This is the same guy who thought that Japanese internment camps were a good idea.

N.C. Rep.: WWII Internment Camps Were Meant to Help

It is "a sad day in our country's tradition when an elected official ... openly agrees with an unconstitutional and racist policy long believed to be one of the darkest moments of America's history," the group said in a statement.

 

[a_unique_person]

The Whitehouse will be locked up for years to come. As much as I like a Republican House and Senate, there needs to be term limits. Some of these beggars dig themselves in for 20 years or more.

The Democrat Party is in a tailspin and probably won't be able to pull out before hitting the ground.

Don't look now, but there are going to be plenty Republicans getting their knives out right now.

 

[CBL4]

I think the only solution to Iraq is the Kosovo one. A split into three countries with a short lived fiction of decentralized government. We give lots of aid to the Kurds and possibly the Shias depending on their government. The Sunnis are stuck rotting in misery of their own making.

Not a good solution but the best of the likely ones. At least Kurdistan will be probably become an Arab democracy.

CBL

 

[a_unique_person]

Except that Turkey won't be happy.

 

[CBL4]

Except that Turkey won't be happy.

If the Turks had treated their Kurds humanely, it would not be an issue and therefore the Turks happiness on this issue is not my concern. Anyway, in the long run a Iraqi Kuridstan might solve some issues for the Turks.

CBL

 

[Crossbow]

Even the most reactionary conservatives are publicly starting to get itchy feet about the Iraq mess.

Anyone else happen to catch Patrick J. Buchanan’s recent commentary on Iraq?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan18.html

In the aftermath of the suicide bombing of the Mosul mess hall, we are being admonished anew we must stay the course in Iraq. But "Stay the course!" is no longer enough.

President Bush needs to go on national television and tell us the unvarnished truth. Why are we still there? For some of Bush's countrymen, there is a sense of having been had, of having been made victim to one of the great bait-and-switches in the history of warfare.

…

Finally, the president must answer in his heart this question: Exactly how much more blood and money is he willing to plunge into a war for democracy in Iraq, and at what point must he decide – as LBJ and Nixon did in Vietnam – that the cost to America is so great that we must get out and risk the awful consequences of a mistaken war that we should never have launched.

Emphasis, mine.

 

[Anathema]

Pat has been against the Iraq war since before it started. I usually agree with about 5% of what he says (usually the first 30 seconds of his commentary, until he start spewing Godliness like diarrhrea). The main thing I agree with him on is the gross over-reaction of the chickenhawks to the WTC attacks. They'ver overplayed the threat and overdramatized the issues, to foment hysteria (and jingoistic country music) to get peripheral (or totally unrelated) objectives met. Iraq is one of those objectives, and he's honest about the scam his fellow conservatives have sucked this country into. He may be a nut, but he's an authentic nut.

 

[kimiko]

If the Turks had treated their Kurds humanely, it would not be an issue and therefore the Turks happiness on this issue is not my concern. Anyway, in the long run a Iraqi Kuridstan might solve some issues for the Turks.

Why are we trying to keep together a country that is so young anyway? I agree with the idea of letting it split into different areas. If we support Kurdish independence they'd be heavily ingratiated to the US, and westerners interested in oil and/or democracy would get what they wanted.

I don't see how the US can be anything but hypocritical if it doesn't support an independent Kurdish country. We support Israel when it has an ethnic unification/protection purpose for its existence. The Kurds have been persecuted and deserve self-rule if anyone else does.

What issues do you think it would help Turkey with, though?

 

[a_unique_person]

If the Turks had treated their Kurds humanely, it would not be an issue and therefore the Turks happiness on this issue is not my concern. Anyway, in the long run a Iraqi Kuridstan might solve some issues for the Turks.

CBL

They don't want anyone solving their problems for them. No matter how rational it would be for this to happen.

 

[Luke T.]

If Bush's Barmy Boosters decide to make a strategic reassignment of currently deployed military personnel from Iraq to their home bases, they had better do it soon. This one is a no-win situation, so if the Repubs don't want to be on the nose forever after, better to do it early in a lame-duck president's term and give the proles 3-4 years to forget it happened.

You got that "lame duck president" meme from Moore-on.org, didn't you.

So how is it that Bush is at the helm of the starship "Jesusland" taking us where no Facist has gone before, trampling our civil liberties, appointing pro-life creationist Supreme Court justices, and other Lefty nightmares du jour, if he's a freaking lame duck? Please explain.

What the Moore-ons don't understand about the term "lame duck" is that the lame ducks out of this last election are, ohhhh, Senators John Edwards and Tom Daschle, for starters.

 

[geni]

If the Turks had treated their Kurds humanely, it would not be an issue and therefore the Turks happiness on this issue is not my concern. Anyway, in the long run a Iraqi Kuridstan might solve some issues for the Turks.

CBL

How about turkey is a modrate muslim country and we kinda need those right now.

You also seem to be forgetting that turkey is a significant militry force. Kurdistan can only exist is turkey allows it and it will not. Yuo should also remeber that turkey is a nato memebr. The US has to defend it if it come under attack. Now the US could break yet another treaty obligation but I suspect that breaking that one would have other bad effects in the long run.

Incerdently why don't you care about the turkamen(sp?)?

 

[CBL4]

IMO, a free Iraqi Kurdistan is simply the right thing to do. The Kurds have been administering their part of Iraq in a pretty good fashion against overwhelming odds. They deserve freedom and a unified Iraq does not look like the method to get there.

I realize that this may cause Turkey some heartburn but it does not really affect them in any meaningful way. In fact a stable country next to them would probably be beneficial to them. The Kurds could supply them oil and the Turks could have numerous business opportunity.

I do not see why an Iraqi Kurdistan has to cause significant problems with the Turkish Kurds. Numerous tribes are split between country. It can be a good solution that encourage cooperation and trade. If people could control their emotions, it is a win-win solution for the Turks and the Kurds. And there are very large carrots to encourage them to control their emotions.

Turkey is trying very hard to become part of the EU. They are going to be on their best bahavior and a war against Iraqi Kurds on their part is almost inconceivable. I admire the progress they have made in the last 10 years and think that it is truly important that they join the EU.

The Iraqi Kurds would need help from the US, the EU and Turkey to rebuild their nation. They would have every incentive to not incite hatred among the Turks.

I think it would probably work. I could be wrong but it is the only plan that I see that a decent probability of succeeding. If you have a better one, I would love to hear it.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Incerdently why don't you care about the turkamen(sp?)?

Are you asking about what happens in Kirkuk? I am not an expert. I believe Kirkuk is tradionally a Kurdish city but that Saddam encourage Turkmen to move there and they are now a majority. This leaves no perfect answer.

My uninformed answer is that I would have Kirkuk part of Kurdistan and provide aid only if the Turkmen living there are treated fairly.

CBL

 

[hgc]

IMO, a free Iraqi Kurdistan is simply the right thing to do. The Kurds have been administering their part of Iraq in a pretty good fashion against overwhelming odds. They deserve freedom and a unified Iraq does not look like the method to get there.

I realize that this may cause Turkey some heartburn but it does not really affect them in any meaningful way. In fact a stable country next to them would probably be beneficial to them. The Kurds could supply them oil and the Turks could have numerous business opportunity.

I do not see why an Iraqi Kurdistan has to cause significant problems with the Turkish Kurds. Numerous tribes are split between country. It can be a good solution that encourage cooperation and trade. If people could control their emotions, it is a win-win solution for the Turks and the Kurds. And there are very large carrots to encourage them to control their emotions.

Turkey is trying very hard to become part of the EU. They are going to be on their best bahavior and a war against Iraqi Kurds on their part is almost inconceivable. I admire the progress they have made in the last 10 years and think that it is truly important that they join the EU.

The Iraqi Kurds would need help from the US, the EU and Turkey to rebuild their nation. They would have every incentive to not incite hatred among the Turks.

I think it would probably work. I could be wrong but it is the only plan that I see that a decent probability of succeeding. If you have a better one, I would love to hear it.

CBL

The Kurd problem for Turkey is that of the 4 countries containing the pan-Kurd 'nation' (Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran), Turkey has faced the most active and violent Kurdish independence rebellion. If a real, actual Kurdistan were to pop up, then Turkey would have a revitalized independence movement on its hands, seeking to become part of Kurdistan. I'm not taking a stand here. If all the independence movements of ethnic groups around the world were to take to serious rebellion to reach their goals, we'd have 100's of civil wars (100's more than there are already) popping up around the world. Generally, territorial integrity has to be maintained with absolutist zeal, or the logic behind the entire country may be up for grabs.

 

[CBL4]

Generally, territorial integrity has to be maintained with absolutist zeal, or the logic behind the entire country may be up for grabs.

I agree in general but not with zeal. It is a general rule and exceptions need to get made. Sometimes when there are wars and brutal dictators borders need to be re-arrange. Kosovo will get its indepence and I think Iraqi Kurdistan should as well.

The Kurds should have gotten a nation post WWI. I am not sure why they did not especially since Wilson favored it. I imagine that it was because the Brits and French wanted the land for their empires but I could be mistaken. It is ancient wrong that cannot easily fixed.

Turkey has faced Kurdish rebellion because of their abuse of the Kurds. They have made military advances against the rebels and are lightening the oppression. It seems to be working. The EU (or carrot of EU membership) will ensure that the Kurds are treated better. I cannot see how a stable Kurdistan is much worse than an unstable Iraq.

BTW, do you knoe who has provided the Turkish Kurds with support?

CBL

 

[Nikk]

Why are we trying to keep together a country that is so young anyway? I agree with the idea of letting it split into different areas. If we support Kurdish independence they'd be heavily ingratiated to the US, and westerners interested in oil and/or democracy would get what they wanted.

Ah yes, gratitude. Such a powerful force in international relations.

Do you recall that the US supported the Afghans in their efforts to get rid of the Russians and the Afghans were so grateful that they allowed a bunch of their mates to express their heartfelt gratitude in a really personal and spectacular way?

Back in the 90's by the way the Iraqi Kurds had a nasty little civil war and one side was perfectly happy to enlist Saddam's help. If you think that an independent Kurdistan can work without the full hearted cooperation of Syria, Turkey, Iran and the rest of Iraq then you have a career ahead of you as one of Bush's advisers on foreign policy .