Probably not next month.

Representative Reyes, presumptive Dem Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, who voted against the war, is in favor of sending additional American soldiers to Iraq: 20,000 to 40,000.

Didn't bush make it crystal-clear that he intends this report to go straight to the smallest room in the house, and not for reading matter?

Retreats are hard. Call them withdrawals, redeployments, whatever, they're very hard. They're hard even if you just want to leave all the equipment behind. That's why the "fighting retreat from the Chosin Reservoir" still comes up as one of the best military moments in our history. One big reason is that it was improvised on the fly.

Does anyone want to take bets on whether the Pentagon has even preliminary withdrawal plans on the shelf?

Besides, bush is still missing the one way a withdrawal can be a big win: making a public commitment to Maliki that the US abjures any intention of keeping troops in Iraq over the long term.

If they'd done this when he was elected, he'd have been gold and would have had a shot at controlling the place. Even now, giving him this pledge might still help. Assuming the bushies actually want Maliki to hold on, that is.

But they're improvising this, as with everything else.

It's maddeningly unclear how many troops they think would still be left in Iraq at the end of this drawdown

Isn't it a bit shallow to focus monomaniacally on the numbers of US troops in Iraq? The goals here are 1. reduce the number of US casualties and 2. make sure any US troops in Iraq are accomplishing something worthwhile, like preventing the complete overthrow of the government or helping guide and train Iraqi forces, rather than useless and provocative operations to "root out militias". Oh, and 3. spend less American money.

If redeploying to safer areas and dropping counterproductive missions accomplishes these goals, who cares exactly how many troops we're talking about? Alternatively, if what you're looking for is all-US-troops-out because you believe the US presence is simply counterproductive tout court, does it really matter how many are still in Iraq at an interim date? The Arab world is not going to be 50% less anti-American because we have 50% fewer troops in Iraq. What I'm more interested is not how many troops might be in Iraq in early 2008, but how much less money we might be spending, and how much we might hope to reduce US (and Iraqi) casualties from American operations.

This is concerning- some parts of the Iraqi security forces are pretty well infiltrated, at some point we're going to see an incident where a unit turns on their imbedded Americans and causes some serious casualties.

WILL WITHDRAWALS BEGIN NEXT MONTH?

No.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

OH. I see that Kevin already had a thread on Reyes. Sorry.

Yet it is relevant to this thread. He's not calling for withdrawal.

Also, the ISG proposed withdrawals to start in early 2008 conditional on satisfactory progress in the development of the Iraqi army.

they support the "benchmarks" in the "benchmarks vs. schedule" debate.

And Brooksfoe is right: it's the effectiveness, not the numbers, of U.S. troops that is the basic policy issue.

Expect a major frontal assault on the Green Zone in Baghdad soon. Dozens, if not hundreds, of American casualties are possible. Sunni insurgents are reportedly massing in Baghdad and testing the perimeters of the Green Zone's security. If a middle-aged man like myself, sitting in a Midwestern city in America knows this, I pray to God the Pentagon does. Similar to the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam, this will be the beginning of the end of this hideous debacle in Iraq.

Mark these words. Mark them well.

If reports of Maliki's insight and independence are anywhere near accurate Iraq has zipped right through "civil war" into "failed state". Even before units turn there is going to be so much partisan interference - going by a report in Times OnLine - that Iraqi forces will be useless. You might note that embedding Americans with those who speak another language and share mutual mistrust is no recipe for peace of mind going into a firefight. It might not just be Iraqis deserting at that point.

Expect a major frontal assault on the Green Zone in Baghdad soon...this will be the beginning of the end of this hideous debacle in Iraq.

If this takes place we can expect Bush to tell us that it was simply "the Iraqis asking us to leave," fulfilling his requirement for withdrawal.

"certainly it would be a small number compared to the 150,000 troops we have now, probably no more than 50-80,000 or so"

A smaller number, not a small one.

To put things another way, practically all US troops were out of Vietnam by 1972, as the US turned to an air war. That was good for US casualty rates. For the Cambodian villages wiped out as the US tried to hit the Ho Chi Minh Trail with B-52s dropping dumb bombs -- not so much. Not so great for the future of the region either, as the US's bombing of the Cambodian countryside is often cited as one of the factors which led to the eventual Khmer Rouge victory.

What concerns me is the ISG's note that its measures have to be undertaken comprehensively: the diplomatic initiatives to bring in Iraq's neighbors, the military redeployment and shifts in mission, the new initiative on the Israel-Palestine front, and so on. Particularly on the diplomatic front, we've long known that this administration simply lacks the diplomatic chops to achieve anything as tasking as bringing Iran and Syria into a grudging coalition to stabilize Iraq. It's nice to recommend that the US do this, but who in the Administration is competent to achieve such a goal, and what are the chances that he/she can bring to the table the options for compromise and horse-trading which would be necessary? Looking at the long string of train wrecks which is the Administration's diplomatic history, that seems unlikely to happen.

Given that voices like ours are irrelevant to the types of right-wingers who staff the Admin, we're only really talking about what Democrats in Congress should do. Congressional Democrats have some ability to influence US Iraq policy at this point, but their instruments are blunt. So what do we think Congress ought to be doing at this point? Should they take up the ISG's recommendations and demand the Admin enforce them, or face future budgetary mandates to withdraw from Iraq? What's the best course, both substantively and politically?

What concerns me is the ISG's note that its measures have to be undertaken comprehensively

This time next year we'll be reading about an ISG report card for Bush filled with D's and F's. A fitting end to the most childish administration in history.

Similar to the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam, this will be the beginning of the end of this hideous debacle in Iraq.

Tet was a military disaster but a public relations success for the VC.

It gutted their experience NCO corps and killed off a vast number of hardened guerilla fighters and leaders--it actually caused the Vietnamese a lot of grief because they spent 1969 and 1970 trying to recoup their losses.

I think we're just going to have more of the same--the grinding war of attrition is much less risky for them, and there's a fight to be had AFTER we leave, and that's the fight to divide up the spoils of war.

THAT'S the fight everyone needs to be worried about.

and that's the fight to divide up the spoils of war.

Hannity & Colmes Dec. 6 2007

"The images you are seeing on television you are seeing over, and over, and over, and it's the same picture of some militia walking out of some building with a scud, and you see it 20 times, and you think, 'My goodness, were there that many scuds? Is it possible that there were that many scuds in the whole country?' "

Increased embedding of U.S. troops with Iraqis?

That's effing NUTS with capital letters.

When Iraqi units dissolve, guerrillas will be fragging our troops like a shooting gallery. Or, if it gets bad enough, there might even be a few shots in the back.

Kevin

How old were you during Vietnam? Were you old enough to pay attention? Having between 10 and 20,000 trainers embeded in Iraqi army units is just an invitation to re-escalate. I don't care how many troops we have to cover them, having our guys out with Iraqi troops is just going to get a lot of guy killed and half of them will be shot in the back.

When it became clear that a small group of advisors and Green Berets weren't going to win the war in Vietnam is when we started the major build up. And that didn't work any better. Following this strategy is just a way of either sending troops back in or blaming the final withdrawal on the Democrats.

It's not a policy. It's the cynical murder of soldiers for political gain.

Increased embedding of U.S. troops with Iraqis?

True story: DoD has been forced to correct the official accounts of how several US troops have been killed in action--this is because it was revealed that Iraqi police or Iraqi security forces were actually responsible for killing those troops in firefights when it became clear that the insurgents might overwhelm the position or when they decided to switch loyalties.

Iraqi units dissolve quite frequently, usually upon graduation from training or on payday or right after we issue them weapons and ammunition.

Given that Bush has officially ruled out direct talks with Tehran unless it officially stops all nuclear enrichment activity, it's clear that the ISG report will be shit-canned.

All BushCo has to do is stovepipe intelligence for the next two years and say, "Nope, Tehran is still enriching."

Ditto on Syria. All Bush has to do is say "no direct talks until Damascus disarms Hezbullah" (despite the basic impossibility of that) and nothing will happen there either.

...some militia walking out of some building with a scud...

A Scud missile is 41 feet long, with a liquid fuelled range of 280 miles and normally is truck mounted.

So if these militia are walking around with these on their shoulders is it any surprise the US armny can't beat them?

Sean Hannity, why didn't you tell us earlier - gimp!

Its Vietnamization! Sorry, Sorry.... Iraqnamization!

As they step up we'll step down!

A third of the members of the National Assembly of Iraq have signed a petition demanding a timetable for withdrawal of coalition forces.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/4841541.html

Only a third???

Looks like the Howard administration in Australia has a similar "no strategy' strategy for Iraq as the Bush administration:

Mr McClelland said the Government's approach to Iraq was shameful and pathetic.

"There has been no analysis," he said.

"The Prime Minister said yesterday `Well our objectives are for stability in Iraq'. At no stage has the Government articulated what our strategy is, what our precise mission is, what the benchmarks for achieving that mission are and the likely time scale involved in achieving that mission.

"There has been no analysis as to the cost, no analysis of whether it's been consistent with Australia's national security priorities and no analysis of the additional risk it places on our troops in Afghanistan because we can't provide, in particular, intelligence resources that we need to support them on the ground," Mr McClelland said.

Labor is suggesting that the Aussies make "polite" plans to withdraw as well.

Your math is right. The only questions are 1) will Bush start the drawdown within the next four to six months. I think he'll be forced to. But 2) even if we do start to pull back or withdraw before next summer, will it begin to end the civil war? No. We should just get out of there completely now.

Tomeck, Pale Rider:

Exactly. And, we think the ISG is a bunch of geniuses when they propose stupidity like this?

Plus, as Josh Marshall has posted, the ISG also recommends "drafting" federal bureaucrats for Iraq service if they won't go voluntarily.

101st Fighting Keyboarders, here's your chance to stand in the gap, now!

This thread is getting really good:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=10340

It's like a symposium of stupid.

Probably not next month.

Representative Reyes, presumptive Dem Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, who voted against the war, is in favor of sending additional American soldiers to Iraq: 20,000 to 40,000.

The House Intelligence Committee is not part of either the military chain of command, the primary Congressional oversight of general, non-intelligence-gathering, military policy, nor involved in the drafting of of the ISG report. So this comment about Reyes position isn't relevant either to what the ISG report means, nor to how the Administration will respond, nor particularly relevant (except that Reyes is one out of a couple hundred Democratic members of Congress) to how Congress will approach any implementation (or non-implementation) of the ISG recommendations.

IOW, its a complete non-sequitur.

Noksagt... they're wasting more time on that than the actual alleged problem!

The real problem is that we have tiger by the tail - if we try to let go, it may turn on us!

During a withdrawal, the insurgents have every incentive to press their advantage. As we have fewer and fewer troops their attacks can become more concentrated. They can punish/humiliate us in retreat, and we will likely have to literally fight our way out.

If we start to walk to the exits, we may well be forced to quickly pick up the pace until it looks very much like running.

There is a problem? I thought it was just two guys spoofing.

What's the problem?

December 6, 2006

THROW THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP REPORT IN THE TRASH

Yesterday I convened Jim’s Iraq Study Group- there’s only one of me, so it was a short meeting- and we (I) decided on how to rescue our country from the debacle in Iraq. First and foremost, we must throw the report prepared by former Secretary of State James Baker, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and other “bi-partisan” political luminaries (Vernon Jordan even joined the expedition into the nether regions of the Greatest American Disaster) directly into the trash. Why? Two reasons. Number 1, Bush won’t read it anyway, and even if he does, he won’t implement any of its recommendations. And number 2- more importantly- the recommendations, even if followed, won’t make a damn bit of difference. Nothing they have said is either new or helpful- basically, the Iraq Study group confirmed that the sun rises in the east and that water is wet. Their only potential usefulness will be if Bush were to use them as a fig leaf to get our soldiers out of harm’s way.

My brilliant analysis, based on my ability to read a newspaper and turn on a computer to get the Washington Post and other media online, conjoined with a healthy dose of common sense and an inherent skepticism of those who have fed at the public trough for most of their adult lives, reveals that nothing in the report can change reality on the ground in Iraq. After all, none of these luminaries were out in public arguing against the gross deceptions being perpetrated by the Cheney-Rice-Bush triumvirate during the 2002-2003 runup to the war (“the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud!”). Even if they supported removing Saddam Hussein, none of them forecast what was going to happen if we invaded Iraq, toppled its government, and allowed its infrastructure and bureaucracy to disintegrate. In stark contrast, thousands of ordinary Americans (including this humble author) put their grey matter to good use and accurately predicted the debacle that would follow a successful invasion. On April 19, 2003, a scant month after the invasion- and two weeks before our incoherent Commander in Chief catapulted onto the carrier Lincoln under a “Mission Accomplished” banner, I wrote the following in an e-mail to one of the family members of a Marine in my son’s unit:

“Why the UN should take over is simple- whether or not they do a better job, the perception among the people in the region will be hugely different regarding a UN sponsored trusteeship of the country. It simply is in our national interest to have a respected international organization take over the rebuilding of Iraq. The sooner American and British soldiers are out of there, the less likely that terrorists or suicide bombers will attack our loved ones there or here. And a quick exit will defeat the absurd arguments that we are a colonialist country seeking to exploit Iraq's oil.”

Would that a high ranking member of the Bush Administration with decision making powers had made the same point and followed through on it. Iraq would not now be in the throes of a civil war, over 2,850 Americans would be alive, another 20,000 would not have been grievously wounded, and tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of Iraqis would be alive to enjoy the fruits of democracy and freedom.

As for the vaunted Iraq Study Group, In spite of their lofty status, their prior government experience (James Baker was Secretary of State!) they are masters of the obvious and little else. Consider this gem of wisdom:

“• Iraq is vital to regional and even global stability, and is critical to U.S. interests.…It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves. It is now a base of operations for international terrorism, including Al Qaeda..”

Now I have a few problems with that paragraph. For starters, Iraq is not now and has never been vital to regional stability, let alone global stability. The country was led by a genocidal madman for decades who used its oil revenues to build palaces, armies, and develop weapons of mass destruction. He started two wars with his immediate neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, in 1981 and 1990, respectively. Yet global stability was never compromised, and unless Saddam wanted to pull a Kim Il Jong, there was no way he was going to sit on Iraq’s oil or Kuwait’s oil. That oil was going to be sold, and probably at below market rate, if we hadn’t imposed sanctions on the country.

As for “now” being a “base of operations for international terrorism,” that doesn’t meant that Iraq is special. The key word is “now”- which is an obvious slap in the face of our clueless President, because “before” (the 2003 invasion) it was the country least involved with terrorism when compared to its immediate neighbors, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. And once we pull out, Iraq will no longer be a magnet for Islamic jihadists wanting to wage war on the Christian infidels of the West. After we pull out, Iraq will, however, be a magnet for sectarian groups wanting to put their version of Islam on the top of the heap in Baghdad- Shia versus Sunni. That’s a problem of course, but it’s a humanitarian problem for the millions of innocent Iraqi citizens who just want to be left alone and who want to be able to drive on their streets, go to the market, and live their lives without fear of being kidnapped, raped, or murdered. Not unlike Darfur or Somalia, and I am not holding my breath waiting for an American based study commission to return from either of those “vital” areas of “critical” American interests.

My solution? I propose an immediate vote of the people of Iraq on one simple question: do you want a firm timetable for a withdrawal of American troops within six months? Following the overwhelming Iraqi vote for us to leave-- which will give our noble leaders the political fig leaf they crave to avoid being labeled “cut and run” “terrorist aiding” “Defeatocrats”-- we will commence a phased six month pullout of American combat troops from central Iraq- the Sunni triangle- leaving enough troops in the north to protect the Kurds from invasion and in the south to protect the oil fields. As soon as possible (no more than another 12 months) we should replace the remaining American troops with an international peacekeeping force like the one on the Israel-Lebanon border. In central Iraq and Baghdad, we should immediately begin bringing in Arabic speaking Muslim peacekeepers, preferably from our allies Jordan and Egypt, to replace departing American troops. If Jordan or Egypt need extra motivation, in addition to ensuring that they don’t have another Somalia in their midst, we can pay them a few of the billions of dollars which are presently being sucked down the black hole of Iraq. This area is where our religion and our lack of understanding of language, culture, and ethnicity, has cost us lives and the goodwill necessary to do an effective job of peacekeeping.

We should internationalize Iraq’s oil fields, dedicating half of their revenues to rebuilding Iraq- none of which may be used for procuring arms. The money can go to non-governmental aid organizations with a better track record of disbursing aid than the Halliburton Corporation. The other half should go to repay America’s bill for the war and compensate the victims of Saddam Hussein. Whatever else Iraq’s constitution provides, we should tell whatever government ends up holding power that they won’t see a penny of any oil revenues unless their constitution and laws impose requirements on the country that it never have a standing army or air force, that it have a government free of religious influence, and that every person in the country be guaranteed the same rights to free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law, and democracy that we enjoy here. If they want to be uncivilized barbarians, they are free to do so- but they won’t be able to use oil billions to buy expensive toys from arms salesmen with which to threaten their neighbors or anyone else.

Given that Bush has officially ruled out direct talks with Tehran unless it officially stops all nuclear enrichment activity, it's clear that the ISG report will be shit-canned.
Posted by: Socratic Gadfly on December 6, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Bah!

Bush also ruled out direct talks with NK.

And yet, today he offers them the same "Flowers and Chocolates" Clinton and Carter offered them. (how touching).

I predict the same for Iran. (two months AFTER they complete a successful device test).

Of course, Bush could end this NOW by fulfilling Ahmadinijad's simple request: Israel come clean on their nuclear program, and sign the nonproliferation treaty, and open up to inspections. If Israel does it, Iran will do it. That's all they want. This is not nuclear blackmail - it's the blackmailee wanting to achieve parity with his blackmailer.

Ahmadinijad may have lots of hot rhetoric about destroying Israel and such and such - but the fact is, that's not a condition of Iran's nuclear cooperation. The condition he's asked for is simple: We'll show you ours if you show us yours. All this bull about giving up land or withdrawing is a red herring. Ahmadinijad is not calling for that, and has not linked anything to that. It's media hyperbole designed to fuel the "Ahmadinijad is an anti-semite Hitler wannabe." garbage in the Corporate News Media.

Spock: body language.

If that isn't good enough, you might consider the fact that bush ruled out any contact with Iran even before the report was released. And that he ruled out any reduction in US forces or any operational changes before "the mission is complete." Whatever that might mean.

See also Socratic Gadfly at 11:36. I really don't think I'm the only person in the world who wasn't fooled by bush's purse-lipped, tooth-grinding, grudging photo-op of a meeting with these people. Whatever words he felt compelled to utter or release-- the family fixer was at his left hand, after all-- the test with bush is always what he does, not what he says. His people learned that at Nixon's knee.

And you know, even some actual media people seemed a little skeptical that he was really going to pay any attention to anything in the report.

Mezon... that "tiger by the tail" is NOT going to pull a Saigon 1975 on us.

Here, the analogy w/Vietnam runs out of steam.

There, we had a South Vietnam entirely under the control of a combination of NVM and Viet Minh. (Ignore that they didn't see eye to eye on everything.)

Sunnis and Shi'ites will be shooting at each other as we leave, not to mention whether or not different Shi'ite factions will be shooting at each other by this time.

That's why Bush's claim that "they will follow us here" is bullshit. Andrew Sullivan wrote something on this line, but didn't take it far enough.

Expect something like a 30 Years War in Iraq in which they beat the shit out of each other. No al Qaeda fighters are coming over here.

If I may actually riff into Kissingerian Realpolitik for a moment, this might actually have the fringe benefit of sucking away Iranian support for Hezbullah, if they have to pony up more to support Shi'ites in Iraq against Saudi-propped Sunnis.

"Trying to figure out Iraq":

So, those are fake militias? Fake deaths? Fake abductions? Fake gangster assassinations?

You weren't posting as "FakedMoonLandings" on another thread, were you?

As for the Iran-Iraq war, when a captain or major has a loaded pistol at your back, you march to the front lines.

The Iranians had Azeris, Kurds and other ethnic minorities in their army; same thing happened.

"Trying to figure out Iraq":

And, the "lying media" making up all this Sunni v. Shi'ite violence would include not only the MSM, but inpendent journalists, non-American journalists, Iraqi journalists, American bloggers like the knowledgeable Juan Cole, and Iraqi bloggers, right?

Hell of a conspiracy you've got going there.

James Finkelstein --

Gosh. You make yourself out to be be so insightful, intelligent and reasonable.

We start an unprovoked and illegal war on Iraq for spurious, dishonest reasons, dismantle their country, kill thousands of their people, totally screw up any reorganzation or rebuilding, leave them shredded and at each others' throats, and you want to hand them the bill!!!!!

Unbelievable!

Trying to figure out Iraq? --

the others were too polite to ask if you've been taking your meds.

Well, have you?

A couple of months ago, I laid out an idea that all the nations bordering Iraq should be engaged in any solution. Unlike what US-centric pundits here assume, this does not have to be led by the US. It could be chaired by the UN or Iraq itself, or some other neutral entity agreed by the participants.

The US is tainted and increasingly prejudiced. The breakdown of Iraq has repurcussions far beyond those neighboring countries, so the wider the net of engaged nations, frankly, the better.

Noone can expect other nations to step into the hornets' nest we have created. Failure will have broad and serious effects.

There's a fairly simple decision tree to follow in deciding the actions to be taken. That is what the Study Group should have layed out. State the present facts, and lay out the decisions to be made and in the order to be made.

My caveat would be that laying out all the options too clearly also reduces some of their efficacy as there would be no element of surprise or subtefuge.

Hey! But what do I know.

Trying to figure out Iraq? --

Oh, dear.

Yeah. And you can pull up photographs of Paul Wellstone with environment defilers, and George Bush with environmentalists. God only knows how many have kissed the pontiff's ring.

I would add to my above comment that bringing Palestine-Israel to resolution is key to settling the Middle East, and I have many reservations about Israel's behavior (recently and to before 1948), but that has nothing to do with showing a number of photographs of politicians mostly with Hassids. They'll get photographed with anybody they believe will garner some votes.

The context of each photograph would have been useful because, although "no photograph lies", they can certainly mislead.

Let's just hope you're not a Jew-basher.

Shalom, Still Trying to Figure out Iraq?!!

We confess my boy that you are right, the vast Jewish conspiracy to take over the world has been exposed by your incredible eagle eyes! And we just thought that people would think that these were venal politicians trying to secure votes!

Oiveh!
What a disaster, by the way lovely adult nappies you're wearing there, I'm not sure they're supposed to go On your head though!

Trying to figure out Iraq? --

Well, yes, I am going to bed now, but I thought I'd do one last check.

You don't get it, do you?

I asked you to change or justify the argument. Give reference or relevance or context.

You haven't supplied one fact. Only inference and innuendo, and convenient photographs for people of your mindset. Just like the Nazis.

So what's my inference?

to reiterate: the ISG is fluff; all plans proffered so far from timorous left of terrible right are fluff because they are not doable; they are not doable because they are all based on assumption that Iraqis can make political compromises that will be buttressed by a functioning national military, constabulary, and justice system - all pipe dreams.

Therefore there are only two options: cobble together all military assets, institute some kind of draft, and re-invade the country [also not doable but at least realistically so]; or two, choose a side. The Sunni/Kurd side is the only one that would have us and is the best choice anyway viz Saudi Arabia, therefore choose them.

Also Kevin you keep making misstatement 'American troops are doing no good' in Iraq in order to justify your idiotic let's get out now agenda. To correct through analogy: a dam with serious leaks is not a successful dam but it is still doing
good - a fact which would become very obvious if it were to suddenly disappear.

"there are neither enough U.S. troops present nor enough support from Iraqi security forces to “hold” neighborhoods so cleared"

What is the prospect that US trained and advised Iraqi troops will be able to do any better? I think it's obvious that any effort by the US to do anything (except get out) militarily will result in failure. This situation is out of control and it is not going to get better before it gets a lot worse.

The Baker Plan is a blueprint for surrender as necessary since the U.S. has lost the war. Any plan Bush comes up with will be the same, though called something else -- Way Forward, etc.

"The Sunni/Kurd side is the only one that would have us and is the best choice anyway viz Saudi Arabia, therefore choose them."

This direction will fail. There are more Shiites than Sunnis in Iraq, and they have the support of Iran.

Therefore there are only two options: cobble together all military assets, institute some kind of draft, and re-invade the country [also not doable but at least realistically so]; or two, choose a side.

Only two options? Please.

cobble together all military assets, institute some kind of draft, and re-invade the country

I have no problem with instituting a draft in this country. At a minimum, draft 2 million men and reconstitute two entire US Armies of 12 Divisions apiece. Each Army should have the ability to fight in Iraq for 18 months at a time and then redeploy for rest and refitting; at a minimum, we need to maintain 700,000 troops in Iraq to have any hope of breaking the insurgency. And guess what? It STILL wouldn't work because without a POLITICAL solution, there is no hope for a MILITARY solution.

So go and get your 2 million men and a massive pipeline that supports them, logistically. Then--reinvade a country we already occupy? News flash--there's no one on the border--that's the problem; there's no one preventing the flow of weapons and assistance used by the insurgency.

Is all of this designed to give Bush a second opportunity to put on a codpiece and declare Mission Accomplished?

Choose a side.

We're already supposed to be on the side of the legitimately elected and organized government; do you mean to suggest that we might choose to take the side of the people who OPPOSE this government, which is supposed to represent the will of the Iraqi people? Are we going to turn our backs on the government, allow the tens of thousands of people who worked with us to be slaughtered, and join a fundamentalist Shia revolution sponsored in part (or opposed in part) by Iran?

What makes you think it would be smart for the US to turn against the side that is supposed to represent the rule of law and democracy?

There is no viable entity called "al Qaeda in Iraq/Messopotamia" so obviously, we're not going to make common cause with them; any attempt to say that we are going cut and run in the face of some imagined al Qaeda presence in Iraq should now be met with the derision it deserves.

Those who think that embedding more US soldiers into Iraqi units is going to solve anything should read this brief story:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061211/soldiers_story

It's written by a recently-returned-from-Iraq US Army Green Beret.

4 out of 5 terrorist agree with the Iraq Study Group report.

The one that didn't was unavailable for the question because he just blew himself up.

Message to the military from liberals in America:
RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY!

Yes, Orwell, liberals have a long history of running from stupidity and futility. Conservatives have a similar history of embacing stupidity and futility. Iraq is the tar baby of the right. Make you proud?

Ten more US troops killed in action.

Embedding is essential - Let us begin by having the President send George Bush to be embedded with the Iraqi Prime Minister. Our mighty boy warrior Roi will be a hands on manager. All he needs will be his helmet and Nordic Track. President Cheney can fend off those pesky Dems back here.

What arrived at the White House yesterday was mere compost for the Rose Garden - As Tony Snow indicated by his non-responses, Shrub will do as he pleases. Much a do about nothing yesterday.

Oh, please. Can't we just get off this train?

Two of the reasons that we are so behind in training the Iraqis are that our soldiers have never been trained in how to teach anybody anything, and because there are so few effective translators. Meaning that our 'trainers' cannot talk to those they train.

So now we'll have a whole lot of untrained trainers who can't communicate.

How is that going to help?

Message to the military from liberals in America:
RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY!

Message to the military from conservatives in America:

We want to watch you get run through a meat grinder because we were too scared to join your ranks...

Orwell, since when and on what planet apart from the one our friend "Trying to figure out Iraq?" lives on could James Baker III EVER be considered to be a liberal?

I mean do you guys compare adult nappies together before snuggling up to read Mein Kampf together?

Three points.

1) The recommendations are obviously not meant to be taken seriously. Their vague, contradictory studded with caveats. Take "force protection." They're gonna need force protection to protect the trainers who are off duty.

2) What about the civilians? They have to be protected, too, don't they? Much of that is being done by mercenaries. Are they going to stay as well? I read a report yesterday that with all the outsourcing of jobs to civilians there are 100,000 civilians there. Who will protect them?

3) The plan is still to remain there indefinitely--although the report says the president should say that it is not. The Iraqi military has no armor. It has no air force. It has no way to defend itself from its neighbors. The plan always was, and still is, that the US would remain in place, in the forward operating bases to provide armor and air support to the Iraqi military.

The value of the report is not in its recommendations. It is in its slapping down of the president's rosy lies.

We confess my boy that you are right, the vast Jewish conspiracy to take over the world has been exposed by your incredible eagle eyes!

Back to the lab Pinky. We'll just have to take over the world tonight. (Like we try to every night).

Yep Bad Rabbit we are all bad little Nazis. Wonderful arguement - haven't heard liberals use that one before.

What does Baker not being a liberal have to do with him putting out a report which is lousy?

And the liberals do all say "run away," and this report did nothing to solve the terrorist problem or the Iraq problem. It says, "things in Iraq are bad and we need to solve it." How much money did we spend on this stupid report?
IT is a typical liberal tactic; get a "bipartisan" group together and study it. Say a whole bunch and do nothing.

Bipartisan in Washington means conservatives agreeing with liberal ideas.

When the going gets tough the liberals want us out.

Orwell is a putz, in case you all haven't figured that out.

Types pretty fast one-handed though.

"When the going gets tough the liberals want us out."

Not quite. When the futility becomes obvious, the liberals want us out and the conservatives want to stay the course.

Smarter trolls, please.

When the going gets tough the liberals want us out.

BBZZZTTT!!! Thanks for playing. We were smart enough to se the futility of going in in the first place.

Putz.

I, unlike many of those here who get a chubby at the thought of killin', actually have loved ones in harms way, so pardon the fuck out of me for being just a little bit pissed off at having the military abused and misused and broken because your president is a failed fucking idiot.

1) The recommendations are obviously not meant to be taken seriously. Their vague, contradictory studded with caveats. Take "force protection." They're gonna need force protection to protect the trainers who are off duty.

Agreed--it all sounds like a bunch of non-starters. This is what happens when a commission has unresolved points of contention--things get left hanging. I think a lot of it was watered down--and it's hard to say that something that is such a rebuke of the Bush administration is watered down--in order to provide some cover to the Republican Party. I don't think Baker did this to save George W Bush; I think he did this to save the future of the Republican Party and its credibility on foreign policy.

2) What about the civilians? They have to be protected, too, don't they? Much of that is being done by mercenaries. Are they going to stay as well? I read a report yesterday that with all the outsourcing of jobs to civilians there are 100,000 civilians there. Who will protect them?

There are 100,000 contractors, filling gaps left by a shortage of military people. Titan has 6,500 Iraqi interpreters, for example, and security personnel--actually, just mercenaries, you're right--do a lot of the force protection and the security. As it stands right now, the Green Zone is an armed camp, sort of like Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam or something like that.

3) The plan is still to remain there indefinitely--although the report says the president should say that it is not. The Iraqi military has no armor. It has no air force. It has no way to defend itself from its neighbors. The plan always was, and still is, that the US would remain in place, in the forward operating bases to provide armor and air support to the Iraqi military.

You're exactly right--hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to build permanent bases that will, one day, have to be abandoned or turned over to the Iraqis. Why? Why build these bases in a country that already had a massive military infrastructure? The Iraqi army had over a million men at one point and had bases all over the country, many of which we didn't even need to destroy because their army collapsed.

Many of Saddam's palaces were mini-fortresses and bases unto themselves as well.

Now, the cynic might say that these things--the contractors, the bases, the construction contracts--they are all being done to line the pockets of companies that gave millions to the Republican Party, but come on--who would believe such a thing?

[rolling eyes.]

Joel - if they were smarter, they wouldn't be trolls.

Pale Rider the reason our guys are in a meat grinder is because 6 months into the conflict liberal politicians and self interested pundits were complaining about how many people we were killing.

Every time people pull the reigns on the military they have them stand around to be targeted and picked off. I would think the liberals would have learned this from Vietnam. Unfortunately you probably believe the movie Platoon gives a better view of the war than those who were there.

We have enough technological weapontry to wipe the insurgents off the map, but the liberals do not have the stomach to actually do what is need to end this conflict. The military is ineffective when it stands around to wait and see if they will be supported by the people from their own country.

Truman and Roosevelt would be ashamed to be called liberal. They knew it took massive destruction on their enemies to end these conflicts - EVERY militarily superior society has known this to be true.

Pearl Harbor day ought to remind us of what happens when we half heartedly enter a world wide conflict.

Still waiting for the Democrat solution to this problem. They said they had one, let's hear it.

"I, unlike many of those here who get a chubby at the thought of killin', actually have loved ones in harms way, so pardon the fuck out of me for being just a little bit pissed off at having the military abused and misused and broken because your president is a failed fucking idiot."

Yeah well that makes you an expert doesn't it?

What would you know about chubbies?

Is the military broken? Did I miss where it became incapable of fighting? Is your family member who is invovled in the military so lousy they can't seem to win this war?

Yeah Global you really care about your family members.
Liar.

". . . the reason our guys are in a meat grinder is because 6 months into the conflict liberal politicians and self interested pundits were complaining about how many people we were killing."

The president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and both houses of Congress were all conservative. They ignored "liberal" politicians, but did follow the self-interested pundits, who are all right-wing. Please spare us this lame and transparent attempt to re-write history.

"Truman and Roosevelt would be ashamed to be called liberal."

Truman and Roosevelt would not have invaded Iraq.

"Pearl Harbor day ought to remind us of what happens when we half heartedly enter a world wide conflict."

What are the similarities betweem the unprovoked attack by the Japanese military on US soil have to do with the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraqi soil by the US military? Think about it.

I broke my mothers favorite antique vase when I was eight, and my sister still hasn't come up with a plan to fix it. Lazy bitch.

Pale Rider the reason our guys are in a meat grinder is because 6 months into the conflict liberal politicians and self interested pundits were complaining about how many people we were killing.

???

The media has been in the tank since day one, and if you read people like Tom Friedman you'd know that.

The reason our troops are in a meat grinder is because political considerations prevent the POTUS from making a decision that will take them out of harm's way. The political fallout from having to admit that Iraq was a mistake prevents the POTUS from doing what he needs to do.

Every time people pull the reigns on the military they have them stand around to be targeted and picked off. I would think the liberals would have learned this from Vietnam. Unfortunately you probably believe the movie Platoon gives a better view of the war than those who were there.

No, actually--the book a Bright Shining Lie stands as one of the best documentations of what actually went wrong in Vietnam. As for the military situation, you can go to About Face by Col. David Hackworth and see it up close as well. The film Platoon is a work of fiction loosely based on Oliver Stone's experiences and it has no bearing on this discussion.

We have enough technological weapontry to wipe the insurgents off the map, but the liberals do not have the stomach to actually do what is need to end this conflict. The military is ineffective when it stands around to wait and see if they will be supported by the people from their own country.

Just say it--nuke the bastards. Too bad you don't have the courage to do so. You can't say it--because to say so would immediately reveal you have no credibility on the subject. Advocating the use of nuclear weapons would be an immediate non-starter that would render you unable to offer anything to the discussion.

Truman and Roosevelt would be ashamed to be called liberal. They knew it took massive destruction on their enemies to end these conflicts - EVERY militarily superior society has known this to be true.

What is it with wingnuts? Truman used the Atomic bomb; he did not use a nuclear weapon.

Truman is who Bush likes to model himself after and Truman would be no one's idea of a conservative; no one did more to destroy the Republican Party in the late 40s and early 50s than Truman and for that we can thank our lucky stars. Were it left to the Republicans circa 1951, there would have been a similar nuclear solution in Korea. How do you think that would have turned out?

Pearl Harbor day ought to remind us of what happens when we half heartedly enter a world wide conflict.

Pearl Harbor happens when the isolationist strain of the Republican Party prevents a President like FDR from doing the right thing--go back and read the speeches given by Republican politicians up to December 1941--they were unequivocally against arming for war, choosing sides in the war and against any support whatsoever for Britain, France or the Soviet Union.

Still waiting for the Democrat solution to this problem. They said they had one, let's hear it.

Bring the troops home now. And you can shut the hell up now.

Sorry for the bad editing:

What are the similarities betweem the unprovoked attack by the Japanese military on US soil have and the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraqi soil by the US military? Think about it.

I'm better versed than you are, asshole.

Spent any time in O-clubs lately? My social circle is mostly military, and I listen to what they say, thanks.

"pull the reigns of the military"

Would that be the Queen's or the King's forces?

As to Truman's belief in massive power to defeat the enemy, how does this square with his refusal to deal with the Chinese when they were coming across the Yalu?

And now, a moment of silence for those who perished 65 years ago.

And to the 10 US troops who perished yesterday.

Is the military broken? Did I miss where it became incapable of fighting? Is your family member who is invovled in the military so lousy they can't seem to win this war?

Do you have any clues as to how vulnerable this country is right now?

In 2000, Candidate George Bush made a statement at one of the debates--that due to deployments in Bosnia/Kosovo, Kuwait and Haiti, two US divisions were not fully combat ready. The 10th Mountain was one of those divisions--two of its three brigades had just done duty in Kosovo or whatever. This was something that actually was used as a knock on Clinton/Gore--that because of peacekeeping missions (which were wildly successful because, hello, not one US soldier has been killed in combat in Kosovo).

Fast forward to today.

Of our twelve active duty divisions, not ONE of them can be rated as combat ready as a division entity. Not one. Their equipment is worn out, they have NOT BEEN THROUGH A WARFIGHTER EXERCISE or certification and they have thousands of NCOs who are overdue for their professional training courses--i.e., BNCOC and ANCOC.

Of the rest of our National Guard units, you could maybe cobble together one division of assorted brigades. That's it.

Brigade after brigade after brigade is short of equipment, short of manpower, short of leaders and has not been through warfighter exercises and training at places like Ft. Lewis or Ft. Polk--we got so short of brigades we had to send the trainers to fight.

We had to pull troops out of Korea and send them--do you know when the last time was we had to pull 2nd ID assets out of Korea? Never.

The Republican Party's folly in Iraq has broken our military and left this country as undefended and vulnerable as it was in the 1930s.

Golly Orwell, did you cut-and-in the face of strong opposition?

Putz.

Paul - the death toll for yesterday has risen by one. I just hope the wounded man who perished later was shot and not burned. In fact I hope it was a head injury and he never felt any pain.

Pale Rider the reason our guys are in a meat grinder is because 6 months into the conflict liberal politicians and self interested pundits were complaining about how many people we were killing.

No, the reason our guys are in a meat grinder is because the upper echelons of their chain of command was acting on delusion. wishful thinking, and unjustified faith in their ability to "create their own reality" when they launched the war, rather than carefully analyzing the situation taking heed of the understanding of the experts in the field, and therefore launched a war which they rightly expected would result in the swift downfall of the existing regime without the preparation, planning, strategy, manpower, support, or even coherent vision of a plausible goal needed to make the occupation phase anything but an absolute disaster.

Every time people pull the reigns on the military they have them stand around to be targeted and picked off.

The war crimes and outright atrocities the US military has committed during this conflict, from hostage taking in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions to collective punishment of civilians to Abu Ghraib, is not evidence that anyone has pulled the reigns on the military. The military has not failed in Iraq because it was restrained by civilized rules of engagement, it has failed because of inadequate numbers and inadequate planning, which have left it incapable of acheiving the result hoped for of a stable, democratic, US-friendly Iraq free of "terrorists" and insurgents.

I would think the liberals would have learned this from Vietnam. Unfortunately you probably believe the movie Platoon gives a better view of the war than those who were there.

No, but then again, none of the people I've talked to that were there buy into the dolschtosslegende that you try to sell here about Vietnam, either.

We have enough technological weapontry to wipe the insurgents off the map, but the liberals do not have the stomach to actually do what is need to end this conflict.

We have enough "technological weaponry" to wipe most of the population of the planet off the map; the problem, however, is that the objective at which this conflict is directed is not merely wiping anybody off the map, but actually at achieving a political result which would not be achieved by indiscriminate destruction of civilian areas in which there might be present insurgents, which is the only way that our "technological weaponry" would suffice to wipe the present insurgents off the map (in the process, creating certainly a whole host of, if not "insurgents" per se, unfriendly, anti-US Iraqis.)

Truman and Roosevelt would be ashamed to be called liberal. They knew it took massive destruction on their enemies to end these conflicts

"These conflicts"? Which conflicts similar to the present one did Truman or Roosevelt engage in?

Pearl Harbor day ought to remind us of what happens when we half heartedly enter a world wide conflict.

Which is, of course, precisely why we ought to have continued to focus on defeating al Qaeda and their sworn allies like the Taliban rather than going off on an ill-conceived crusade against a regime which al Qaeda had sought to destroy and replace with a friendly Islamist regime.

Still waiting for the Democrat solution to this problem.

"Democratic". "Democrat" is a noun. How come right-wing nutjobs can't speak English?

The first step of the solution is stop making things worse with the ill-conceived operation in Iraq by extracting ourselves and putting the Iraqis in charge of their own destiny.

"pull the reigns of the military"

Would that be the Queen's or the King's forces?

Hey! That's my line...

LOL

How's the tree? All digits still present and accounted for? Love to Babe the Blue Ox.

What is it with wingnuts? Truman used the Atomic bomb; he did not use a nuclear weapon.

There are two types of nuclear weapons, fission or "atomic" devices and fusion (in practice, fission-fusion or fission-fusion-fission) or "thermonuclear" devices. Both are "nuclear" weapons".

Not that this is particularly important, but people who say that a nuclear weapon is used on Japan are not in error.

I think the plan to embed American troops among the Iraqi forces, assisted by rapid response troops elsewhere, if followed would set the stage for a disaster akin to the Beirut Marine barracks (low end) and a besieged garrison scenario like Dien Bien Phu (high end). We wouldn't have the personnel in place to insure overwhelming tactical advantage at every juncture.

It sounds like it would change our mission from building democracy to guarding the vault. Our soldiers would go from being active participants to being rent-a-cops. It's a hybrid even more unfocused than our current melange.

They are considering learning English as a second language, Gibberish being the first, as soon as they rein in their "reigns". Perhaps it was the coronation of King, er Roi George the Worst that leads them to such royal thoughts.

But, alas, nuke 'em all, muke 'em all, the long, the short and tall - the marching song of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

4 out of 5 terrorist agree with the Iraq Study Group report...Message to the military from liberals in America

That tears it...intentionally or not, "Orwell" is a parody.

What are the similarities betweem the unprovoked attack by the Japanese military on US soil have to do with the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraqi soil by the US military?

[raises hand] I know! I know! We achieved complete victory in four years. Oh, wait...

cmdicely wrote: the reason our guys are in a meat grinder is because the upper echelons of their chain of command was acting on delusion. wishful thinking, and unjustified faith in their ability to "create their own reality" when they launched the war, rather than carefully analyzing the situation taking heed of the understanding of the experts in the field, and therefore launched a war which they rightly expected would result in the swift downfall of the existing regime without the preparation, planning, strategy, manpower, support, or even coherent vision of a plausible goal needed to make the occupation phase anything but an absolute disaster.

Somewhere, the ghost of Sun Tzu is laughing at these buffoons.

Back later. I have two classes today and then - sweet freedom for a month!

C'mon back Orwell - that mean red-headed bitch is leaving for a bit - you may resume your thread-pissing now with no further interference from me until mid afternoon.

Any armed forces which has people like Tommy Franks and Richard Meyers rising to the top has to be considered dysfunctional in some way.

Truman and Roosevelt would be ashamed to be called liberal.

That would be THIS Harry Truman?:

The reason is that the people know that the Democratic Party is the people's party, and the Republican Party is the party of special interest, and it always has been and always will be....

Wages and salaries in this country have increased from 29 billion in 1933 to more than $128 billion in 1947. That's labor, and labor never had but one friend in politics, and that is the Democratic Party and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The total national income has increased from less than $40 billion in 1933 to $203 billion in 1947, the greatest in all the history of the world. These benefits have been spread to all the people, because it is the business of the Democratic Party to see that the people get a fair share of these things. This last, worst 80th Congress proved just the opposite for the Republicans.

The record on foreign policy of the Democratic Party is that the United States has been turned away permanently from isolationism, and we have converted the greatest and best of the Republicans to our viewpoint on that subject.

The United States has to accept its full responsibility for leadership in international affairs. We have been the backers and the people who organized and started the United Nations, first started under that great Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, as the League of Nations. The League was sabotaged by the Republicans in 1920. And we must see that the United Nations continues a strong and growing body, so we can have everlasting peace in the world.....

I would like to say a word or two now on what I think the Republican philosophy is; and I will speak from actions and from history and from experience.

The situation in 1932 was due to the policies of the Republican Party control of the Government of the United States. The Republican Party, as I said a while ago, favors the privileged few and not the common everyday man. Ever since its inception, that party has been under the control of special privilege; and they have completely proved it in the 80th Congress. They proved it by the things they did to the people, and not for them. They proved it by the things they failed to do....

Now everybody likes to have low taxes, but we must reduce the national debt in times of prosperity. And when tax relief can be given, it ought to go to those who need it most, and not those who need it least, as this Republican rich man's tax bill did when they passed it over my veto on the third try.

The first one of these was so rotten that they couldn't even stomach it themselves. They finally did send one that was somewhat improved, but it still helps the rich and sticks a knife into the back of the poor.

I must have your help. You must get in and push, and win this election. The country can't afford another Republican Congress.

millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/truman/hst_1948_0715.html

Yep, that Harry Truman...no liberal he....

Truman and Roosevelt would be ashamed to be called liberal.

That would be THIS Franklin Delano Roosevelt?:

Another indirect accomplishment of this Congress has been, I think, its response to the devotion of the American people to a course of sane and consistent liberalism....

In the coming primaries in all parties, there will be many clashes between two schools of thought, generally classified as liberal and conservative. Roughly speaking, the liberal school of thought recognizes that the new conditions throughout the world call for new remedies.

Those of us in America who hold to this school of thought, insist that these new remedies can be adopted and successfully maintained in this country under our present form of government if we use government as an instrument of cooperation to provide these remedies. We believe that we can solve our problems through continuing effort, through democratic processes instead of Fascism or Communism. We are opposed to the kind of moratorium on reform which, in effect, (is) means reaction itself....

The opposing or conservative school of thought, as a general proposition, does not recognize the need for Government itself to step in and take action to meet these new problems. It believes that individual initiative and private philanthropy will solve them -- that we ought to repeal many of the things we have done and go back, for (instance) example, to the old gold standard, or stop all this business of old age pensions and unemployment insurance, or repeal the Securities and Exchange Act, or let monopolies thrive unchecked --return, in effect, to the kind of Government that we had in the nineteen twenties.

Assuming the mental capacity of all the candidates, the important question which it seems to me the primary voter must ask is this: "To which of these general schools of thought does the candidate belong?"...

As the head of the Democratic Party, however, charged with the responsibility of carrying out the definitely liberal declaration of principles set forth in the 1936 Democratic platform....

The American people will not be deceived by anyone who attempts to suppress individual liberty under the pretense of patriotism.

http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/roosevelt/fdr_1938_0624.html

The rise of Tommy Franks, from Midland, Texas and Richard Meyers.

Wasn't that a take off on the old WWII song, "Kiss Up and Fly Right"?

The go along, get along, kiss upwards and shit downwards wing of the military.

But, Richard's niece is doing such a heckuva job over at Homeland Security going after child porn.

Is that Hillary Clinton?
Posted by: Trying to figure out Iraq? on December 7, 2006 at 8:23 AM

Looks like Christine Gregoire to me.

The excellent Governor of the State of Washington is Christine Gregoire. She was born Christine O'Grady and is a Roman Catholic.

But, but, but, her mother's last name is Jacob. Oh, what to do, what to do?

And, she and her husband spend summer vacations at their cabin at Hayden Lake, Idaho - Hmmm, Hayden Lake, hmmm, heard about Neo-Nazis there.

Jacob? Neo-Nazis? Oh, me oh my, what would a bigot do with that??

Piss off winda whineda warren ferret terra.

The Democratic leadership could end this debacle in a week by requiring the funding of the Iraq conflict to be on a "pay-as-you-go" basis. Direct the IRS to send tax bills to all taxpayers, based on their marginal tax brackets. Wealthy taxpayers would pay more. The troops would be home in a week because the rich conservatives who claim to love their country and the military so much, don't want to pay a dime to support them. Bush has enabled this with his unprecedented tax cuts during wartime and massive federal borrowings to fund this atrocity.

What concerns me is the ISG's note that its measures have to be undertaken comprehensively

Although the group members claim that there was unanimous agreement on the report, there apparently isn't agreement on this point. On NPR yesterday, OConner repeatedly emphasized that GWB is welcome to choose which recommendations he wishes to implement.

George hates withdrawals - He has had so many of them over coke and booze.

Yeah. The Mullahs have a decade tops if we leave them alone, and between 50-100 years if we launch a war against Iran, so sure wage a war now. Moron.

By the way - what Army you going to use to launch this grand adventure? The one that George broke while dicking around? The Clone Army from Star Wars? The Salvation Army?

George hates withdrawals - He has had so many of them over coke and booze.

Funny!

Oh no, we couldn't evacuate our soldiers right away. It would take years, if not decades. This kind of stuff just can't be done with present technology:

"Operation Dynamo (or Dunkirk Evacuation or just "Dunkirk") was the name given to the World War II mass evacuation of Allied soldiers from May 26 to June 4, 1940, during the Battle of Dunkirk. British Vice Admiral Bertram Ramsay planned the operation and briefed Winston Churchill in the Dynamo Room (a room in the naval headquarters below Dover Castle which contained the dynamo that provided the electricity), giving the operation its name (Holmes 2001:267).

In nine days, more than three hundred thousand (338,226) French and British soldiers were rescued from Dunkirk, France and the surrounding beaches by a hastily assembled fleet of about seven hundred boats. These craft included the famous Little Ships of Dunkirk, a mixture of merchant marine boats, fishing boats, pleasure craft and RNLI lifeboats, whose civilian crews were called into service for the emergency. Where owners could not be contacted, some ships were simply commandeered. These small craft ferried troops from the beaches to larger ships waiting offshore. Though the "Miracle of the Little Ships" is a major folk memory in Britain (at the time a useful propaganda tool), over 80 % of the evacuated troops actually embarked from the harbour's protective mole onto the 42 destroyers and other large ships."

More than 300,000 troops removed across the straits in rickety boats, without air superiority, using 1940's technology. Who are they trying to kid? Properly motivated, even our generals can be induced to get off their asses.

If Baker, Hamilton, and Sandy Baby had their own kids hunkered down in the Green Zone now, I promise you they'd be on their way home by next month.

Nina, we get some bloomin' god-damned idiots around here, but you take the cake, sister.

Go start your own blog and marvel at the lack of traffic, whaddya say?

Moron.

"nina," I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say take your spamming troll posts -- and your handle spoofing -- and stuff 'em. Thanks in advance.

The report undercuts the Murtha crowd by delegitimizing the quick bug-out (AKA redeployment) option and makes staying in Iraq at least until '08 the "conventional" or "mainstream" point of view. For Bush, isn't this the only part of the ISG report that matters? And when it comes to the actual situation in Iraq, the report basically confirms established policies of the White House and the Pentagon. So, in effect, doesn't the heralded bipartisan commission in effect give Bush the leeway to — ahem — stay the course?