I think that you are mistaking the mood of the country here.

Iraq is certainly a mess and there is certainly nothing good that can be achieved there under Bush. Nobody trusts him, not the Democrats, not the Republicans and certainly not the Iraqis. Bush cannot do anything but make matters worse.

That is not necessarily true of a new President, in particular if the President starts with the admission that almost everything that the US has done for the past six years in the country has made things worse.

In particular it is entirely possible that a new President may be able to call on allies who were rejected and dismissed by Bush to participate in a UN led force. This is not something that candidates should foreclose lightly.

The retention of large US forces in Japan, S. Korea and Europe for a long period of time, while certainly in the interests of the US, was primarily in the form of a defensive military alliance against a larger threat -- certainly once Japan and W. Germany became stable and self-governing -- and, in the case of the Phillippines a forward West Pacific base for same.

Much as Bush & co. have been trying to create an external threat, this force would be there primarily for internal stability, i.e. policing and supression. That's a big difference.

I appreciate Mr. Drum's conclusion.

A permanent trops presence amongst Iraqi people, mnnn..61% of the entire apopulation who approve of attacks on American forces.Do we really want to part of a permanent shooting gallery?

I am with Atrios on this, and more.

No one is gonna leave Iraq. Neither the current President, nor the new one after 2008.

The elites in Washington don't want to leave. That's enough to keep our forces there for a generation.

Imperialist dreams die hard. And slow. Very slow.

PHB, you might want to remember that the UN does not go into countries to change governments, will go into a zone as keeper of an already agreed peace but rarely goes into a fighting situation (Korea was an aberation), and even has a hard time intervening to prevent genocide.

There aren't many countries who will supply any meaningful force. Italy and Spain are tired out, Germany and France were never in, the UK is set on withdrawing and I don't think their next government would survive not doing so.

See how hard it's been in Afghanistan where most coutries think we should be.

No. We made this distinctly uncomfortable yoke and we must wear it until we decide to lay it down. The sooner the better. We are wasting lives.

Any President who doesn't set a goal of complete withdrawal -- besides a fairly normal embassy -- within 2 years max, has the wrong goal.

That's where the preznit should have been a long time ago.

That is not necessarily true of a new President, in particular if the President starts with the admission that almost everything that the US has done for the past six years in the country has made things worse.

I don't think Iraqis, especially the street fighters and the base, if you'll pardon the expression, that makes up the insurgency are going to draw distinctions between Bush and his successor, whoever that is. I hope that allied and other governments will, but by the time Bush is gone, even if he were impeached and removed in the next few weeks, the situation will have deteriorated, I fear, beyond the point where any real difference can be made.

The WHAT of post-American Iraq is going to happen, it's a question of WHEN, and how many more US troops die between now and then. I don't mean to sound as if I'm unconcerned for the loss of Iraqi life that Bush has made inevitable, but --to borrow Digby's crude but dead-on image-- we can't unshit the bed.

another Samarra mosque-type catastrophe ?

ok. done.

I say we keep 30,000 troops in Kurdistan only, purely to run refugee camps for the hundreds of thousands of people who will be applying for political refugee status. Those people should be reviewed for security concerns and processed through to come to the US over a period of 5 years or more, as with refugee camps in SE Asia after the fall of Indochina.

The supply lines for these troops, unfortunately, should really run through Turkey. Shame that isn't likely to work.

A new president might be able to bring about a cease fire with the promise of American withdrawal. But we're going to need to get out of there with that or not.

I couldn't agree more.
The country, even my deep red part of it, couldn't agree more.

Our leaders, however, seem stuck in the 19th century...or maybe the British Raj.

To: notthere
I don't believe the U.S. presence is to provide internal stability. The stealth policy is to create and maintain a permanent military presence near the middle east oil fields to ensure the continued flow of oil until it runs out. The policy must remain "secret" because there would be little political support for this from any side except the most war oriented neocons. Until we begin discussing the real reason we are there, all discussions about Iraq will have an Alice in Wonderland quality.

Bah! As usual, Kevin Dumboâ„¢ gets it wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Having a residual presence in Iraq is no different than leaving troops in Japan, Korea or Germany--places where the local populace were either desperate for our protection or resentful of the humiliating defeat we had rained down upon them. The beaten always resent the people who beat them, even when they were beaten with napalm and white phosphorous. You have to show a whipped dog the back of your hand and the comfort of an open hand where applicable. Sorry to break some eggs and offend the delicate sensibilities of the more sensitive out there, but a cur is a cur and you get nowhere with doggie biscuits. The rolled up newspaper and the stern voice command must accompany any effort to bring the cur to heel. And always be frugal with rewards, lest you spoil the animal.

Are we ever going to see the end of Iraqis who tie a rag around their nose and run around with an AK-47 and leave a broken mortar round tied to a dead dog's ass? Of course not. We will always have what are called "haters" who resent the success we have had in the region. The Middle East was doomed before we invaded Iraq--doomed to being under the influence of petty dictators. Well, we knocked off one and the rest have fallen in line. Players are hated, but real players don't keep hate up in their hearts. Remember that when you're pooh-poohing the efforts of people better than yourself.

US troops were being attacked relentlessly when they entered Germany in early 1945; when the war ended, the Germans resented them but figured out that it was better to have Yankees in their midst rather than Bolsheviks. In fact, US troops were being attacked with tanks, planes and buzz bombs--nothing like THAT is going on right now! When the Iraqis see what it might be like to have Iranian agents controlling their government, they'll figure out how to accept US troops AND they'll start turning over the miscreants who sow chaos.

I don't think this is even counting the worst case scenario: with a greatly diminished force, that force would be a constant target for attacks. So insurgents or al-Sadr's army or even the Iraqi army finally get big enough to pull off an assault on the remaining troops, killing say, 250-500 of them at once -- public outcry might once again force a greater troop deployment in Iraq, this time battling for revenge and "security" and doing the job we didn't do in the second Iraq war. We'd inevitably hear pressure for a third Iraq war and have to do this all over again, meeting the textbook definition of insanity.

I think I agree with mattsteinglass.

It's obvious the current administration is hell bent on keeping an American presence in Iraq for years to come, what with the massive infrastructure in place and the shifting rhetoric of late. And, no doubt, they have the capability to tie the next President's hands in the matter.

I agree that we should keep a small force (size is debatable, 20,000? 30,000?) in areas in Iraq that would tolerate a genuinely well-intentioned American force. Kurdistan comes to mind, also the southern regions of Iraq which have fewer incidences of violence towards American forces.

We should keep in mind, also, that a smaller American force would have a more narrow focus and would be even more capable of defending itself, since it would not be spread thin through hostile areas. Maybe this could contribute to getting some positive things done.

Adam, if we get to that point and 250 US troops get killed at once, the public pressure will be for an immediate pullout. We're in Mogadishu/Saigon territory here. The public is done with this war.

That's some kind of revisionist history you have there Norman...

Josh, I don't think there is much point in "trying to get some positive things done," and I think that only in Kurdistan is there sufficient pro-American feeling across political and tribal divisions to make a long-term US presence workable. In the Shiite South a US presence will be destabilizing -- an excuse for some groups to attack US troops and those who support them.

The only reason I'm uncomfortable with a complete and immediate withdrawal is the issue of abandonment of political refugees created by US intervention, and that's the only legitimate mission I see for US troops there. I don't think the US can let large numbers of Iraqi refugees in rapidly, both practically and because of terrorism concerns. I think it will a process that requires applicants for political refugee status to spend years in refugee camps in the region. One way to handle that might be to come to an agreement on refugee processing with Jordan and Syria, and expect refugees to make their way there. But there's something morally repugnant about the vision of the US simply abandoning Iraq entirely to rot in the stew we've made of it.

On second thought, though, I'm starting to think that working out arrangements with Jordan and Syria would make more sense, for various reasons. A full pullout from Iraq would then be possible.

Thomas Tobiason, I agree with you on that but, as long as they refuse to tell the truth or uncover their conversations, I'll take them at their dishonest word as that gives zero justification for staying.

Norman, my old, confused, demented non-friend, I think you are wandering from the party line. I thought we came as liberators rather than conquerors and humiliators.

Anyway, NOTHING like that happened at all in Germany. You are making stuff up.

Oh, right! Nothing new there.

There is another dimension to this issue which has scarcely been addressed, and which will be particularly important if Iraq is divided into 3 essentially separate states: defense against other countries and outside forces.

Iran and Iraq have already had a fighting war. Turkey is no friend to the Kurds, etc. etc. What will be the effective deterrent to outside pressure and/or military action? I would be scared to death to live in the post-withdrawal Iragi world.

sorry not more time now to flesh this out.

Ron

There is another dimension to this issue which has scarcely been addressed, and which will be particularly important if Iraq is divided into 3 essentially separate states: defense against other countries and outside forces.

Iran and Iraq have already had a fighting war. Turkey is no friend to the Kurds, etc. etc. What will be the effective deterrent to outside pressure and/or military action? I would be scared to death to live in the post-withdrawal Iragi world.

sorry not more time now to flesh this out.

Ron

There is another dimension to this issue which has scarcely been addressed, and which will be particularly important if Iraq is divided into 3 essentially separate states: defense against other countries and outside forces.

Iran and Iraq have already had a fighting war. Turkey is no friend to the Kurds, etc. etc. What will be the effective deterrent to outside pressure and/or military action? I would be scared to death to live in the post-withdrawal Iragi world.

sorry not more time now to flesh this out.

Ron

I agree that we should keep a small force (size is debatable, 20,000? 30,000?) in areas in Iraq that would tolerate a genuinely well-intentioned American force.

Should?

Excuse me, but the United States of America puts however many troops wherever it likes and that's the end of that.

That's some kind of revisionist history you have there Norman...

Well, quit sucking on your bong and tell me where I'm factually inaccurate. Factually. You may have your deluded liberal take on things, and that's well within your rights. I, however, hold fast to the notion that we are liberators, not conquerors.

Who are you, Norman Rogers, to tell me to quit sucking on my bong? I will suck on my bong as long and as hard as I like -- in the nude, and in public, too. That is my right as the citizen of a free country, not an Islamofascist slave.

I said:

US troops were being attacked relentlessly when they entered Germany in early 1945; when the war ended, the Germans resented them but figured out that it was better to have Yankees in their midst rather than Bolsheviks. In fact, US troops were being attacked with tanks, planes and buzz bombs--nothing like THAT is going on right now!

And this is FACTUALLY correct; German resistance along its Western borders against the combined US and British/Canadian forces was relentless. At the end of hostilities in May 1945, the entire German populace welcomed the US and the Allies as a buttress against Bolshevism.

But you said:

Anyway, NOTHING like that happened at all in Germany. You are making stuff up.

Bwah hah hah hah! The spider catches another fly! Eat crow, moron.

Players are hated, but real players don't keep hate up in their hearts. Remember that when you're pooh-poohing the efforts of people better than yourself.

Intended or not, this is a beautiful paraphrase of part of Richard Nixon's farewell meltdown in the East Room on the day he handed over the presidency.

I will suck on my bong as long and as hard as I like -- in the nude, and in public, too. That is my right as the citizen of a free country, not an Islamofascist slave.

Guess again, Dope fiend. If you sit naked in a public place and attempt to use drugs, there isn't a single jurisdiction in this country where the authorities won't arrest you and put you in jail.

Is that what liberals want to foist upon good citizens in this country? A deluded, violent, confrontational dope fiend who insists on exposing himself in public and flaunting the laws? I suppose now you'll say that it is your right to shoot people who want to take away your munchies. Sorry, pal. Your munchies will have to be confiscated along with your personal effects. Fortunately, we live under the rule of law and you do not have to worry about legal representation--if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. And you are innocent until proven guilty in what we call a court of law.

Could someone please get these bloody U.S. troops out of my bathtub?

Norman, you contradicted yourself.

"The beaten always resent the people who beat them"

"I, however, hold fast to the notion that we are liberators, not conquerors."

which is it? it can't be both.

In particular it is entirely possible that a new President may be able to call on allies who were rejected and dismissed by Bush to participate in a UN led force. This is not something that candidates should foreclose lightly.

I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone is in a mood to play "catch the hand grenade!" with the US in Iraq these days, even with a new president in place.

Norman, you contradicted yourself.

"The beaten always resent the people who beat them"

"I, however, hold fast to the notion that we are liberators, not conquerors."

which is it? it can't be both.

Complete withdrawal is the only way we can extract ourselves from this horrible policy. Any form of occupation, no matter how small, will be opposed by the Iraqi people. We haven't kept order in Iraq with 150k troops now, so I don't see how 20-50k soldiers in Kurdistan would stabilize Iraq. The country is in the midst of civil war; our soldiers are now training ISF who turn around and attack them. There's no order there to keep.

Norman Rogers:

I lived in Germany in 1945 and most of the time since then, and I can only tell you that you don't undertsand the situation on the ground as it was at the time. Most Germans were happy to get rid of the Nazis and actually greeted the GIs as liberators. Not one shot was fired at them after Mai 8th 1945.
And your psycologistic reasoning is a bit simplistic.

Kevin, it's not just "the Sunni insurgents" who want the occupation to end, it's most of the general population.

Why play footsie with meaningless rhetoric like that? "Thugs and dead-enders," anyone?

I stand corrected. You're right: I am a naked dope fiend who wants to kill people.

Kevin--

What part of this don't you understand? This is not "growing conventional wisdom." This has been the plan from the outset. Dodd, Obama, Clinton, Kucinich and Biden all voted on appropriations bills that included funding "enduring bases" going back at least 3 years. Cheney said, shortly after the statue fell, that they planned to draw down to 50,000 troops.

The reason that the top tier candidates have been so mealy-mouthed on the war, with their "redeployment" talk and their identification of mission assignments going forward is that they all plan to leave those 40-50,000 troops in place.

This means, of course, no sovereign government in Iraq, because no independent government in Iraq would permit the basing of American soldiers in support of Israel's national security, which is what the continued occupation would exist to do.

The reason nobody has talked about the plan for permanent occupation is not because it had to "grow" into conventional wisdom. It's because they knew how unpopular it would be.

The presidential candidates need to be pressed, over and over again, on this.

A deluded, violent, confrontational dope fiend who insists on exposing himself in public and flaunting the laws?

Of course, on this board we have a deluded, violent, confrontational troll who insists on exposing his ignorance and ignoring the fact that his arguments have been eviscerated before he makes them. Can we call in the constabulary?

I lived in Germany in 1945 and most of the time since then, and I can only tell you that you don't undertsand the situation on the ground as it was at the time. Most Germans were happy to get rid of the Nazis and actually greeted the GIs as liberators. Not one shot was fired at them after Mai 8th 1945.

That's bullcrap. When you people were winning, every single one of you was drinking beer and hollering the Horst Wessel at the top of your goose-stepping lungs. A hint to you sir--your people forgot to burn the Leni Refenstahl films that showed you ecstatically cheering at every word the Bavarian Corporal screeched at you.

When the B-25s started blowing up every single serviceable building within ten miles of a munitions factory, you cowards crapped yourselves and hung white sheets from every window still left. And you ran westward to get away from the Red Army with your hun tails between your pasty white legs.

The complicity of the German people in Nazism isn't up for debate sir; and I've yet to be refuted.

Hey Norman, the guy was joking about the bong.

now you can go back to spewing incoherent right wing talking points about the war.

How embarassing for Princeton...

NRogers_Princeton65@hotmail.com

I hope he didn't go to Lawrenceville.

Excuse me, but the United States of America puts however many troops wherever it likes and that's the end of that.. . .
Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 13, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Given that 76% oppose the war, then I'd have to agree with you that the United States of America can put however many troops wherever it likes, and apparently, it likes them at home, here, in the US.

Not in Iraq, where it's bleeding our economy dry.

The Sunni insurgents want us out, and a drawdown to 40,000 troops won't mollify them. At the same time, it's nowhere near enough to deal with any kind of serious violence.

With aircraft standing by in Turkey and Kuwait (and possibly Iraqi Kurdistan), and with help from Kurdish and Shi'ite allies, it is probably sufficient to prevent the Sunnis from conquest of the Kurdish and Shi'ite areas. Given the energy displayed by the Iraqi army to date, it's sufficient to prevent them from conquest of the Sunni areas should the U.S. decide to support a federal or partitioned Iraq.

The only sensible course of action is to leave. Completely.

The almost certain global reaction will be: The Americans were only ten miles away and they didn't do anything to stop it!
There is probably no course of action now that will remove the risk of international condemnation of the U.S. for permitting gross violence to occur. So if that is your criterion, staying in force is the only sensible alternative. Put another way, if you want a really rapid complete departure, then you just have to decide to accept the subsequent violence (it's Bush's fault anyway!), and live with the international opprobrium.

with Sunni insurgents attacking the Shi'ite mosques, it's unlikely that the mostly Shi'ite parliament will agree to pass an oil law that is generous to the Sunnis -- don't you think? Or, put another way, the best way for the Sunnis to prevent the achievement of the administration's goals, and to facilitate the Congressional resolution pulling out all American forces, is for the Sunni insurgents to blow up as many Shi'ite mosques as possible.

Josh: I agree that we should keep a small force (size is debatable, 20,000? 30,000?) in areas in Iraq that would tolerate a genuinely well-intentioned American force. Kurdistan comes to mind, also the southern regions of Iraq which have fewer incidences of violence towards American forces.

Various possibilities like that are possible. One way or another they work out to a federal/canton-style Iraq, or actual partition, not a truly national government.

with Sunni insurgents attacking the Shi'ite mosques,

Actually, there's a pretty good chance that those are al qaeda attacks by foreigners. This is the kind of thing they do--foment conflict between the Sunni and the Shiite.

Wasn't this what Black Hawk Down was all about?

Can't we at least use Republican stupidity to good effect? Tell them this was Bill Clinton's (lousy) strategy in Somalia, so why would they want to do the same thing in Iraq?

With aircraft standing by in Turkey and Kuwait (and possibly Iraqi Kurdistan), and with help from Kurdish and Shi'ite allies, it is probably sufficient to prevent the Sunnis from conquest of the Kurdish and Shi'ite areas.

Please. conquest of the Shi'ites by the Sunnis is not possible. Iran backs the Shia, and the Sunnis are only 20% of the pop. Even with support from Saudia Arabia, they can't regain control of Iraq.

No one is gonna leave Iraq. Neither the current President, nor the new one after 2008.

Nor after 2016.

I love the cranky Norman Rogers. He says whatever he wants in his post, claims it's correct and then challenges anyone to refute it.

Sorry, Mitty, but you really can't post vague, sweeping generalizations about World War II and pronounce them as fact.

Please, show us hard data stating that Germans were US troops were being attacked relentlessly when they entered Germany in early 1945

Were they being attacked by German troops? If so, that different than the situation in Iraq.

What exactly does "relentlessly" mean?

What date range does "early 1945" entail?

Norm, you're a great parody troll. Just stick to what works: flamboyant claims about past conquests (Paula Zahn in particular); eloquent stories of Octagon death-matches, Ivy-League keg parties, making and losing millions; and of course, belittling Kevin and his posters.

Posting revisionist history just doesn't work.

The troops will be there to prop up whatever puppet government finally approves the PSA, because said puppet government will be extremely unpopular with Iraqis of all kinds.

Of course it's neccesary. How can we steal resources without a strong military presense?

---------------

and Norman Rogers is really stupid funny.

Were they being attacked by German troops? If so, that different than the situation in Iraq.

How so? Attacks are attacks. The Ba'ath party is behind a number of attacks, so in effect, the former regime of Iraq is still fighting us.

What exactly does "relentlessly" mean?

Ask your girlfriend--I gave her a pretty good definition of it last night.

What date range does "early 1945" entail?

Between January 1945 and May 1945, the Germans fought us like vicious wolves, trying to deny us entry to their homeland. Once hostilities ceased--that is, once they figured out that WE were the lesser of two evils--they capitulated. All the Iraqis need to do is see the US as being the lesser of two evils and reject the Iranians.

Posting revisionist history just doesn't work.

So says another ignorant liberal who doesn't live in the real world. I really enjoy these discussions--I put out what I think and you ass clowns get hysterical and fall all over yourselves trying to think of a new way to insult me. And yet, here I am--smiling and happy, and on the right side of history. How sweet it is!

Oh, and you idiots who think you know something--at the end of the war, the Germans still controlled Denmark, Norway and large swaths of Italy, Germany, what eventually became the Czech Republic and Austria. They could have dug caves and conducted guerilla war against the invaders. They were brought to heel by a benevolent conqueror and a dictatorial one--and guess which side prevailed? Or do Russian tank divisions still roll through the capitals of Europe.

Some of you need to quit reading Wikipedia...

Never should have allowed Bush to invade in the first place.

Ah, Kevin.

We are winning this thing Kevin. The reason why we could lose are the democrats. They are losers, with a loser mentality. They are losers on life.

I'm not messing around anymore. This country needs to knock out the nitnoids, roll up its sleeves and get down to business. We've got to be of the mindset that we can win. Do what ever it takes to win. I'm a winner. This country is a winner. Let's not lose because of losers. But losers love to encourage others to lose, to bring them down to there level.

MRM: There is probably no course of action now that will remove the risk of international condemnation of the U.S. for permitting gross violence to occur.

So far, so good. You started off just fine.

So if that is your criterion, staying in force is the only sensible alternative. Put another way, if you want a really rapid complete departure, then you just have to decide to accept the subsequent violence (it's Bush's fault anyway!), and live with the international opprobrium.

Even when I know you're going to do it again, it's always disappointing, Matt.

Anyone else want to spell Matthew "Just Around this Baghdad Corner, There's a Rainbow in the Sky" Marler on the extent of violence and international opprobrium associated with our "staying in force"? He won't hear you, because it's just too darned negative, but you can try if you like.

Norman says:We will always have what are called "haters" who resent the success we have had in the region. The Middle East was doomed before we invaded Iraq--doomed to being under the influence of petty dictators. Well, we knocked off one and the rest have fallen in line."

Success in the region? Where? The rest have fallen into what line?

The WW2 analogy used by Norman is pretty pitiful, were 3500 US troops killed after the mission was accomplished in Berlin? Were 25,000 wounded? Did hundreds of thousnads of Germans die in terrorist incidents and battles? Same questions apply to Japan and Korea. I sure haven't read about those incidents.

Leaving troops in Iraq means that they remain a target for local and international militant groups.

Leaving troops in Iraq de-legitimizes any government in power in Iraq. The government will be seen as a puppet of the US, no matter how much they try to distance them from the US.

Hats off to shortstop @ 4:13 PM.

If the majority of Americans want the US to GTFO, then we had better have a series of huge, strictly non-partisan demonsrations through the next year or the candidates, from either side, will not have the guts to do it. Answering polls and waiting to vote in the primaries and general election will not get it done.

What Stormin Norman doesn't point out is that American Reich Wingers basically took over the Nazi Apparatus and made a deal which has haunted our country ever since. Gehlen became an American Gestapo, what politicos we could whitewash were whitewashed, and our immediate concerns with keeping the Russians from raping their way into France made it far easier to make deals with some, and send the unclean others to the US and South America to new lives at our expense. Who told Israel where to find Eichmann when he was no longer useful? How many Nazis actually supported Reagan and Bush 1? Who supported the Nazis before and during the war financially and materially? Our industrial barons and financiers, including Prescott Bush and all those clunks whose foundations now support PBS programming.
So stormin Norman is really misinterpreting V-E day as the end of a war when it was really just the victory of the losing side's ideology.

Hi Norm!

Glad to see you smiling and happy. An interesting side effect of oxygen deprivation. Don't forget to breath, though, or your heart may catch up to your brain and stop.

Funny thing about right wingers in the US these days: all they've got left is raw assertion. And while Normy's mega-dosing on viagra (to support his boy-love habit no doubt, along with such patriots as Haggard and Foley)he still can't keep it up. Basically, the right is so hypocritical they're trying to get by on bluster alone. Conservatives own the biggest debt, the most profligate and counterproductive war, the most tragic loss of liberty, the stupidest president and the biggest heap of lies in American history. Good job guys. Playing chicken in a mack truck while jacked on meth is all you got left, Norm. And you wear it jolly well, as yer speeding through flatlining on yer way to hell. That last heartbeat's gonna be a doozy.

Happy Trails!

In the meantime, speaking of facts, the majority of the Iraqi population are sectarian allies of Iranian Shiites, and are more natural allies of Iran than they are with the US, despite ethnic difference. That's one of the many reasons why non-Troglodytes who weren't killing Jesus one child assault at a time (guess that leaves you, in case categorical thinking is too tough for you!)knew that Bush's bonehead maneuver was a recipe to empower Iran in the first place. Sheese, Bush not only named the axis of evil, he handed nukes to North Korea and made Iran the biggest player in the neighborhood by taking out Saddam and Taliban.

And you think we won! That we beat the Iraqis like we beat the Germans. That we've won the right to treat them like dogs. Tell that to our soldiers over there who are fighting every day, you deluded coward. No wonder you're so fixated on the Nazis. They kinda tickle yer sphincter, just the way you like it, with all that vein triumphalism. Well, that's all you've got left too, bub. Your hero Bush, just sold our children to the Chinese and the Saudis while he was strengthening Iran and Korea and dragging the sacrifices of generations of Americans through the mud. Good Show!

Do watch that autoasphyxiation while pretending to be something other than a dingleberry on blogs. Like I said, your heart may catch up with your brain.

You know you have a troll beat when they resort to girlfriend or momma jokes.

Put down the comic book and pick up a history book. You'll find that the situation in World War II has almost no similarities to the situation in Iraq right now.

I doubt you'll have time since you'll be relentlessly shagging my girlfriend.

I can only imagine a troll coming out of mom's basement to give a woman (other than his mother) a vigorous tapping.

Normy, my wife would laugh at the sight of your flabby, pasty white body trying to mount her.

Then she'd kick your ass, Octagon-style.

Due to terrorism and oil, Iraq and Iran are key locations with respect to world peace and world prosperity. We may not like it, but the world needs a polliceman, and the US has been playing the role of policeman for the world. If we simply leave, as Kevin recommends, there will be a power vacuum in that area, which is apt to lead to very bad consequences.

Israel saved the world's tuchis once when they bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. For that good deed, Israel was roundly criticized. But, if Saddam had had nuclear weapons when he took over Kuwait, we likely would not have stopped him.

We can hope that Israel again saves the world's derrière in Iraq and Iran. But what if they don't? A nuclear Iran next to a terrorist-dominated Iraq could produce unthinkable damage to the world as we know it.

Kevin, I think you're right that the insurgents will not be satisfied with only a reduction in troops. I also think our best (least bad) option is to leave Iraq, but if we do remain for some time (which seems likely to me whoever wins the next Presidential election), with whatever size force, it is essential that we convince the local population we will eventually leave. Something the current administration won't do, probably because it doesn't intend for the U.S. to leave, but hopefully the next administration will.

To that end, I've been playing with an idea for a treaty with the Iraqi government to allow handover of bases to the Iraqi nation at some future time, similar to the Panama Canal. Something like every X number of years, the Iraqi president can request up to Y number of bases are handed over. Depending on how things are going in Iraq, they can eventually kick us out or keep us around as long as we like. Emphasize the bases are really valuable additions to their future infrastructure and they might be less likely to attack them or more likely turn in their neighbors that are. Heck, throw in some Hummers and other transports, but every one destroyed by insurgents is one less their country eventually gets, and they'll have an incentive to abandon the IEDs responsible for so many soldiers' deaths.

The big selling points would be emphasizing the American investment in Iraq through the bases and giving the Iraqis some measure of control over our stay in Iraq with a definite sunset possibility, but of course giving up that control will also be the biggest problem to a U.S. administration. One can dream, though.

Normy, my wife would laugh at the sight of your flabby, pasty white body trying to mount her.

I believe she kept screaming, "don't stop, I've never had it this good" and then I had to leave when she passed out. I normally don't do charity work, but I had to work my way out of a slump.

I'm sitting in a multi-million dollar home that I own, I can see trees and grass and the lake outside and I'm having a wonderful time. When your shift is over at Arby's, don't forget to clock out and leave your hairnet where your buddy can find it for his morning shift.

Ha ha ha!

I figured it out. Norm is really Terminator X from PE! He's not really a flacid facist white ass wimp hiding in his mom's closet pretending to be a big shot, he's a bad ass DJ messin' with a bunch of liberal geeks!

Man, I saw you with Primus and Anthrax, and with Humpty Hump and Digital Underground, but talk about kickin' it! You own the Washington Monthly blog, yo, with this pudless fascist poser rap.

Bring that Beat Back!

Time for me to exit, Terminator X it!

Turn it up!

Kevin's best post ever. Absolutely correct. This will be and should be the test for candidates for the White House. No evasions and vague responses allowed.

For Norman Rogers' analogy to be apt, the post-war occupation would have had to entail a constantly escalating and bloodier-by-the-year insurgency, and violence which lasted at least until 1949 (and probably longer). Oh, and the Germans would have had to have a culture and religion markedly different from that of the Americans.

As all of us except for Norman know, this was not the case.

A more apt analogy for the current situation in Iraq would be that of the Suez Canal crisis of 1956, rather than the post-war occupation of Germany beginning in May 1945.

Fun fact #1: The Anglo-French-Israeli plot to take back the Suez Canal was predicated on a cooked-up excuse to invade Egypt under false pretenses. Sound familiar?

Fun fact #2: UK Prime Minister Lloyd was utterly convinced that the Egyptians would greet the invading Anglo-French forces as liberators, and rise up against Nasser. This turned out to be the exact opposite of what actually happened. Sound familiar?

I leave it to the rest of you to read up on the Suez crisis and see if you can find other parallels to the current situation in Iraq.

(oops, I made a mistake... Lloyd was the UK foreign minister, Sir Anthony Eden was the PM at the time of the Suez crisis...)

"Between January 1945 and May 1945, the Germans fought us like vicious wolves, trying to deny us entry to their homeland."

No shit, Tacitus - their army was still intact and the Nazi government had not yet surrendered. How in f**k is that analogous to Iraq, whose national army was beaten and whose existing government collapsed four years ago? The proper analogy is to the way the German people treated U.S. soldiers after WWII compared to the way we are now being received in Iraq. There was virtually no violence against Allied occupation troops in Europe, while we're currently losing 20-25 soldiers a week in Iraq.

Of course, there is the distinct possibility that you're posts are simply parody; they seem a little too aggressively stupid to be serious.

This bit is really quite funny:

"You may have your deluded liberal take on things, and that's well within your rights. I, however, hold fast to the notion that we are liberators, not conquerors."

It's the bases.

We are going to hold at least one of those giant isolated interior air bases forever, They will serve as forward airbases with strategic implications reaching beyond the Gulf all the way to Russia, China and all South Asia.

In addition they will be supply warehouses for all sorts of equipment and thus be staging areas if we ever want to reintroduce large ground forces in the region.

There will quite probably never be another chance to establish such bases. Never another chance to marshal such stores of equipment in the region. No chance because of international politics but domestic as well.

They are the only possible thing left of the Iraqi adventure which could be construed as a victory, if not politically then certainly militarily.

Nobody who opposes abandoning these bases will ever be president. Hillary's rumblings on a remaining force don't mention the bases but that's what she's talking about.

What if the Iraqi goverment opposes them. What a quaint idea. What government? There isn't going to be any Iraqi government deserving the name. If by design or accident I have my ideas but you can reach your own conclusion.

Edit

Obviously I should have said proposes abandoning the bases.

Thanks, Kevin, for stressing this issue.
And General Odom makes a lot of sense here:

"Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam for his invasion of the country in 1980. For al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the United States in the world diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the trans-Atlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for any improvement.

In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.

None of these prospects is possible unless we stop moving deeper into the “big sandy� of Iraq. America must withdraw now.

Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.) is senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and professor at Yale University. He was director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988.

amen General Odom.

Seriously though, check wiki for Norman Rogers.

Thomas Tobiason wrote:

"I don't believe the U.S. presence is to provide internal stability. The stealth policy is to create and maintain a permanent military presence near the middle east oil fields to ensure the continued flow of oil until it runs out. The policy must remain 'secret' because there would be little political support for this from any side except the most war oriented neocons."
_________________________

There hasn't been anything remotely stealthy about our maintaining a permanent military presence in the Gulf region since President Carter was in office.

I want a short term only hit of whatever Norman Rogers is drinking, dropping or smoking . . .

Jo

jayackroyd: Actually, there's a pretty good chance that those are al qaeda attacks by foreigners. This is the kind of thing they do--foment conflict between the Sunni and the Shiite.

If that's true, and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you, then it is an example of why Americans should stay. That is, it supports the idea that most of the violence may be neither "sectarian" in a narrow sense nor "civil war" in the sense of warring parties. It's an "invasion" parallel to the U.S. invasion with a commensurable but opposite aim, namely to promote violence and instability that enhances the power of Islamists.

I think the question is is 50,000 troops going to lead to Dien Bien Iraq. Theoretically in terms of preventing a wider conflict 50,000 troops is of assistance assuming the President is sane. The idea that the US can win the hearts and minds of Iraq by withdrawing is a no go. Regardless of what the US does the US is going to be detested for at least a generation in Iraq. Can 40,000 troops protect themselves? That is the question. The new President should ask the generals rather than pitch the generals. Fredick Kagan need not be polled.

"the best way for the Sunnis to prevent the achievement of the administration's goals, and to facilitate the Congressional resolution pulling out all American forces, is for the Sunni insurgents to blow up as many Shi'ite mosques as possible."
_______________________

The problem is the Sunnis still think they can reconquer the country if only the US military was gone. They are wrong, but try convincing them of that.

"Actually, there's a pretty good chance that those are al qaeda attacks by foreigners."

The fact that we don't have any idea who did it tells you a lot about the current state of affairs in Iraq.

"Of course, there is the distinct possibility that your posts are simply parody"

Sigh... Of course they are. Normy is a performance artist/troll who doesn't believe a word he writes. He's posting here solely to rile people up and to get indignant responses.

"The problem is the Sunnis still think they can reconquer the country if only the US military was gone."

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

"That is, it supports the idea that most of the violence may be neither 'sectarian' in a narrow sense nor 'civil war' in the sense of warring parties"

Oh, garbage. And stop this bullshit of playing it safe and refusing to take a stand. Either you agree with this idea or you don't. If you agree with it, say so.

In any case, it's manifestly stupid, since claiming that "most" of the violence isn't sectarian and isn't a part of a slow-burning civil war is contrary to all known facts about the current situation.

That some of the violence may, in fact, be caused by third parties with motives of their own is certainly possible, even plausible. That "most" of it is? Give me a fricking break....

PaulB wrote:

"The problem is the Sunnis still think they can reconquer the country if only the US military was gone."

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
_______________________

Evidence for what, Paul? That they still think they can take over again or that they can't do it? Well, nevermind, the answer is the same.

We've got loads of evidence. The insurgent cells in the most violent parts of the country are run by ex-military officers (meaning Sunnis) and Baathists. Their acceptance of Al Qaeda in their midst (until recently) showed their willingness to do anything to keep the government from stabilizing. Their continued hostility towards Iraqi security forces, even in the absence of Americans. Most importantly, we've got hundreds of officers out there in the field who get told that regularly, both by Sunni leadership and Shiite allies.

Kevin wrote: The Sunni insurgents want us out, and a drawdown to 40,000 troops won't mollify them.

At some point we may have no choice but to mollify the Sunni insurgents, but the very idea sticks in my craw. These are the people who are intentionally killing and maiming whoever they can get at: American troops, Iraqi troops and police, and lots of innocent civilians.

We didn't choose to mollify the Ku Klux Klan when they were killing innocent people. We didn't mollify Hitler when he was killing innocent people. It will be a sad day if and when the US decides it must mollify a group of people who are behaving so monstrously.

"We've got loads of evidence."

No, actually, you don't. I don't even know where to start with that litany of rhetoric you posted under the mistaken impression that it was "evidence," since none of it holds up to close scrutiny. Come back when you know the difference between wishful thinking and solid evidence.

" It will be a sad day if and when the US decides it must mollify a group of people who are behaving so monstrously"

Out here in the real world, that day happened a long time ago and not just with the Sunnis. Feel free to join us here any time you want to.

And hauler, the reason I get irritated at idiotic statements like yours is that that statements like that ridiculously oversimplify a very complex situation. There are any number of factions fighting in Iraq, each with their own techniques, their own purposes, and their own goals. And the minute you try to take that conflict and present it as black and white, good vs. evil, Sunni insurgents trying to reconquer the country vs. Shiites protecting themselves, al Qaeda operatives providing most of the violence, evil Sunni insurgents "intentionally killing and maiming whoever they can get at," and all the other nauseatingly oversimplified, not to mention stupid, ways to view this conflict, you have established yourself as someone not worth taking seriously and someone who should, above all, be prevented from having any say in how matters should proceed in Iraq.

The fact that the Bush administration has, time and time again, adopted rhetoric like this, tells you all you need to know about how we reached this point in Iraq.

PaulB: The fact that we don't have any idea who did it tells you a lot about the current state of affairs in Iraq.

Oh, garbage. And stop this bullshit of playing it safe and refusing to take a stand. Either you agree with this idea or you don't. If you agree with it, say so.

The fact is, as you say, that we don't know the balance: how much is sectarian, how much is conquest vs. reconquest, how much is al Qaeda. There are factions within factions, fighting for leadership of the factions.

In any case, it's manifestly stupid, since claiming that "most" of the violence isn't sectarian and isn't a part of a slow-burning civil war is contrary to all known facts about the current situation.

All known facts about the current situation do not add up to or spell out any simple description. When al Sadr temporarily instructed his militias to cooperate with the central government (or at least to quit resisting), factions within his militia ignored him. Since American/IA forces always receive substantial local assistance within Shi'ite areas when engaging Sadrist forces, we do not even know the degree to which he commands his own militia.

I mentioned that a small force of Americans would be sufficient to prevent a Sunni reconquest of the Shi'ite and Kurdish areas. We do not know that such a reconquest would be attempted, or if the Kurds or Shi'ites could resist on their own. But if such a reconquest, a la 1991, were attempted, our forces could prevent it from succeeding. Some say that we ought to have done so the first time around (and some disagree still), and that we ought not repeat the mistake of passively letting the Sunni/Baathist/whoevers win.

consider wisely always: Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for any improvement.

It's not just that the U.S. is tied down in the sands of Mesopotamia, but that the U.S. is tied down in the Persian Gulf region. General Odom has a great point, but I think he is too narrow.

Thomas Tobiason wrote:

"I don't believe the U.S. presence is to provide internal stability. The stealth policy is to create and maintain a permanent military presence near the middle east oil fields to ensure the continued flow of oil until it runs out. The policy must remain 'secret' because there would be little political support for this from any side except the most war oriented neocons."

I agree entirely. Certainly the 'real' reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was to insure American access to ME oil, particularly the largely undeveloped Iraqi oil reserves. I would also argue that the invasion of Afghanistan had pipeline considerations as an unspoken but ultimate aim. The US could have more successfully gone after al Qaeda with an invasion designed to target bin Laden and associates directly instead of futzing around invading the whole country for months before finally copping out in the actual attempt to seize bin Laden. The following quote is worthy of consideration by all:

"U.S. global political, economic, and financial power thus require the periodic exercise of military power. The other advanced capitalist countries tied into this system have also become reliant on the United States as the main enforcer of the rules of the game. The positioning of U.S. military bases should therefore be judged not as a purely military phenomenon, but as a mapping out of the U.S.-dominated imperial sphere and of its spearheads within the periphery. What is clear at present and bears repeating is that such bases are now being acquired in areas where the United States had previously lost much of its “forward presence,� such as in South Asia, the Middle East/Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, or in regions where U.S. bases have not existed previously, such as the Balkans and Central Asia. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the last remaining superpower is presently on a course of imperial expansion, as a means of promoting its political and economic interests, and that the present war on terrorism, which is in many ways an indirect product of the projection of U.S. power, is now being used to justify the further projection of that power."

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0302editr.htm

PaulB, you say we should be realistic and so mollify Sunni terrorists. That is, we should not defend their Shia and Kurdish victims.

Who else should we mollify? Should we mollify Palestinian groups and allow them to send suicide bombers and rockets to kil and maim Israeli civilians?

Should we mollify Iran, and not object when they send shaped charges used to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Should we mollify Syria and pay no attention when just today they bombed an Anti-Syrian leader in Lebanon?

Maybe you think we should mollify al Qaeda and let them attack us however they want to?

The "mollify" approach reminds me of the famous poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Bush, Reagan, and conservatives mollified Noriega, Bautista, Saddam, Pinochet, the Saudi monarchy, apartheid South Africa, Rios Montt, Afghani warlords, etc, etc, etc.

Conservatives did mollify Hitler, and defended him, publicly prior to the US entry into the war, as well as the KKK, and even worse, despite your lies to the contrary.

anonymous: Bush, Reagan, and conservatives mollified Noriega, Bautista, Saddam, Pinochet, the Saudi monarchy, apartheid South Africa, Rios Montt, Afghani warlords, etc, etc, etc.

Conservatives did mollify Hitler, and defended him, publicly prior to the US entry into the war, as well as the KKK, and even worse,

The question is, do you approve of these actions? Do you share PaulB's apparent belief that such an approach is appropriate in the real world?

"PaulB, you say we should be realistic and so mollify Sunni terrorists."

ROFLMAO... Reading comprehension continues to be a problem with you, I see. What's hilarious about this is that nothing I said even remotely resembles what you claim I said. Like I said, you should rejoin us out here in the real world some time.

"That is, we should not defend their Shia and Kurdish victims."

Dear heart, even if I had said what you claimed I said, this statement doesn't even remotely follow from that. Adding logical fallacies to your reading incomprehension, I see.

"Who else should we mollify? Should we mollify Palestinian groups and allow them to send suicide bombers and rockets to kil and maim Israeli civilians?"

ROFL... And now false appeals to emotion. You really don't have an argument, do you, dear?

"Should we mollify Iran, and not object when they send shaped charges used to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Dear heart, not only does this statement not follow from anything I've said, it also doesn't follow from what you claim I said, and it's not even true since the evidence that Iran is doing anything like this is pretty much non-existent. You really should get out more.

The rest of this was just more of the same complete nonsense, hilariously pathetic in its ignorance of reality and remarkable for its logical fallacies.

What I find even more interesting is that you completely ignored the substance of my remarks, ignored that you got thrashed for making really idiotic statements, and instead chose to try to attack me with a really, really stupid attack that bears no resemblance to reality. Even for you, this was pathetic.

"Do you share PaulB's apparent belief that such an approach is appropriate in the real world?"

LOL... Dear heart, do tell me where on earth I said that "such an approach was appropriate?"

Man, faux, you really are just phoning it in these days, aren't you? What's the matter? Life turning against you?

"The question is, do you approve of these actions?"

No, actually, dear heart, the real question is the Bush administration's pursuit of these activities that you find so oh-so-abhorrent. But since you cannot face an argument on that subject, you are vainly and pathetically trying to turn the question around, hoping we won't notice that oh-so-transparent tactic. Alas, we will and we do. So much for that tactic. Got anything else?

ex-liberal: The question is, do you approve of these actions? Do you share PaulB's apparent belief that such an approach is appropriate in the real world?

No, the question is why do you care since the proponents of your political philosophy have done as much and worse and you've argued that they had to because to not mollify such monsters would have resulted in a worse outcome.

Thus, even assuming you aren't lying about what PaulB posted, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate why the outcome of mollifying these groups would be worse than not mollifying them, since you are perfectly fine with mollifying such when it suits conservative goals, no matter how immoral those goals are.

anonymous, I don't approve of everything Republicans have done, just as I'm sure you don't approve of the Democrts' support of slavery and their support for Jim Crow. It was a Democrat who interned the Japanese Americans. It was the Democrats who escalated the war in Vietnam based on a possibly phony report of an attack.

In short, neither party has been perfect.

Conservatives did mollify Hitler

First they trained the Mujihideen
and I did not speak out
because I was not CIA .
Then they fought the Nicaraguans
and I did not speak out
because I was not Native American.
Then they came for habeaus corpus
and I did not speak out
because I was not a suspect.
Then they came for me
and there was no one Left
to speak out for me.

shortstop: Anyone else want to spell Matthew "Just Around this Baghdad Corner, There's a Rainbow in the Sky" Marler on the extent of violence and international opprobrium associated with our "staying in force"? He won't hear you, because it's just too darned negative, but you can try if you like.

Stay, leave immediately, or withdraw slowly, the U.S. will be criticised. So acting in order to reduce criticism (as in KD's post) is probably a losing strategy.

Have I ever written anything like "there's a rainbow around the corner"? I think I have written more modest things, like the autonomy of the Kurds and Shi'ites can be preserved, the elections of jan 2009 can be held, the American/IA forces get citizens' help when attacking the Sadrists, and other less colorful stuff. I have even gone so far as to write that average electricity generation in Iraq exceeds the per-war maximum. But "rainbow"? Like most people here, you can't tolerate the "no man's land" in between pure defeat and sweet victory.

There is, at this point, simply nothing more we can do in Iraq.

Why would anyone actively claim to write "simply" about Iraq?

"Thomas Tobiason wrote:

I don't believe the U.S. presence is to provide internal stability. The stealth policy is to create and maintain a permanent military presence near the middle east oil fields to ensure the continued flow of oil until it runs out. The policy must remain 'secret' because there would be little political support for this from any side except the most war oriented neocons.
-----------

I agree entirely. Certainly the 'real' reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was to insure American access to ME oil, particularly the largely undeveloped Iraqi oil reserves. I would also argue that the invasion of Afghanistan had pipeline considerations as an unspoken but ultimate aim. The US could have more successfully gone after al Qaeda with an invasion designed to target bin Laden and associates directly instead of futzing around invading the whole country for months before finally copping out in the actual attempt to seize bin Laden. The following quote is worthy of cons