But for some reason every columnist in the world seems to find it necessary to warn us against this nonexistent straw man. Why?

Because Everybody Knows (tm) that Republicans are Serious, but Democrats are not. This is the steeply sloping playing field that everything - every fucking thing - takes place on.

Kevin, you know perfectly well why the pundit class spends so much time arguing with straw men. First off, they would lose peer group status if they didn't. Second, there's something about entering the tenured pundit club that requires strict adherence to the "on the one hand, on the other" school of everyone is equally flawed analysis. And third, more applicable to ignatius and other wapo columnists, working for donald graham and fred hiatt is nearly as much of a bubble as working for george bush....

PS. and then we have the number of idiots who have won tenured pundit positions, and yes, i include ignatius in that group.

Oh, and the residual force does accomplish something. It allows hawks to believe that we didn't really leave - we just trimmed down a bit.

It's roughly the same level of delusion that allows someone to say "He's not dead. He's just resting."

plus, of course, what craigie said at 1:08.

howard, long time no see. How the hell are you?

To my point: more than half the country now supports impeachment of BushCo. Yet strangely, this fact does not lead every news report 24 hours per day, as it would if the administration in question were composed of Democrats. Your liberal media at work.

Please Kevin, cut the "reasonable" act.

1.) The media are RNC mouthpieces, proved innumberable times in the past 15 years. They are just repeating the talking points, what is new?

2.) "Training force" is idiocy. If the Iraqi government wants us to help them train, let them ask us. Helpful suggestion: Don't put anything important on hold waiting for this to happen. Don't try and pretend this is a "reasonable" idea, call it what it really is, Big Oil's desire for the US to keep a military presence inside Iraq. Let's send them the military bill and see if they are still interested.

advocating a pell-mell retreat

Maybe more of a helter skelter fallback. It will confuse the enemy. I suggest we order all troops to regroup in 3 months in Kuwait or Dubai -- following the model of the fourth crusade. It's pointless to lay claim to a half destroyed city when gilded towers lay within marching distance.

Leaving entirely would involve admitting, publicly, that the entire exercise was a failure. And a failure on such a titanic scale ought to disqualify the entire war party, including the cheerleaders in the media, from any sort of influence in the future. So they'll try to keep in the residual force so as not to be forced to admit the obvious.

The 2008 elections will be interesting. Will the voters hold the war party responsible for losing its war? They ought to. If they don't then the chump country deserves to be ruled by chumps.

craigie, good to see you too! a while back, i just decided that, sadly, kevin attracts too many whackos into the comments section to spend as much time as i used to, so now i only drop in on occassion, but i'm always heartened to see people like you continuing to fight the good fight!

jimBOB, btw, points to another factor: so many members of the pundit class bought into this misbegotten adventure and can't stand acknowledging that they were wrong, so they have to demonize the people who were right all along (it's the old "i was wrong for the right reasons while you were right for the wrong reasons" argument)....

Well, here's one solution:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/swap-us-troops.html#Close

That's the edited version of:

President Bush has once again asserted that the United States can’t leave Iraq before we achieve victory because “the terrorists� would follow us home. The biggest problem with this absurd analysis is the failure to consider what many military commanders on the ground in Iraq have long since concluded: American troops are the catalyst for much of the violence occurring there. If we can't even garner the support of the victims of the violence-- most of whom would vote to send America's military home tomorrow-- then we can't possibly achieve a military solution to the violent civil war which has taken Iraq far over the precipice of being a failed state.

There is one simple and obvious solution to the issue of the security of Iraq-- a solution which also addresses the harm being done to the interests of the United States. We need to replace American troops in Iraq with Arabic speaking Muslim peacekeepers. Both Jordan and Egypt are long standing U.S. allies in the region, and both have professional armies which would do a far better job of quelling violence without inflaming Islamic jihadists. We should pay those countries whatever it would take to defray the costs of rotating their armies in to relieve ours. Whatever the bill would be, it would be a bargain compared to the hundreds of billions we have flat out wasted over the last four years. By replacing our English speaking, mostly Christian troops with soldiers able to communicate verbally and empathize culturally with Iraqis, we will be taking the first steps towards ending the anarchy and the hell on earth which our actions have brought to that country.

A 12-18 month withdrawal is pell-mell to people(hardly all neocons) who anticipate a significant US presence in Iraq for at least decades. Until the American economy can be weaned of its long standing addiction to Keynesian military spending, military adventurism and arms dealing can never be suppressed. They are so many ways we can spend our revenues that offer more tangible, long-term benefits. An opportunity has presented itself to the Democrats; if they dont take it, I fear the republic is as surely lost as if Bush were president-for-life.

Everybody is probably asleep by now so this is probably safe to post, but our current situation in Iraq reminds me of nothing more than ill-advised 1 night stand. You wake up from a drunken slumber in his/her bed to gaze on your conquest in the harsh light of day and you think, "Jeez...what have I done!". Your new friend wants to have breakfast in bed and cuddle-up all day but your only desire is to get out of there as fast as your legs will carry you.

If you've ever been in a similar situation you know the ugly truth: there is just no graceful way to extract yourself. You just get out however you can, usually while enduring baleful stares. But, you get out because the thought of staying is just too objectionable. I'm going to have write an OP-Ed, but folks the truth is that Iraq is going to be hell when we leave--whenever that is. Trying to make ourselves feel better about the pain we have caused and WILL cause is just self-indulgence.

James M.

Please.

What is this we're going to get all the troops out except a few?

We will leave some there to make sure we get oil.

That's why we are in Afghanistan, too, guarding the pipeline.

"It's the oil, stupid!"

Leaving an occupied country is indeed a solemn task - too bad the Republicans weren't as Solomonic about invading a sovereign nation. They were rather flippant and immature about that.

Kevin, the reason the media builds these straw men is that they are overwhelmingly controlled by rich, white GOP males who prefer the status quo and do harm to the Democratic Party every chance they get. We should also allow no opportunity to go by to do them harm.

The problem as I see it is that this isn't necessarily a straw man. Those who decry using the troops as a political football know that we must leave, and under almost any imaginable (and all remotely likely) circumstances, leaving will precipitate an unholy Afghanistan-like situation (a la Carter and Reagan). In all probability it is the Democrats who will control Congress (and have the mandate) when this takes place, so by calling any withdrawal premature, those who should be taking responsibility, will seek to place the consequences of their foolishness on those who are tasked with dealing with that reality.

An exactly parallel situation is happening right now with the President* blaming Democrats for the budgetary irresponsibility after the Republicans punted till after the election, then proceeded to give it up altogether, and leaving the budget undone for the incoming Democrats.

he said "if it results in pell mell..." - meaning he suggests plans often go awry in war and any pull back may devolve rapidly. He wasn't suggesting that democrats support running the hell away, he was saying running the hell away may end up being what happens.

Biddle's argument makes no sense, unless his intention is to argue for complete withdrawal, which also makes no sense. A surge or a mission that emphasizes training both leave us exposed between Iraq and hard a place.

The obvious conclusion of this mess will be that America will be forced to choose a side and in doing so thereby mediate some kind of eventual peace or stalemate between factions - the only real option is an alliance with the Sunnis [and a de facto one with Kurds] because backing the Shia would lead to regional chaos.

Withdrawal is not an option, Kevin - so please cut the crap.

"Can we please cut the crap?"

no, because if we did the beltway pundits would be required to STFU.

and this whole "leave a force in place" biz? great, they would be able to either a) sit inside the green zone and wait to rotate, or b) paint targets on their backs and go out to die. of course one thing it *would* accomplish is to allow al qaeda's best recruiting slogan, "death to infidel occupiers", to continue to be warm and shiny. as you say, the worst of all options.

Kevin, you rightly note that no one is arguing for a dangerous, immediate withdrawal that would endanger "American lives." But you seem to me to be missing the, admittedly misguided, point. The danger of a withdrawal, even if completed over 18 months, as you suggest could be an appropriate timetable, is that *Iraq* will descend even further into chaos and bloodshed than it has already, not that American troops will be endangered. Ignatius and others are saying that even if Bush will shoulder the historical blame for starting the war, history may judge equally harshly a poorly calculated decision to withdraw that results in a genocide / humanitarian crisis.

The argument against Ignatius is, therefore, a bit more complex than you've made out. I'm very sympathetic to the arguments that, for example, Atrios makes on nearly a daily basis. We cannot remain in Iraq merely because we wish we could make a difference. Even if we feel some responsibility for the mess we have created, and I do, American forces cannot help the situation just because we desperately wish that they could. Unless there is a real plan with a substantial chance to improve the lot of the Iraqis, we should withdraw asap. So far, no one has suggested such a plan, and I can't think of one either. Those, like Ignatius, who argue against withdrawal need to tell us what exactly we can do with our troops that will, in the long run, help Iraq.

From Biddle: "The politics make sense, but the compromise leaves us with an untenable military mission (cutting force size in half & leaving behind troops to train the Iraqi military). Without a major U.S. combat effort to keep the violence down, the American training effort would face challenges even bigger than those our troops are confronting today. An ineffective training effort would leave tens of thousands of American trainers, advisers and supporting troops exposed to that violence in the meantime. The net result is likely to be continued U.S. casualties with little positive effect on Iraq's ongoing civil war."

Even Biddle is confused. He's certainly right that such a mission would leave American soldiers vulnerable. Where he's wrong is in implying that there's any such thing as an effective training effort. You can't "train" Shia recruits to not hate Sunnis. This isn't a question of skill. It's a question of sociology. Pretending otherwise is a denial of reality in the extreme.

The rest of the column is about whether we should withdraw completely or whether we should leave a residual "training force" in Iraq.

Training to do what, specifically? Without specifying what training the Iraqis lack and what training we can provide, the column is really about nothing.

I agree entirely with this posting. Ignatius' column is the sort of "even-handed" bullshit that is pure ass-covering and nothing else. "History will be equally unforgiving if their agitation for withdrawal results in a pell-mell retreat that causes lasting damage." The U.S. invasion of Iraq is a massive disaster. There is no way to resolve it that will not result in "lasting damage." There has already been "lasting damage" and there will be a lot more.

Ignatius is asking for "responsible Democrats" to come up with a solution for Bush's mess that, essentially, will achieve most of Bush's policy goals at no cost. If there were such a plan, Bush would adopt himself.

More hubris, in the assumption that the degree, time and pace of the withdrawl is entirely up to the US forces.
Look up the First Afghan War, or read the first "Flashman" novel to see how well that worked before.

"Those of us who want to leave want to do it in an orderly way. If the Pentagon says it will take 12 months, that's fine. 18 months? Also fine."
______________________

Reading the article, it doesn't seem to be danger to the troops that Ignatius is warning about, but a chaotic political situation which will lead to more widespread setbacks in the region. The military will not be able to tell us what the larger results of a withdrawal will be, regardless of how long it takes. Such an evaluation will take a political and intelligence evaluation.

Such an evaluation will take a political and intelligence evaluation.

Son, we haven't needed those so far, and we don't need 'em now.

Ignatius elides the real part of the GwB strategy which is to rope-a-dope his way to the 2008 election and have the ultimate failure pinned on the Democrats. As Alan V. alludes to above, some or all of the disaster scenario, whether a)sectarian violence confined to Iraq or b) Kurdish separatism followed by Turkish troops invading to quell border incursions or c) Iranian intervention to support the Shi'a retention of Anbar or d)all of the above and/or the "regional conflict" engulfing Syria, Jordan etc., etc. ad nauseum.

The wheels of that outcome are turning now and US troops presently in Iraq are greasing the axles.

The Democrats in Congress have to find a way to put a plan in place that the Iraqis will see as giving them back their country. That will allow the regional players to support the plan (self-determination) as well as the country's government.

What bothered me was Ignasias stating that Ambassador Crocker knows a looming failed state coming when he sees one. What a Crock!

Also objectionable is the whole meme about this effing war eventually coming to roost on shoulders of Democrats. "Lasting damage" has already been done by his boy.

Both Jordan and Egypt are long standing U.S. allies in the region, and both have professional armies which would do a far better job of quelling violence without inflaming Islamic jihadists.

Do you really think that a Sunni occupying army would be better received in Iraq than a Christian one?

What no mindless Norm or mhr? What fun is this. Just an intelligent discussion about what to do to get out of Iraq with a minimum of damage.
Sometimes the better valor is to strategically retreat. To mindless fight what can't be won or what doesn't matter is the height of ignorance.
The idea that were fighting the terrorist over there so that they don't come here is utter nonsense. Somebody,anybody explain to me just how that would come about. And if thats true whats stopping them from coming now and would that change if we left Iraq.

Both Jordan and Egypt are long standing U.S. allies in the region...

If Jordan and Egypt want to have their armies degraded over a couple of years, demoralized and proven ineffective, yeah, maybe they'll sign up for this.

The harsh reality is that Iraq, like Viet Nam and most other counter-insurgency, will end with the occupiers departing to lick their wounds. Any world leader offering troops at this point needs to be reminded by his or her opposition party of the US coming to France's aid in Viet Nam, and the results of that.

(As for trainers... given our performance so far, I'm not sure that US forces know how to make things right, so I'm not sure what they can possibly train the Iraqis. But the 15% of the Iraqis who still want us there will be feeling betrayed, and those trainers will be their targets. And the targets of the 85% of Iraqis who want us gone now.)

We read 2 years ago that the more we trained the Iraqis, the better the insurgents shot at us. So who are we training and what are we training them for?

Iraq desperately needs a political solution, not a military one. Training soldiers and police will not solve this problem.

The rest of the column is about whether we should withdraw completely or whether we should leave a residual "training force" in Iraq.

Who would we train to do what? If there were really some legitimate government force that we could train to maintain order, that'd be one thing. But given that this has devolved into a war of all against all, with the very government forces that we're supporting actually allied with the Shiite death squads, wouldn't we merely be training them to be more efficient and deadly killers in the civil war? What's the benefit to us, not to mention Iraq, in that?

What is really absurd is the widespread idea that our troops are preventing violence.

The U.S. Army is not a police force, their presence in Iraq doesn't keep violence down, it aggravates the violence.

'we must stay in Iraq to keep it from falling apart' is also an RNC talking point.

The rest of the column is about whether we should withdraw completely or whether we should leave a residual "training force" in Iraq.

and what do the Iraqis themselves have to say about this?

Both Jordan and Egypt are long standing U.S. allies in the region, and both have professional armies which would do a far better job of quelling violence without inflaming Islamic jihadists.

Never gonna happen. Neither Jordan nor Egypt are dumb enough to play a rousing game of "catch the hand grenade!" with Bush.

Not to mention that, with the civil war raging, we wouldn't be asking them to act as peacekeepers, but as warfighters. The various factions see power in their grasp, and they're certainly not going to give it up without a fight.

Getting into Iraq was President Bush's decision, and history will judge his administration harshly for its mistakes in the postwar occupation. But getting out of Iraq is now partly in the hands of the Democrats who control both houses of Congress. History will be equally unforgiving if their agitation for withdrawal results in a pell-mell retreat that causes lasting damage.

So let me get this straight: George W. Bush gets liquored up and drives off in the car despite Democrats' pleas not to do it. He drives erratically, hits a few pedestrians, crashes into another car, causing a fiery wreck, and finally drives the car off a cliff. He survives the wreck, though, and insists all along that things are fine, this is all going to plan, he's making progress.

The Democrats now come along with a tow truck to remove the mangled remains of the car and an ambulance to treat the wounded, and Ignatius warns that they'd better watch out, because if they scratch the paint job of the car in towing it, or that if any of the wounded die while in their care, that history is going to judge them?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Honestly, why leave Iraq at all? Sure, polls show many Americans think Iraq ia a defeat - so what? Many Americans also still think Iraq had something to do with 911.

Iraq is a quagmire all right - but not for the Great Satan. Iraq has been turned into a giant sucking killing machine, grinding up wanna be jihadis', Syrian and Iranian proxies and leaving them dead on the side of the road for strangers to bury. Iran has sunk over a billion dollars in it - funding nearly every group, splinter group or doofus with an AK. And for what exactly? Not one caliphate or theocracy anywhere and no Iranian leaning super shia majority in the government either.

This may have been the plan all along - knock out the largest Arab army in history in 20 days, try to build a wonderful Disneyland like nation, even if it takes a while - the unbeatable marginalization of intolerant, murderous minions will occur.

How strange that the spiritual grandsons of those who suffered 22K killed in 6 weeks on Okinawa (when the war was nearly over anyway) are so weak and fearful now.

Again, why leave?

But for some reason every columnist in the world seems to find it necessary to warn us against this nonexistent straw man. Why?

As Howard pointed out up above, it's the pundit's way of giving the "on the other hand". I think these idiot pundits erect feeble straw men so as to appear fair and balanced. His faulty straw man is the only "counter argument" to doing what is right.

Again, why leave?

Perhaps because any American soldier's death should be for a deathworthy cause. Radical thoughts I know. But I'd have no problem with a specially conscripted neocon brigade staying there for eternity, particularly if the locals want 'em out.

Iran has sunk over a billion dollars in it - funding nearly every group, splinter group or doofus with an AK.

Gotta any evidence for all your specious statements? Anything at all?

Many Americans also still think Iraq had something to do with 911.

Thanks to Bush and Cheney.

knock out the largest Arab army in history in 20 days

The Iraqi army? A ghostly shell of its former self after 1991 that didn't need "knocking out"

Again, why leave?

I'll be expecting you to get your fighting keyboard ass over there pronto then. Asshat.

"Can we please cut the crap? There are virtually no Democrats — and certainly none with any real influence — who are advocating a pell-mell retreat..."

WTF, YOU are advocating a pell-mell retreat.

"Those of us who want to leave want to do it in an orderly way. If the Pentagon says it will take 12 months, that's fine. 18 months? Also fine."

How about those of us, like General Zinni or Bob Kerrey, that are advocating a 5 to 7 year plan. Is that also fine - hell no. Your wishful thinking is similar to those mayors that announce their city will no longer pursue cars running from the police at over 60 MPH -- unfortunately the bad guys interpret this as an invitation to drive 61 MPH. No scenario you can propose - 12 mos, 18 mos, etc. will not have the effect of electrifying the jihadi base, bringing in swarms of snipers and suicide bombers to harrass our retreat, and cause us 30 more years of invigorated terrorist organizations attacking the decadent west as the weak horse. There is no concievable way the retreat you describe cannot turn into a pell-mell rout, at least in the eyes of our enemies and the MSM.

Can the troops receive a Pall Mall break?

"Leaving entirely would involve admitting, publicly, that the entire exercise was a failure. And a failure on such a titanic scale ought to disqualify the entire war party, including the cheerleaders in the media, from any sort of influence in the future. So they'll try to keep in the residual force so as not to be forced to admit the obvious..."
Posted by: jimBOB on July 12, 2007 at 1:30 AM

Ding!Ding!Ding! jimBOB wins the prize here. This is why Gates is starting to talk about a reduced presence and attempting to get Democrats to sign on to it. The "surge" is nothing more than putting a "heavier lid" on the situation-to contain it-until after the Nov. 2008 elections. Then when the "lid" starts to lighten up with our "drawdown to a modest presence", the sectarian violence will likely pick up big time and then this dilemma will finally be foisted onto the next administration. If that is a Democratic one (likely), they will have the unhappy task of withdrawing completely and the "humiliation" will be "theirs". A better solution would be to get *everybody* out of there by election day, because the sectarian factions are going to battle it out anyhow sooner or later and it's not going to be pretty (what Powell said).

Yawn. See kids, when facts escape you and you have nothing to back up your boring, inappropiate and weak handwringing - get personal. I get it, I tried to defend my cat once when she killed all the neighbors birds. I had nothing either.

Try Bodansky's 'Secret History of the Iraq War', or Timmerman's 'Countdown to Crisis' or 'Sphinx of Tehran' by Yossi Melman and Meir Javedanfar or the 'foreigner's gift' by Foud Ajammi.

The fact is, guys, and I know you cannot bear to hear it, easy to understand! Let's review:

What ya'll are advocating is, well, dumb - America has already been there, done that and got the T shirt. America has long tried almost everything else. Accepting despots who torment their own people and their neighbors did not bring stability, but constant war, oil embargoes and terrorism from the 1960s onward. Replying to 20 years of terrorist attacks, Iranian hostage taking in 1979 to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, with indictments and a few cruise missiles only gave credence to their jihadist philosophy. Coups and our very own despots have simply radicalized the Middle East.

In truth, fostering democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq was not our first, but last choice. It was not a good option, only a bad one when the other alternatives had proven far worse. What the U.S. is trying to do in the Middle East is costly, easily made fun of (just read some of these posts) misunderstood and unappreciated. But constitutional government is one course that may someday free the ME from intolerant militias, murderous mullahs, the religious police, the secret police, gender apartheid, suicide bombers, presidents for life, Lions of Syria and corrupt royalty in Ray Bans.
That's in our interest and theirs alike. It's a noble endeavour - not unlike putting paid to the slave trade.

That's why Iraq is key. What could function more like krytonite to these chaotic, murderous regimes than the attempt to establish a tolerant, egalitarian society with a free, uncensored press, open, transparent elections, a treasury under public scrutiny?

Perhaps the two most damaging points ya'll will have to face to have any credence in your defeatism are:

The example of Israel leaving Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. Kinda made things worse didn't it? What should we read into that?

And by extention, faulting America for not having a 'peace plan' is the same mindset many seem to have with a retreat. No plan.

not-at-all-ex-minion wrote: How about those of us, like General Zinni or Bob Kerrey, that are advocating a 5 to 7 year plan.

How about you? Are you planning on risking any of your own blood over those five to seven years you advocate? We know the answer already, don't we?

There is no concievable way the retreat you describe cannot turn into a pell-mell rout, at least in the eyes of dishonest neocons and Bush Cultists like myself.

Fixed if for you.

The American people have decided that they don't want to expend any mroe of their blood and treasure -- blood and treasure that the neocons who still support this fiasco are notably shy about, given that Bush still insists on paying for this war with a tax cut -- on Bush's failed war.

You can scream "Dolchstoss!" all you want -- and you will -- but this war failed because of policies and politicians you supported, minion. Cognitive dissonance or plain, old-fashioned dishoensty may compel you to cast blame elsewhere, but the GOP's decades-long branding effort as "strong of defense" lies in smoking ruins. As does your credibility.

What could function more like krytonite to these chaotic, murderous regimes than the attempt to establish a tolerant, egalitarian society with a free, uncensored press, open, transparent elections, a treasury under public scrutiny?

Except that: (1) You don't have a plan to accomplish that, (2) We don't have unlimited resources to devote to the problem, (3) Establishing a constitutional democracy doesn't leave us with a government whose policy decisions we will necessarily like--what if they freely vote for Sharia, war on Israel, and an oil embargo? and (4) The notion that a constitutional democracy in Iraq would cause widespread change in the region is simply magical thinking--you don't see everyone in the region trying to emulate constitutional democracy in Turkey, do you?

And of course, losing the war will have some seriously bad results--which is why we shouldn't have started the war in the first place.

It's always fun to see how the entire political class is utterly clueness on every military question. We could get everyone out of Iraq, along with armor and high-value spares, in three weeks. And that's all you _can_ take home - you think we're going to dig up that gargantuan embassy and bring it home with us? Remember how how long it took to invade in the first place when we still faced an army with over a thousand tanks? In our pell-mell retreat, we wouldn't be facing any tanks at all. No significant artillery. No organized army opposition at all- you think that the new Iraqi army we've built would be a problem even if they turned on us?
They're weak as a kitten, designed to be. We'd have our usual complete air superiority and we have high-quality highways to drive back to Kuwait.
Now if you wanted to be super-careful, you'd spend one more week securing some bridges, and topping off your fuel reserves, but that's it.

When the Pentagon says it'll take 12 to 18 months, they're lying. Understand? How the fuck long did Dunkirk take? - and remember that then the Brits were facing a _real_ army and air force. Do you know any history at all? Can you people even read? Reminds me of when the Joint Chiefs told Clinton that Haiti was too tough a nut for us to crack: and he _believed_ them for a month or so until some jerk spilled the beans.

Every day we spend in Iraq is a loss for the US. The sooner out, the better. The idea of gradually drawing down while we 'train' people who aren't on our side or any side that will ever do us a scintilla of good is ridiculous.
Drawing down until we have a force just weak enough to - with cosmically bad luck - _lose_ is worse.
Leaving gradually to obscure the fact that the peole who got us into this - basically our entire political class (although George Bush will always and deservedly have primary credit) - are utter fucktards? Well, how many billions is _that_ worth? How many lives?

We need to ship Iraqis either to the USA, or some other neutral territory, where they're safe, in batches of 10,000-100,000, in camps, and give them 6+ months of intensive, hard-core security and police training (and indoctrination into Western-style democratic ideals - teach them about the Rule of Law, human rights, decency, how to behave like a professional soldier, etc). Give them blue jeans, rock music, and free subscriptions to Maxim magazine. Give them a laptop, and a broadband connection. Teach them to envy America. Give them the hope that they can build a Greater Iraq.

If any of them were jihadi infiltrators at the start of training, they would NOT be by the end.

Then equip them, and send them back to Iraq, to build a new nation.

And embed the costs for this activity into the oil-sharing law.

Because trying to do that over there, is clearly not working. And $12 Billion a month down the rat hole is bleeding our country.

A pell mell retreat will become inevitable if the present policies are continued and the withdrawal does not start soon. The troops on the ground are being stressed and the Iraqis will figure out a way to disrupt lines of communication sooner or later. When these two inevitabilities align, it will lead to the kind of withdrawal experienced in Viet Nam. The American dumbfounded masses will swallow the lies of the Republicans, neo-conservatives, defense contractors and military enablers laying blame on the smart people who foresaw all of this prior to the invasion. These monsters will be unable to take responsibility for their beliefs and actions.

The main concern of the Brahmins of Washington is not winning wars (by which I mean the concerns about strategy and tactics that are necessary for states that are fighting for survival), or peace and democracy, and certainly not body bags or money-, which will be supplied by average Americans. They are concerned with US prestige- something a withdrawal would undermine. If the US fails in Iraq and Afghanistan, in this calculation we can include Israel’s underestimation of Hezbollah, what sort of protection do they really offer the various dictatorships of the region that the US aids and what sort of secure market guarantees can they offer the industrialized nations? Cheney et al have gambled nothing less the American Empire and the post-war order with these invasions. Their miscalculations have opened up a Shiite axis in the region, which they are now compelled to confront with limited resources and mounting resistance back home. Republican ascendancy and the neocon programme also hangs in the balance. Withdrawal for these parties is not an option. They will choose a risky escalation to save their skins.

For the neocons the establishment of real participatory democracy would have been the ultimate in regional mastery. The story goes that democracy would foster peace and prosperity and would undermine all the dictatorships from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and these would integrate into a new globalized laissez-faire world economy. The new Middle East would be open to international investment (OPEC and state oil companies could be undermined) and real peace would come for Israel. It would be a new American century. Sadly, this is nothing less than a dream for the naive and a PR slogan for the cynical. Democracy in Iraq, and in the whole region, is deeply religious and deeply nationalist. The neocon vision is, without alteration, the same vision the liberal imperialists of the old British Empire held for the benighted peoples of the world grinding away under Oriental tyranny.

Brojo: A pell mell retreat will become inevitable if the present policies are continued and the withdrawal does not start soon.

Good point -- and here is some data to support it:

[T]he overall level of violence in the country -- measured as the number of "violent incidents" -- hit its highest level in June since the war began....

The number of attacks on U.S. soldiers is way up, now accounting for 70 percent of all attacks in Iraq.

While violence has dropped dramatically in Anbar Province, the number of attacks has risen sharply in four other provinces: Baghdad, Salahaddin, Diyala and Basra.

In June, there were a record 55 attacks with Iranian-made roadside bombs -- called explosively formed penetrators. This is the deadliest form of roadside bomb seen in Iraq.

Mortar attacks on the Green Zone have dramatically increased.

The record level of violence comes despite significant progress in a few key areas. Anbar Province, for example, was once the most dangerous area in Iraq and has experienced a turnaround a senior military official calls "miraculous." Attacks on civilians are also down significantly. But in other areas, the trends are moving in the wrong direction.

"Despite our successes in taking out leaders and infrastructure," said the official, "al Qaeda's operational capability appears to be undiminished." (via ABC News)

Bottom line: there is a direct correlation between the number of troops we have on the ground and the level of violence -- it just goes up.

Oh, and Turkey has massed 140,000 troops on the border of Kurdistan. Probably for one of those famed Turkish rodeos their army is so fond of.

courtneyme109- wow Israel leaving Lebanon and gaza. Let's just make shit up and disregard actual histiry.Usual repub lies deceit and obfuscation.WATCH THE MONKEY.So what your saying is nothing else thats transpired since 2000 has had anything to do with the situation around Israel.Bullshit ya'll.

The example of Israel leaving Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. Kinda made things worse didn't it?

No. The largest population faction in Lebanon, who also happen to be the poorest and most oppressed citiznes of Lebanon, the Shiites, are much better off since the Israeli occupiers left. I would guess the Palestinians in Gaza would think they are better off too, if the Israelis would stop shooting US made/gifted missiles into apartment blocks and stop firing US made/gifted shells at sun bathers on the beaches.

Oh, and Turkey has massed 140,000 troops on the border of Kurdistan. Probably for one of those famed Turkish rodeos their army is so fond of.

Nice.

minion: "No scenario you can propose - 12 mos, 18 mos, etc. will not have the effect of electrifying the jihadi base, bringing in swarms of snipers and suicide bombers to harrass our retreat, and cause us 30 more years of invigorated terrorist organizations attacking the decadent west as the weak horse."

Well, except for the fact that the jihadi base, as you call it, is already electrified, has already brought in swarms of snipers & suicide bombers to harass the soldiers, and has already created terrorist organizations that didn't previously exist -- and all this has happened because of the very fact that Bush & his neocons launched this ridiculous & poorly planned war in the first place, not because the adults want to get us out of it.

As Kevin has rightly pointed out before, Bush has gotten every last dollar, every last soldier, & every last extension he's asked for to fight this war, and he still hasn't been able to make it work in the nearly 5 years he's been fighting it. Absolutely nothing he has to show from the surge suggests even the faintest possibility that it's going to get better with more money & more time. (Forget the idea of more soldiers -- unless all you cheerleaders put away your keyboards & hit your local recruiting stations.)

Bush's point -- that you can't have actually failed at something unless you're finished trying it -- is respectable only when applied to a child.

"Both Jordan and Egypt are long standing U.S. allies in the region, and both have professional armies which would do a far better job of quelling violence without inflaming Islamic jihadists."

Do you really think that a Sunni occupying army would be better received in Iraq than a Christian one?
Posted by: rea on July 12, 2007 at 9:17 AM

*****

Yes. Just as we would rather have the English or Canadians occupying the U.S. than Germans or Russians. Our first choice would be "nobody," but that's not in the cards for years to come.

Jim Finkelstein

Our first choice would be "nobody," but that's not in the cards for years to come.

Suppose that might be the reason "violent incidents" in Iraq are at an all time high?

[Q]Do you really think that a Sunni occupying army would be better received in Iraq than a Christian one?
[A]Yes. Just as we would rather have the English or Canadians occupying the U.S. than Germans or Russians.

It becomes tiresome talking to people about Iraq who won't acknowledge facts on the ground. Sending in a bunch of Sunni troops to referee a Sunni/Shiite civil war is madness. One of the distinguishing characteristics of Middle East interventionists is their refusal to acknowledge the differences between Sunni and Shiite.

Oh, you're being generous, rea. I'm not sure they know the differences.

I'd prefer German occupation to that of the British. The Brits have played the role of our enabling friend who eggs us on to greater feats of drunken stupidity, whereas the Germans (along with the French) have been true, sober allies, trying to stop us from driving when we've had too much to drink.

Len Deighton had this joke about the Germans, French and British. If a Frenchman stabs you in the back he commiserates with you over the unfortunate circumstances that led him to the act. If a German stabs you in the back he clearly and dispassionately explains the necessity. If a Brit stabs you in the back he says knife? what knife?

Disputo

If the French and the Germans were such good allies why did they prefer Saddam's bribes to correcting the problems with oil-for-food or the rest of the Iraq resolutions at the UN... if they didn't like the proposals we and the Brits put forward, why didn't they at least offer a good faith alternative... to ask such a question is to answer it - Saddam told them when to jump and they asked "how high?" Maybe when you guys get done flagellating the US for all the problems in the world you'll realize there is some blame to go around to others as well.

It becomes tiresome talking to people about Iraq who won't acknowledge facts on the ground. Sending in a bunch of Sunni troops to referee a Sunni/Shiite civil war is madness.

Not sure that's true. Who has a stronger interest in constraining Iraq's Sunni extremists and having established a strong, secure, and independent state in Iraq that isn't dependent on Iran than (religiously) moderate Sunni Arab regimes in the region?

Who, likewise, is as likely not to tolerate mass abuses of the Sunni population by the Shi'ite-led government?

There's probably no other set of outside states with as strong a motive to succeed, and to act evenhandedly, and with as much chance of contributing productively.

That's not to say I think it would work; I think disaster is, at this point, almost guaranteed in any case.

I think the best plan for troop withdrawal is a very vague plan for troop withdrawal. There should be no commitment to stay and no commitment to leave completely but only a committment to reduce troops. With a vague plan the deal can be turned around for an abrupt departion given the likelihood of a major military defeat by the US but also say some sort of disaster happens that calls for the kind of military that the US has where large scale battles are fought then the military is there. Since Kenneth Pollock I have stopped listening to think tank generals for the inside dope.