Surge Succeeds

That is not correct. The caution that pulling out of Iraq precipitously might result in a much wider war in the Middle East is heard from people of every political persuasion.

That is correct, but it is not correct to say unequivocally that the surge cannot be sustained. If the decision is made to sustain the surge and accept the problems with readiness in other ares that would result, then the surge could be sustained or perhaps even increased.

At the same time, Mullen, the current chief of naval operations, acknowledged that the current force of 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq cannot be sustained beyond spring without extending the deployments of some of the personnel, which he opposes. He said that exceeding the current deployment ratio of 15 months in Iraq and 12 months at home would "break the forces."

"Effectively, that means, as you also suggest, by next April, regardless of the conditions on the ground, the surge will end, because we simply will not be able to put manpower on the ground unless we extend rotations," a senior member of the panel, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), said.

"Yes, sir, that is fair," Mullen replied.

True if and only if we abandon the current efforts to create an environment which would allow the Iraqi leaders to form a stable government that will be accepted by the citizenry.

He was critical of the Iraqi government for failing to take advantage of the "breathing space" the surge is providing to work towards national reconciliation.

"Barring that, no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference," he said.

That is true. It is what underlies the efforts of the Democrats to set a date certain for starting to redeploy combat units from Iraq. The stated purpose of setting a date certain was to put the Iraqi leadership on notice that they needed to get their act together and solve the sectarian violence sweeping the country and to do the things they said they would do because we would not be in Iraq indefinitely.

I will state for the record that I do not consider it immoral to leave Iraq before securing a goverment that can stand on its' own and defend itself.

The enormity of this task is glossed over by proponents of doing so.

I think we should leave, now. I am fully aware that this may mean greater internecine warfare or regional warfare. It isn't our problem.

photowriters, You are talking about "what ifs." You're using the same tactic as the conservatives - fear.

Are you 100 percent sure or are you just guessing? What proof do you have that those countries will go to war after our departure from Iraq?

I'm not sure even the democrats are suggesting we leave the area 100 percent. They are talking about leaving troops in the surrounding countries including Kuwait for awhile to ensure some regional stability.

cicerone imposter wrote:

I will state for the record that I do not consider it immoral to leave Iraq before securing a goverment that can stand on its' own and defend itself.

That's not my quote.
We will have to agree to disagree on this particular point.

Quote:

The enormity of this task is glossed over by proponents of doing so.

I beg to differ here. Every person I have heard, seen, or read on this issue has stressed how difficult the task has been, is, and will continue to be.

Quote:

I think we should leave, now. I am fully aware that this may mean greater internecine warfare or regional warfare. It isn't our problem.

I will apologize in advance for the comments that follow, but I simply cannot think of a more tactful way to say it. Your quote above reveals a dangerous naivety and lack of familiarity with history and the international treaties that bind this nation. We have long term treaties with the European nations such as NATO. We also have trade and defense treaties with the free countries along the rim of China.

The oil from the Middle East is the energy that makes the economies all of the countries that are party to these treaties possible because it is the primary source of energy for them. If a precipitous pullout from Iraq ends up turning the Middle East into in a region wide battleground, the flow of oil out of the entire Middle East would be impeded if not cut off completely. If that happened we would be drawn back in to a much greater degree that the level of our current involvement in Iraq.

China and India also rely increasingly on oil from the region, and they would certainly not sit back passively and wait if their oil supply is threatened. Make a simple extension of this scenerio. What would we do if it appeared to the government of the United States that China might end up controlling the Middle Eastern oil?

Quote:

photowriters, You are talking about "what ifs." You're using the same tactic as the conservatives - fear.

Yes I am talking about what ifs, and no I am not using a fear tactic.
If there is no fear of our leaving, what's your point?

I have never intimated, suggested, hinted at, implied or any other similar past participle that there was a certainty that a region wide conflict would ensue from a pullout from Iraq before there is a stable government. If I had done so, the fear accusal would be appropriate.

Rather what I have done is simply say that these are possibilities that should be investigated, considered, and evaluated before any rash moves are made in regards to withdrawing our forces from Iraq. That is an exercise in intellectuality, not fear mongering.

What do you think Bush and his coherts have been doing these past five years? Bush has repeatedly not listened to expert adivse, and has initially ignored the Iraq Study Groups report. All the plans on Iraq have been sole the responsibility of Bush as the CIC. That Bush refused expert advise solely rests on his shoulders. It's called incompetence and mismanagement.

Quote:

Are you 100 percent sure or are you just guessing? What proof do you have that those countries will go to war after our departure from Iraq?

I don't have any proof. I don't need any proof to warn that these possibilities need to be considered in:

1. any discussion about withdrawing from Iraq before a stable government is in place
   
2. the decision making process of our elected representatives, appointed officials, and military commanders.

Even the GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW crowd should make a reasoned and scholarly examination of the possibility.

It seems you have not been keeping up with the news media on how the Iraqi government is broken, noneffectual, and worthless as a government.

Quote:

I'm not sure even the democrats are suggesting we leave the area 100 percent. They are talking about leaving troops in the surrounding countries including Kuwait for awhile to ensure some regional stability.[/[/color]quote]
Yes, I believe that is part of the proposal, but the presence of US combat units in the area does not guarantee that the conflict will not widen. All it means is that they have a shorter distance to travel before they reach the scene of action again.

Wouldn't that save lives - our soldiers and innocent Iraqis getting killed by our coalition forces? Wouldn't that also mean our end of the occupation of Iraq that most Arab countries detest including Iraqis?

cicerone imposter wrote:

I will state for the record that I do not consider it immoral to leave Iraq before securing a goverment that can stand on its' own and defend itself.

We will have to agree to disagree on this particular point.

Quote:

The enormity of this task is glossed over by proponents of doing so.

I beg to differ here. Every person I have heard, seen, or read on this issue has stressed how difficult the task has been, is, and will continue to be.

Quote:

I think we should leave, now. I am fully aware that this may mean greater internecine warfare or regional warfare. It isn't our problem.

I will apologize in advance for the comments that follow, but I simply cannot think of a more tactful way to say it. Your quote above reveals a dangerous naivety and lack of familiarity with history and the international treaties that bind this nation. We have long term treaties with the European nations such as NATO. We also have trade and defense treaties with the free countries along the rim of China.

The oil from the Middle East is the energy that makes the economies all of the countries that are party to these treaties possible because it is the primary source of energy for them. If a precipitous pullout from Iraq ends up turning the Middle East into in a region wide battleground, the flow of oil out of the entire Middle East would be impeded if not cut off completely. If that happened we would be drawn back in to a much greater degree that the level of our current involvement in Iraq.

China and India also rely increasingly on oil from the region, and they would certainly not sit back passively and wait if their oil supply is threatened. Make a simple extension of this scenerio. What would we do if it appeared to the government of the United States that China might end up controlling the Middle Eastern oil?

Quote:

photowriters, You are talking about "what ifs." You're using the same tactic as the conservatives - fear.

Yes I am talking about what ifs, and no I am not using a fear tactic. I have never intimated, suggested, hinted at, implied or any other similar past participle that there was a certainty that a region wide conflict would ensue from a pullout from Iraq before there is a stable government. If I had done so, the fear accusal would be appropriate.

Rather what I have done is simply say that these are possibilities that should be investigated, considered, and evaluated before any rash moves are made in regards to withdrawing our forces from Iraq. That is an exercise in intellectuality, not fear mongering.

Quote:

Are you 100 percent sure or are you just guessing? What proof do you have that those countries will go to war after our departure from Iraq?

I don't have any proof. I don't need any proof to warn that these possibilities need to be considered in:

1. any discussion about withdrawing from Iraq before a stable government is in place
   
2. the decision making process of our elected representatives, appointed officials, and military commanders.

Even the GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW crowd should make a reasoned and scholarly examination of the possibility.

Quote:

I'm not sure even the democrats are suggesting we leave the area 100 percent. They are talking about leaving troops in the surrounding countries including Kuwait for awhile to ensure some regional stability.

Yes, I believe that is part of the proposal, but the presence of US combat units in the area does not guarantee that the conflict will not widen. All it means is that they have a shorter distance to travel before they reach the scene of action again.

Provide links from those other political persuasions.

Mullen answers this much better than me. (I don't necessarily agree with him about everything; but maybe that will simply give him more credence.

Quote:

At the same time, Mullen, the current chief of naval operations, acknowledged that the current force of 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq cannot be sustained beyond spring without extending the deployments of some of the personnel, which he opposes. He said that exceeding the current deployment ratio of 15 months in Iraq and 12 months at home would "break the forces."

"Effectively, that means, as you also suggest, by next April, regardless of the conditions on the ground, the surge will end, because we simply will not be able to put manpower on the ground unless we extend rotations," a senior member of the panel, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), said.

"Yes, sir, that is fair," Mullen replied.

Well, nothing has changed nor will it change, in regards to the political situation in Iraq no matter how long we stay there and no matter how many troops we put there unless the Iraqis want it themselves in which case they hardly need us. The following is from the same link:

Quote:

He was critical of the Iraqi government for failing to take advantage of the "breathing space" the surge is providing to work towards national reconciliation.

"Barring that, no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference," he said.

Exactly we cannot be in Iraq at the level we are now indefinitely; so in effect all we doing by staying is delaying the messy pullout which eventually we are going to have to do regardless if they pull together or not; no matter what else happens in the middle east as well.

We simply can't afford in either man power or resources to stay there in full force forever as Muller testified in the earlier quoted link. If they pull together it will have come from them; so again, we won't be needed in that effort.

Maybe if we leave international forces in the area like we do in other troubled areas of the world to try and watch and respond as the need comes about. This way it will not look like a US occupation of a mostly Islamic state; and we will be able try and keep that nightmare prediction of the whole middle east exploding without wearing out our own troops and resources.

That's not my quote.

Pick your favorite liberal, conservative, or middle of the roader and do a Google search using the name and "interview" and "Iraq" and sit back and read.

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's not my quote.

Please review your post #2789099 posted Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 7:00 am

Photo writers: Let me state unequivocally that I believe that simply pulling out with no regard for the well being of the Iraqis would be immoral.

And how exactly do you propose we fulfill this "obligation" to the Iraqis?

If there is no fear of our leaving, what's your point?

What do you think Bush and his coherts have been doing these past five years? (continued below)

Bush has repeatedly not listened to expert adivse, and has initially ignored the Iraq Study Groups report. All the plans on Iraq have been sole the responsibility of Bush as the CIC. That Bush refused expert advise solely rests on his shoulders. It's called incompetence and mismanagement.

It seems you have not been keeping up with the news media on how the Iraqi government is broken, noneffectual, and worthless as a government.

Wouldn't that save lives - our soldiers and innocent Iraqis getting killed by our coalition forces?

Wouldn't that also mean our end of the occupation of Iraq that most Arab countries detest including Iraqis?

You aren't doing yourself any favors by making mistakes such as this. You quoted me, but put CI's name on the quote.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You aren't doing yourself any favors by making mistakes such as this. You quoted me, but put CI's name on the quote.

That was my error for which I apologize. If I could go back and correct it. I would, but that is not possible on this forum.

Demanding that others produce evidence to back up YOUR position is a logical fallacy, and should be avoided. When asked to present evidence to back up your position, you should do so or retract your claim.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Demanding that others produce evidence to back up YOUR position is a logical fallacy, and should be avoided. When asked to present evidence to back up your position, you should do so or retract your claim.

I am sorry but I refuse to spend my time digging through the past to pull up links and quotes to something that has been reported off and on for the past six years and should be known by anyone who has paid attention to what is going on in the world and in politics in this country. I am sorry if that rubs anyone the wrong way.

I should say that I don't, after examining all the stuff you've written, consider you to be a, shall we say, kool-aid drinker when it comes to Iraq;

but you seem to believe that potential bad consequences are far scarier then dealing with the actual bad consequences of our presence in Iraq.

I'm not sure how one calculates the probabilities of something like this.

I will note that I've done a lot of research into the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era, and the arguments for not leaving Iraq are almost exactly the same as the pronouncements of doom for leaving Vietnam; all of which were false. This does not inspire a lot of confidence in the current doom scenarios.

To get back to the original point, I have not seen many pundits who have accurately described the extensive work - years of work, decades - that will be necessary to create an Iraq which could exist independent of our support, if at all. This point is continually glossed over, as it means not only thousands more American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, but at the end of the day, arming and supporting an ally of Iran.