You know we should have been out of Iraq yesterday, but they'll drag it out another 3 years

[bigtree]

or more . . . and we'll like it? :shrug:

[bullimiami]

1. and the only reason iraq passed it is because they think obama will give them a fair shake.

they werent going to pass if for bush and if mccain had won probably not for him either.

[NNN0LHI]

2. I will be thrilled if Obama can just get the mercenaries out of there next year

That would be a great start.

Don

[babylonsister]

3. Not necessarily. I'll wait til after January to see what will happen.

Does it have to take 3 years? I'm thinking the Iraqis want us out of there asap.

I'm waiting to hear more.

[bigtree]

6. he can make that happen

. . . but, it follows my own thinking that Gates and Mullen, along with Bush's generals in the field, will drag their heels on formulating and implementing an exit plan. After all, the lot of them have worked and bullied to keep our troops bogged down there.

Come January . . . I don't think we can afford to wait to petition our legislators and raise our voices wherever we can.

[babylonsister]

7. Yes he can. As to your other

assertions, I respectfully disagree. Obama, if he is going to hire Gates, will be giving the orders. He's made that pretty clear, and Gates knows it. Maybe Gates wants to see a resolution to this clusterfuck, too.

And Mullen, from July:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/31/mullen-eventual-drawdown/
Mullen Calls For ‘Eventual Drawdown’ Of U.S. Forces In Iraq, Concedes Little ‘Political Progress’»

I have also read current articles about Mullen that sound pretty good. I also think I read Obama met with him very recently.

I'm hoping for the best.

[bigtree]

10. they sound like they support more of the same militarism

Gates still sees Iraq as fighting ground against al-Qaeda and Barack Obama has, in his rhetoric, agreed with the notion that Iraq is some extension of the 'war on terror' against al-Qaeda there. Gates still views Iraq as a battle against ideology which he's repeatedly claimed he's committed to 'win.' Gates is also sold on the notion that we have to defend against Iran in Iraq, despite the close ties with the new regime there.

Now we're supposed to measure progress toward an Iraq withdrawal behind two Bush cronies who have kept us bogged down there. Not career military, but career conservative hawks. I used to promote Mr. Obama on the premise that he'd hire the right folks. These are NOT the right folks, no matter who they answer to. They are snakes in the pen. Every time I'm told that Obama is in charge I'm led to ask why he needed these Bush appointees. This is not what I voted for in regard to my overriding concern about Iraq. I can fully support Obama and his term over any republican, but this isn't the 'change' I would have opted for. And, I'm frankly tired of being told that I'll have to settle for it. I may well, but I don't have to like it or support it. He damned better get going on the withdrawal and no bull about fighting terror in Iraq.

[babylonsister]

12. Did you see Obama on 60 Minutes last week? He hasn't changed his

mind, he wants us out of there.

"and Barack Obama has, in his rhetoric, agreed with the notion that Iraq is some extension of the 'war on terror' against al-Qaeda there."

I don't think so. Your anger is misplaced, and that's not telling you to get over it.

I'm still waiting until he's president before I think he's wrong. Cart before horse?

[bigtree]

17. as Senator, in his rejection of the Kerry bill advocating immediate withdrawal

Sen. Obama cited the need to fight 'terror' in Iraq and advocated an increase of forces for that purpose and others. He may well have changed his view about the necessity of leaving troops in Iraq for that purpose, but he's on record advocating leaving a residual force to fight al-Qaeda. He said so in one of the debates with Hillary Clinton.

He says so on his web site: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

"Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel."

I'm sure Gates and Mullen are pleased as punch that he's left them an excuse to continue operations there. Listen to 'Democracy Now' today with former soldiers testifying to their duty in Iraq and tell me if our troops should be in Iraq for ANY reason for any significant amount of time.

[babylonsister]

21. I'm not going to cure your hand-wringing, so have at it.

You never addressed my logical points about Gates and Mullen, so you really don't want to see any silver linings.

Fine. Enjoy without me. I'm giving the guy a chance first.

[bigtree]

22. It's not 'hand-wringing' to point out that the folks Obama has chosen at Defense are Bush enablers

and apologists.

It wasn't hand-winging to expect that the Bush and Gates were held accountable for their militarism (surge, delaying promised withdrawal) and it's not hand-wringing to expect that Gates still believes Iraq is part of an 'ideological' battle he thinks we can 'win' and to express concern about whatever counsel Pres. Obama expects from him.

And, as for 'giving Obama a chance,' he'll certainly have that chance without any attention at all to me. I don't see how expressing these concerns and elevating them hurts him at all. He's not in a campaign, he's the person we correctly expect to take responsibility for Iraq. I'm not softening my concerns about the invasion and occupation just because Obama might be better than Bush. As far as I've been concerned, his Iraq plan is flawed because of his insistence that there is a fight against 'al-Qaeda' to be waged or defended by our military there. That position is unacceptable to me. That's not hand-wringing, it's a stance which will take advocacy to effect, given Pres. Obama's decidedly different views.

[babylonsister]

23. From the Dionne article you posted:

As for Gates, Obama has found the ideal figure to help him organize his planned withdrawal from Iraq, and to bless it.

Why are you asking for trouble?

Nevermind. We can agree to disagree. I'm done.

[bigtree]

24. I just took an hour to write out my concerns for you. You call it 'asking for trouble'

What trouble? Brusing egos, perhaps? This is not a campaign anymore. There are real lives and livelihoods affected by whatever course Pres. Obama decides to take. NOTHING gets accomplished in politics without being insistent and vocal about what we expect from our government. If you see those efforts as 'trouble-making,' I'll certainly have to disagree.

I do not agree with that one line of Dionne's about Gates and his intentions. I've written for days about what Gates has said and done. I recognize that he will feign some sort of withdrawal to favor his new boss. But, he hasn't shown any integrity toward that end during his tenure with Bush. It's a joke to expect him to do so now, but, have at it.

[spanone]

4. then we will continue to war in afghanistan which makes no more sense than iraq

[madokie]

5. And the poor Iraqi

what about them? I can't believe what we are allowing to happen to these people who were and continue to be innocent.

[Dis Pater]

8. Who's they?

Obama?

[bigtree]

11. funny that

We seem to be led by the Iraqis on our own deployment. Instead of following the lead of Iraqis, how about we just end this ourselves? Where's our Congress? It was an illegal invasion and a counterproductive occupation. Who is deciding? Gates? Obama? Maliki? Bush? Why pay any heed to SOFA at all?

[Dis Pater]

13. Gates pushed hard on SOFA

That sounds wrong.

[madrchsod]

9. it`s going to take 12-18 months

to safely draw down the troops in iraq.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Details, Details, Details...

Many think we can just give 150,000 plane ticket and home they come. To get those troops out safely, not to mention the equal number of contractors (not that I give a rat's ass about their fates), out, it's gonna be a large undertaking. You just don't pull up stakes after a 6 year occupation...there's a ton of material that we sure don't want to leave behind either (remember how we ended up dumping stuff into the South China Sea in 1975? I sure do)

Call this the Pottery Barn phase. We broke it...for the past couple years we've been trying to hold it together cause we know we can't fix it...so we're trying to get out without making a bigger mess than what's already there or will be.

Cheers...

[bigtree]

18. there is a need to exit carefully, but it shouldn't take three years

And unless you are willing to outline exactly what we're supposed to be fixing there and provide proof of that I think the pottery barn stuff is just rhetoric. The evidence is that our troops have destroyed, killed, terrorized and destabilized Iraq more than they've 'fixed' anything.

And look, it may get you some high fives around here to ridicule those who expect a speedy exit from Iraq, but it's just arrogant and unnecessary. If you want to actually inform folks, how about providing something more than a slogan from Colin Powell as justification for remaining? I don't happen to believe that the propping up of the Maliki regime behind the sacrifices of our military forces is a proper or prudent use of our military defenses. If there is going to be some definition of the mission there which includes 'defending against terror' or 'fighting al-Qaeda' like Gates is determined, and Obama has given voice to, then our forces will not be removed from Iraq fast enough.

The SOFA plan that Iraq approved has NO binding authority at all for the U.S. And, in the profound absence of ANY legislation from our own Congress mandating withdrawal from Iraq, it's incredibly presumptuous to expect critics of Gates, Mullen, Petraeus and the rest to accept that they satisfactorily assist Pres. Obama in his stated intention to withdraw in 16 months without foot-dragging and excuses.

And, I should point out that we haven't heard more than a few sentences from Pres-elect Obama on Iraq since he gave his speech some time ago during the campaign. This 'trust me' attitude from the Obama transition and defenders of Gates and Mullen is not the level accountability I would expect to be promoted here. The entire Bush enabling crew should be scrapped. Most of the folks who may have been worth a damn left the administration and the military in protest. Those are the caliper of people I expect to see reverse the Iraq abomination, not ideological warriors like Gates and the rest.

[KharmaTrain]

38. Yes, It Is The Pottery Barn

I was against this invasion before, during and since...and the day our troops come home (and never are sent into such a mess again) the better. But I want this to be a orderly withdrawl. I would hope it doesn't take 3 years...President Obama has said 18 months and I haven't seen or heard him say anything different. I'm no military type, nor will attempt to play it, but I do defer to what I've read from those with such experience and with the large amount of material that's been moved in, little that would be of use to the locals (other than to perpetuate what is sure to be a bloody civil war once we're gone), that's where the time is needed. Just knowing they're leaving is the most important fact. As one from the Vietnam era, that withdrawl took nearly 4 years and then we still were dumping helicopters into the South China Sea...and that was two years after our last ground troops had left.

Don't blame those who are on the ground and in harm's way for creating this mess...and I'm strongly in favor of thorough investigation of the run-up to this disaster. I'm of the opinion that this job is beyond our political system and should only be handled by an international tribunal...as these weren't just crimes against the U.S or Iraq, but all of humanity. Obama can't, nor shouldn't handle this alone...and when he walks into the Oval Office, who knows what landmines await him this regime has planted.

It's not my job to "outline" a withdrawl...just as much as you have little authority or knowledge to state different...and, yes, there is a need to trust those who are close to the situation. If they get order to withdraw, they will...just as much as they invaded when those orders were given. The marvel of our system...or in theory...is that we have a military under the control of civilian authority...the elected representatives. For the past 8 years, we existed under a criminal enterprise that did as it pleased, and has left a lot of damage in their wake...a list that is surely overwhelming the incoming administration...even FDR didn't have this many problems on his plate in 1933.

We broke Iraq...and part of our disengagement is to help fix what we can...if not with material, but in a political sense. We will need other countries in the region to cover our tail and to use this opportunity to restore diplomatic channels that this regime has destroyed and need to be restored to ensure a peaceful withdrawl. This won't begin to happen until January 20th...and conjecturing now without seeing a full foreign policy team and plan in place is putting ideology and personal politics ahead of reality. It's time to get out of campaign mode and into governing mode. The repugnicans couldn't do this, Democrats must.

Lastly, we've broken our military, and while it needs to be trimmed and redefined, it's still a vital part of our national security. It's also VERY broken...both in materials and in spirit. A knee-jerk withdrawl will be devestating to the many who have served...especially those who suffer from injuries...and their families...as not a repudiation of the past regime, but it's sure to be framed as a military defeat. And then there's the problems of how to treat the many Veterans...a good number who will live with this ugly war for the rest of their lives...should they be throw back into a depressed economy and society?

It's so easy to say how things should be...it's another matter being able to make it happen in the real world.

[bigtree]

40. we are still breaking Iraq by our presence. There is NOTHING our soldiers can do there

. . .which isn't ultimately counterproductive. Advocating them staying is like asking a rapist to raise the child they fathered.


Out of Iraq in 10 Months or Less

Saturday, November 22, 2008; A14

The Bush administration is to be commended for signing a status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqi government that would require all U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraq by 2011 . However, there is still significant disagreement and confusion about how long a withdrawal would take. On Monday, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that removing the 150,000 U.S. troops and equipment from Iraq would take "two to three years." This is not the case.

As we demonstrated in a recent study, if the U.S. military were ordered now to begin a phased redeployment from Iraq, it could safely be completed in eight to 10 months. The military would draw down by two brigades per month and not replace outgoing troops as they rotated home -- a pace similar to previous rotations. Withdrawal time also would depend on the amount of equipment the military decided to take with it. Sensitive equipment would need to be removed, but the military need not take every blast wall and refrigerator from every base.

LAWRENCE J. KORB

Senior Fellow

SEAN E. DUGGAN

Research Associate

Center for American Progress


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112103228_pf.html

[Marrah_G]

15. Bigtree

I am thinking I can live with 3 more years with Obama in control there. Perhaps he can fix some of the biggest blunders, negotiate some peace and help them get their country back on it's feet. If McCain had won I would want troops home yesterday. I feel the same about Afghanistan. I think Obama is really capable of turning things in a positive direction.

[bigtree]

20. Our military forces are nothing but an aggravation.They have permanently scarred Iraq and its people

It's a political lie that Bush and others have sold America that there is some mission for our soldiers in Iraq which has value or merit. Certainly, propping up the opportunistic, corrupt Maliki regime isn't one of them. Neither is leaving a residual force to 'fight terror,' as the Obama Iraq plan outlines.

I'll have to admit that, so far, this kind of equivocation of keeping these warmongers in place is what I feared from Obama, because of the position he advocated during the campaign that there is something in Iraq for our soldiers to credibly accomplish. I just don't believe this. I don't see any evidence of any productive mission for our soldiers there and I believe they are a counterproductive influence and presence which is aggravating the very things folks say they want 'fixed' in Iraq.

I'm not going to accept that someone can 'manage' this illegal, immoral, and abusive occupation and make it acceptable for the invading forces of our military to be there.

[MadHound]

16. I would like to see us completely out of there within Obama's 16 month timetable

If not, it's going to be very disappointing, and proof once again that the two party/same corporate master system of government is still at work.

If Obama really values re-election, he'll keep that 16 month promise, otherwise he'll have the anti-war left leaving him in droves.

[shadowknows69]

19. Our troops better face the fact that not many of them are coming home

Any time soon. Those that do leave Iraq will be redeployed to bolster the futile effort in Afghanistan. In short? Same as it ever was. This country is still ruled by hawks.

[madinmaryland]

25. Has Obama said anything about Iraq since he was elected? I am waiting

for something at least during the inauguration. I would hope he makes a statement on the war by then and how he intends to end the war.

[babylonsister]

26. Did you watch the 60 Minutes interview?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/16/60minutes/main4607893_page4.shtml

(CBS) Kroft: Can you give us some sense of when you might start redeployments out of Iraq?

Mr. Obama: Well, I've said during the campaign, and I've stuck to this commitment, that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my national security apparatus, and we will start executing a plan that draws down our troops. Particularly in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan, which has continued to worsen. We've got to shore up those efforts.

[madinmaryland]

27. Thanks, I missed that.

It sounds then that he is being consistent with what he has been saying all along that he does intend on drawing down the troops in Iraq.

[babylonsister]

28. That's how I'm looking at this; and yes, he has been consistent. nt

[bigtree]

29. Gates and Petraeus and Mullen will be the ones designing that plan and implementing it.

Why should we expect the reasoning they used to recommend delaying withdrawal in the recent past to be any different now? It matters what kind of missions they recommend to complete their 'ideological' battle there.

Also, there really hasn't been any word from Pres. elect Obama about what kind of residual force he'll leave in Iraq (as his Iraq plan outlines), how large of a force, and what it's mission will be.

[madinmaryland]

30. It will be a plan that Obama approves of. If he does not, they will have to redesign

the plan. Obama is no "W". I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one, at least for the first few months (though I imagine it will not take nearly that long).

[bigtree]

31. I think Obama has mostly fine intentions. His choice to keep Gates on has rattled me.

Nov 16, 2007 ... “It seems to me that there ought to be some deference to those who are running the war -- the generals -- at the pace at which this drawdown should take” Gates said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/16/nation/na-warvote16

[LibDemAlways]

32. It's downright disturbing, and I don't care if it is

only temporary. He needs to thoroughly clean house, not leave a pro-war Bush appointee at DoD. Very disappointing. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but if I start hearing crap about listening to the generals, I'll know I was had.

[bigtree]

33. "He'll listen to military commanders on the ground in -- in Iraq . . ."

from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/obama.iraq/


November 11, 2008

"He'll listen to military commanders on the ground in -- in Iraq, but I think that we want to withdraw," John Podesta, co-chairman of the Obama transition team, told CNN's John King over the weekend.

"I think he's clear that he wants to withdraw the combat force from Iraq in a responsible way and that the time frame that he put out is, again, is consistent with where the Iraqi government is today," Podesta said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"We need to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq," Podesta said. "That doesn't mean all troops will be eliminated from Iraq. It will still be necessary for force protection and our counter-terrorism mission and to -- and to do -- continue training of Iraqi forces.

Obama sent a clear message that as commander in chief, he would listen but then make the decisions.

Of Petraeus, he said, "in his role as commander on the ground, not surprisingly, he wants to retain as much flexibility as possible in terms of accomplishing that goal. ... But my job as a candidate for president and a potential commander in chief extends beyond Iraq."

. . . so, we wait to see . . . and keep pressing, in the meantime.

[Occam Bandage]

34. Is there any particular reason to believe anything but the 16-month withdrawal plan that

both Obama and the Iraqi government have endorsed? SOFA allows three years. It doesn't mandate it.

[bigtree]

36. yes

Obama's (and Podesta's) qualification that the withdrawal plans don't mean that, "all troops will be eliminated from Iraq. It will still be necessary for force protection and our counter-terrorism mission and to -- and to do -- continue training of Iraqi forces."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/obama.iraq


A prominent article yesterday said observers put the figure for that residual force for as many as 30,000 to 70,000 troops.

[Occam Bandage]

37. That's always been the plan.

Didn't know you were against continuing to train the Iraqis. I didn't think liberals were in favor of a poorly-trained, unprofessional Iraqi arm.y

[bigtree]

39. who the hell appointed you a judge of who's liberal or not?

Hell, no. I'm not in favor of leaving ANY troops in Iraq for ANY function.

What don't you understand about the illegal, immoral, invasion and an abusive occupation waged by our military forces? Who the hell said we had to agree with the 'PLAN?' All of that nonsense is just consolidating and compounding the original mistake. Our defensive forces have no business at all meddling in Iraq. They need to leave NOW.

Take your petty litmus test and shove it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. It looks like it's now politically correct to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even though both are lost, serve no purpose, and are bankrupting this country.

[Cleita]

41. Remember when our President Dumbass declared,"Mission accomplished" for

his over the top, flight suit photo op? We should have been out the next day.