September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« In the mood | Main | More on the transfer tax »

Mar 27, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Details related to withdrawal? Maybe you should be asking instead about the details related to staying, because THERE IS NO FREAKIN PLAN.

Every objective General or Admiral I've heard talk about this war (excluding those who pander to the Child King's tantrums) says the US will be in Iraq for five to ten years at a minimum, and the building of bases currently underway is explicit acknowledgment that there is no exit strategy.

Why aren't you asking that question? Because by not asking it, you're effectively saying "as long as it takes" is just fine, thank you. Are you comfortable saying there should be 60,000 troops deployed in Iraq for the next decade? Is the continuation of this war worth, oh let's say another trillion dollars?

The general outline of the strategy if we leave has been fairly well articulated by many critics of the war. And it will cost us dearly in terms of cash.

1. Pony up an enormous amount of money to pay for reconstruction. Allow that money to be administered by an international organization like the World Bank or some newly created entity just for Iraq.

2. Tell the international community we're leaving on a date certain and invite them to fill in the vacuum we're leaving behind (at our expense).

3. Encourage other honest brokers to help Iraq come up with a survival strategy, which most likely involves some kind of partition.

4. Apologize to the world for being criminally insane warmongers.

I'd have more patience with your question about what "withdrawal" means if someone could articulate with clarity what "staying" means. All the people who talk about "finishing the job" or "completing the mission" or other related happy horsesh*t are completely delusional. Spouting off Bushisms about mission accomplished is not tantamount to having a workable plan.

We have no plan.

Greensboro transplant

i doubt there's a constitutional crisis. i think the main purpose of this vote is to allow the opponents to say they voted against it before they voted for it.

you're a bright guy and a progressive thinker. why don't you post what you think will happen if the US pulls out before the mission is really accomplished?


why don't you post what you think will happen if the US pulls out before the mission is really accomplished?

I'd like to hear that too. And I'd like to hear what "the mission is really accomplished" really means.

I'd also like your guess about the likelihood of "the mission is really accomplished" happening in the next 20 years.

I'd also like to know how much "the mission is really accomplished" will cost.

And I'd like to know how much you'd like to see your taxes go up to pay for "the mission is really accomplished" to take place.

And most of all, I'd like to know why you think "the mission is really accomplished" is really even remotely possible without a permanent and significant military occupation of Iraq. Or maybe you actually LIKE the idea of a permanent and significant occupation of Iraq. After all, war IS good business.

Ed Cone

Anglico, my post is predicated on the idea that we are moving toward withdrawal.

My questions are based on that supposition. They aren't a challenge, or a sneaky argument to stay, they are questions about what a post-withdrawal world looks like.


Pardon my over-zealousness. My questions were directed to the transplant, who is focused on getting the mission accomplished, whatever that means.

For what it's worth (and it's not worth much), I think we're nowhere near heading for withdrawal. The Decider has decided and I don't see any action in Congress that can countermand him.

Connie Mack Jr

The Decider has decided and I don't see any action in Congress that can countermand him.*A

The Decider is Supreme Emperor and the war will continue into Shock and Awe into Iran very soon. Having my flesh and blood in the middle of this insanity. The time has come to leave now. I can assure our troops want the hell out big time. Any fool that thinks we can win or control is either navie or just nuts. There is no plan period as A said. The answer is simple. The Kurds have the North already and running their own show without a problem. Baghdad is a killing zone control by the Sunni's and in the South, the Shiites run the show with the oil. No matter how you cut it, it is over, leave now... no more deaths or wounded....If not buy Gold and kiss your ass good bye to the former USA as a beacon of hope and freedom as we know it.


The neocon dream was to change the middle east, which has the oil we rely on but either a hostile or wary attitude to our national interest. The Iraqi people did not behave in the way that those simple minded neocons envisioned, so a quagmire resulted instead of victory.
Misson accomplished is and always will be a dream hatched in the magical thinking of these folks, who never saw a day of combat in their lives but inhabited the rarified air of power and influence.
Of course, their dream would not have come to fruition without the help of a compliant media, congress, and a public easily swayed by predjudice and fear.

Ed Cone

So, yes, the war was not a good idea. This has been clear to some of us since before the war started.

The question is, what comes next? What does Iraq look like after we leave? What is our security situation vis a vis the people who attacked us on 9/11? What is our next focus?


We have helped the "people who attacked us on 9/11" grow their ranks by many orders of magnitude. Maybe the first thing we should do is stop supporting their recruiting efforts.

Homeland security is a real issue, and everyone agrees that international cooperation is key. Which means building mutually beneficial relationships with other countries is the second thing we should do. Reallocate dollars being flushed in a counterproductive war toward intelligence and enforcement.

What does Iraq look like after we leave? It'll be the same mess it is right now, and probably worse for awhile. It may even be swamped by its neighbors.

That will happen whether we leave now or whether we leave ten years from now. There is nothing we can do to stop it short of increasing our troop levels and committing to a multi-generational military occupation. And such an occupation will have reverberations throughout the Middle East and Asia. Does any one think China will sit idly by while the US builds a new empire in the Middle East?

Ed Cone

Once again, preaching to the choir on the boost we've given to anti-US elements with this war on a country uninvolved in 9/11.

But -- bigtime terrorism seems to require state support. Is there a chance that state support for terrorism is less likely in the wake of our invasion of Iraq? Have we shown that we are crazy mofos with whom no government that wishes to remain in power should mess?

Still waiting for ideas on the post-Iraq map and our priorities.

Connie Mack Jr

Still waiting for ideas on the post-Iraq map and our priorities.*Ed

You will be waiting until hell freezes over. Let them sort it out and move on.

In the late Sixties, the Iraqi-born Kanan Makiya was a Trotskyist, a card-carrying member of the Socialist Workers Party in the U.S., and later, in Britain, an activist in the International Marxist Group, the British section of the Trots' Fourth International. Then, as Edward Said put it,

"He switched sides and during the early 1980s he and his father, who own a firm called Makiya Associates, were employed by President Saddam Hussein to build a large number of buildings and projects, including a military parade ground for the observation of Saddam's birthday in Tikrit [Saddam's hometown], so he benefited from his connection with the Iraqis. And it was during this time that he used his second pseudonym, Samir al-Khalil, to write Republic of Fear [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989]."


"But -- bigtime terrorism seems to require state support."

I believe a thorough reading of the site Global Guerrillas will soundly refute that statement.


There will be no timetable imposed upon withdrawel of troops from Iraq.

The Dems will fold.

Tony Ledford

"The question is, what comes next?"
The US invades Iran.

"What does Iraq look like after we leave?"
A fundamentalist Islamic Republic in one year. If we stay for ten years, then it will be a fundamentalist Islamic Republic in eleven years. If we stay for thirty years, it will be a fundamentalist Islamic Republic in thirty-one years.

"What is our security situation vis a vis the people who attacked us on 9/11?"
Worse. We've helped them enormously with their recruitment efforts.

"What is our next focus?"
See the first question above.

Here is a suggestion -- why don't we attack Saudi Arabia? That is the country from which most of the attackers came.


CSKendrick (Charlotte) has some insights on this as well. His diary speaks to the stark isolation we are facing as a result of the Child King's Iraq tantrum.


The focus is and always should have been for intelligence and a pragmatic leadership. Also, to include the American people in a good struggle, because they will rise to the occasion.
When Saddam was taken out there remained a leadership vacuum. But we did not want a leader; instead we wanted a puppet who would protect our interests. We are now bleeding from wounds that we inflicted ourselves and yet we want a nice neat ending to the story. Isn't this odd? Why wouldn't we have to pay for such an attitude?

Jeffrey Sykes

I don't see a Constitutional Crisis unless the Dems have a 2/3 majority to override a veto.

Otherwise, the CIC sets foreign policy, as he has since 1792, and is held accountable every four years by the electorate.

I don't see us "pulling out"

I see us reducing troop levels until we only have special forces conducting law enforcement and interdiction missions. That is if a true democratic election does not vote in a government that demands we leave.

We must let true democracy take place in Iraq, and not create a Central American junta, as we have been so guilty of in the past.

The situation is a mess, I wish all the reserve troops could come home now.

I'm also glad the current crop of Dems weren't in charge in 1945. These strategic international relationships don't now, and likely never will, move at the speed of the "net"

We need to keep that in mind as we discuss this situation.

Connie Mack Jr

We must let true democracy take place in Iraq, and not create a Central American junta, as we have been so guilty of in the past.*JS

I just got done chatting with my son tonight on a cell from Iraq. His unit is in the middle of the chaos south of Baghdad in the hotest zone of the fight. His unit nick name is the Spartans. You can guess how that goes over with the Shiite's. Democracy as you know it is impossible with a culture that is still in the dark ages of manhood. When you have 13 old males banging a donkey in the middle of the night and Iraqi's Generals on the take for any price to give American locations and movements to blond hair and blue eye Iranians. Than there is no hope to transform a dinosar male civilzation to that as a highly advance civilzation. It will be centuries before the first fruit even grows.

Out now or impeached Bush if you want this nightmare of political insanity to end.

Greensboro transplant

i still haven't seen anyone address the heart of Ed's question. Maybe he'll offer us his thoughts soon.

but i'm struck at how many people would choose a stable but enslaved iraq over a free iraq.

how arrogant it is to believe that only some men are worthy of freedom and self-determination.

The comments to this entry are closed.