Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say

[Damocles]

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

NY Times Link... (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

[Cypress]

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

NY Times Link... (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

A president with credibility and diplomatic skills would be able to get the Arab League to send troops to stabilize iraq. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have a vested interest in a stable iraq.

We have the incompetent and thoroughly disrespected bush though.

[Gaffer]

The first mistake made by the administration was letting the iraqis write a constitution based on islamic law. which makes islam a state religion. They can't have a democratic society with a state religion.

[Battleborne]

The first mistake made by the administration was letting the iraqis write a constitution based on islamic law. which makes islam a state religion. They can't have a democratic society with a state religion.



This is called a Theocracy...one would think the Libs would be pounding the table on this issue rather than just bash GW!

[Gaffer]

your soooo right BB. I don't understand the lib mentality as these guys go against absolutely eveything they stand for.

They will bring Bush down if it costs them the world.

[Jarod]

This is called a Theocracy...one would think the Libs would be pounding the table on this issue rather than just bash GW!

I was back when it happened. All the Con's claimed it was not a Theocracy. Dixie and Toby at least.

BTW where is Toby, aint seen him since the big win!

[Onceler]

This is called a Theocracy...one would think the Libs would be pounding the table on this issue rather than just bash GW!

Kind of a dumb thing to say. Iraqi's can do whatever they want; I'm concerned about theocracy HERE, not there.

It's like me saying - hey, you're a conservative - why aren't you complaining about the high taxes in Sweden?

[Battleborne]

Kind of a dumb thing to say. Iraqi's can do whatever they want; I'm concerned about theocracy HERE, not there.

It's like me saying - hey, you're a conservative - why aren't you complaining about the high taxes in Sweden?



zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!;) asleep at the wheel eh' lib?

[maineman]

he's not asleep at any wheel. he made a valid point. Dubya and company made a big deal out of the fact that Iraq wrote their own constitution. Why should anyone in America have the right to complain about what is or is not contain in the constitution of another state?

I am certain that a Iranian aligned shiite theocracy was not exactly what Dubya had in mind when he was talking about a vibrant multicultural democracy in Iraq that would shine like a beacon of freedom throughout the middle east.... but once you open Pandora's Box, you really don't have a lot of room to complain about what flies out, do you?

[Onceler]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!;) asleep at the wheel eh' lib?

Um, no...just pointing out that your attempt at "gotcha politics" was infantile & pretty ineffective in this case.

I've got a hunch that I could down a few liters of cough syrup & still trounce you pretty handily in any debate there, con, at least if that's the best response you can muster....

[Battleborne]

he's not asleep at any wheel. he made a valid point. Dubya and company made a big deal out of the fact that Iraq wrote their own constitution. Why should anyone in America have the right to complain about what is or is not contain in the constitution of another state?

I am certain that a Iranian aligned shiite theocracy was not exactly what Dubya had in mind when he was talking about a vibrant multicultural democracy in Iraq that would shine like a beacon of freedom throughout the middle east.... but once you open Pandora's Box, you really don't have a lot of room to complain about what flies out, do you?


He was being a hypocrite...he does not want a Theocracy in the US but says it's okay in the ME...and he further stated he does not give a hoot about how they operate over in the ME...so why does he even care how the US government handles the war...he is not in the fire and all....Gaffer brought up a good point and then was bashed by hypocrite...personally I believe the war was not prosecuted all out at the start..this would have ended what we now are seeing...imho

[maineman]

how is it hypocritical to be willing to allow other states the right to design a constitution that is to their liking while concurrently expressing a desire to avoid a similar theocratic fate for one's OWN country?

[Cypress]

I was back when it happened. All the Con's claimed it was not a Theocracy. Dixie and Toby at least.

BTW where is Toby, aint seen him since the big win!

Yeah, I remember spending three years on FP going round and round with bush fans who stood indignantly, with hands on hips, and proclaimed they were not enabling a theocracy in iraq -- even though we told them they were.

[Battleborne]

Um, no...just pointing out that your attempt at "gotcha politics" was infantile & pretty ineffective in this case.

I've got a hunch that I could down a few liters of cough syrup & still trounce you pretty handily in any debate there, con, at least if that's the best response you can muster....



Why don't you just volunteer and go to the ME and show them and us how it is done...wear a heavy collar though losing ones head can be painful! Then again if the Libs get their way the few million Muslims now implanted here will create the same Theocracy y'all do not want...and they will take your heads on our soil!...Have nice dreams though...sing Kumbia and all!;)

[Onceler]

"He was being a hypocrite...he does not want a Theocracy in the US but says it's okay in the ME...and he further stated he does not give a hoot about how they operate over in the ME...so why does he even care how the US government handles the war...he is not in the fire and all....Gaffer brought up a good point and then was bashed by hypocrite...personally I believe the war was not prosecuted all out at the start..this would have ended what we now are seeing...imho"

Hey, idiot...there is an enormous difference between how the US handles the war, and how the Iraqi's decide they want to be governed.

You really shouldn't vote if you can't discern the difference...

[Battleborne]

how is it hypocritical to be willing to allow other states the right to design a constitution that is to their liking while concurrently expressing a desire to avoid a similar theocratic fate for one's OWN country?



There are sleepers in our country as we debate this issue...notice Mosques going up all around our country? Michigan is for the most part Mecca Jr...Wake up and smell the coffee...I have a question for you since you are retired military and all...And since the Military is made up of approximately 75% conservatives and 25% liberals...You being a Lib and all...What do you think of the Don't ask-Don't tell policy"? Because I am getting the impression that you hate GW and the conservatives based on this issue!

[Battleborne]

"He was being a hypocrite...he does not want a Theocracy in the US but says it's okay in the ME...and he further stated he does not give a hoot about how they operate over in the ME...so why does he even care how the US government handles the war...he is not in the fire and all....Gaffer brought up a good point and then was bashed by hypocrite...personally I believe the war was not prosecuted all out at the start..this would have ended what we now are seeing...imho"

Hey, idiot...there is an enormous difference between how the US handles the war, and how the Iraqi's decide they want to be governed.

You really shouldn't vote if you can't discern the difference...



Can you debate without calling names? I think not as you sound like a broken record!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yeah, I remember spending three years on FP going round and round with bush fans who stood indignantly, with hands on hips, and proclaimed they were not enabling a theocracy in iraq -- even though we told them they were.

And you are just as wrong now as you were then. Iraq didn't form a theocracy. A true theocratic government, is controlled by the church, the ONLY church allowed within the country. It is a governmental structure which not only is based on religious doctrine, but is operated by it as well.

In Iraq, they adopted a Constitution which based itself on Islamic belief and principles, much the same as our Founding Fathers forged a Constitution on Judeo-Christian belief and principles. Do they give religious powers a lot of control within the workings of the government? Perhaps, but so did Americans in the beginning, it has taken us more than 200 years to weed out the religiously-rooted constraints in the Constitution, some are still being debated to this day. In the beginning of our nation, most all educational and welfare issues were delegated to the churches, and largely handled by the churches for many years.

There is no doubt in my mind, if some of you pinheads were around back when America was mulling over the Constitutional Convention and reading the Federalist Papers, you would have sworn we were establishing a theocracy! It took us nearly two decades to iron out all of our differences and tweak our Constitution, and we weren't split into 3 factions of vehement historic waring enemies. Can we at least give Iraq as long as we had, to get their act together?

[Cypress]

And you are just as wrong now as you were then. Iraq didn't form a theocracy. A true theocratic government, is controlled by the church, the ONLY church allowed within the country. It is a governmental structure which not only is based on religious doctrine, but is operated by it as well.

In Iraq, they adopted a Constitution which based itself on Islamic belief and principles, much the same as our Founding Fathers forged a Constitution on Judeo-Christian belief and principles. Do they give religious powers a lot of control within the workings of the government? Perhaps, but so did Americans in the beginning, it has taken us more than 200 years to weed out the religiously-rooted constraints in the Constitution, some are still being debated to this day. In the beginning of our nation, most all educational and welfare issues were delegated to the churches, and largely handled by the churches for many years.

There is no doubt in my mind, if some of you pinheads were around back when America was mulling over the Constitutional Convention and reading the Federalist Papers, you would have sworn we were establishing a theocracy! It took us nearly two decades to iron out all of our differences and tweak our Constitution, and we weren't split into 3 factions of vehement historic waring enemies. Can we at least give Iraq as long as we had, to get their act together?


Since you're virtually always wrong, I'm going to assume Iraq is turning into a theocracy, when you say they aren't:


Another Dixie Prediction Goes Horribly Wrong
http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=2108&highlight=dixie+prediction

Another Dixie Prediction Down the Toilet Bowl
http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=1980&highlight=dixie+prediction

Dixie Prediction Update
http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=176&highlight=dixie+prediction

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Since you're virtually always wrong, I'm going to assume

Well of course you are Prissy, that was the reason it was so important to you, to establish a database of my words, to portray me as always being wrong. It lets you get away with assuming, when you can't really debate.

I understand completely!

[Cypress]

Since you're virtually always wrong, I'm going to assume

Well of course you are Prissy, that was the reason it was so important to you, to establish a database of my words, to portray me as always being wrong. It lets you get away with assuming, when you can't really debate.

I understand completely!

They're exact quotes of your own words. I'm afraid you'll have to stand by what you wrote, instead of running away from them.

If you hate been proven wrong all the time, stop being wrong all the time.

Of course, that probably means by neccessity that you'll have to stop being a republican.

:cool:

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm hardly wrong "all the time" as I've demonstrated with you in these threads recently. It is your false perception, and obsessive attempts to make it appear I am always wrong. As I said, I fully understand the tactic, I don't understand why you are so afraid.

[maineman]

What is constant throughout all of this is DIxie's absolutely pathological inability to EVER admit that he was wrong about anything. In this, he takes his cues from his loverboy in bluejeans who has yet to make a mistake as president from his own perspective.

[Damocles]

What is constant throughout all of this is DIxie's absolutely pathological inability to EVER admit that he was wrong about anything. In this, he takes his cues from his loverboy in bluejeans who has yet to make a mistake as president from his own perspective.
That doesn't seem to be true with the changes currently taking place in his administration.

[maineman]

have you ever heard Dubya admit to personally making any mistakes?

yes or no?

[Damocles]

have you ever heard Dubya admit to personally making any mistakes?

yes or no?
Actions often speak louder than words. Hiring people that are almost directly in opposition to the past tends to make me believe that the changes were made not because he thought himself perfect.

[maineman]

blah blah blah.... it really was a simple yes or no question.

either answer it or don't...but if you chose not to...shut your piehole and quit wiggling.

[Damocles]

blah blah blah.... it really was a simple yes or no question.

either answer it or don't...but if you chose not to...shut your piehole and quit wiggling.
I answered. It really was a long "yes" answer. One doesn't have to say something to get a point accross. Adults know this, and I know you do. If you don't want to be honest you don't have to. But his actions lately decry the "myth" that he thinks he has never made a mistake.

[Cypress]

MM: People under the age of 30 probably are unaware of the great tradition of american presidents going on TV, face to face with the american people, and owning up to mistakes, taking full responsibily, and apologizing for them: Kennedy with Bay of Pigs, Carter with the failed iran hostage rescue, Reagan with trading arms for hostages, and Clinton for a blowjob.

To the younger generation, it probably seems normal for Bush to never explicity apologize or formally take responsibility for any blunders.

[AnyOldIron]

This is called a Theocracy...one would think the Libs would be pounding the table on this issue rather than just bash GW!

This is something many libs brought up at the time of the constitution being written, only to be told by many hardcore conservatives that it wasn't.....

[AnyOldIron]

I'm hardly wrong "all the time" as I've demonstrated with you in these threads recently.

Dixie, you may be articulate and rhetorically gifted, but you are wrong in the majority of cases....

[Cypress]

What is constant throughout all of this is DIxie's absolutely pathological inability to EVER admit that he was wrong about anything. In this, he takes his cues from his loverboy in bluejeans who has yet to make a mistake as president from his own perspective.


Perhaps it's best if we simply pretend we never saw the lover boy in blue jeans letter. The psychological implications are too terrifying to contemplate.

On the other hand, Maineman, I am LMAO

[Cancel7]

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

NY Times Link... (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

Not so fast? Not so fast!? It's gone on longer than World war Two! Not so fast?

It was the experts who got us into Iraq, if you recall. John McCain is now considered, by people like Michael Gordon, to be "somebody who has been a vehement critic of the bush adminstration's Iraq policies".

If only common sense will prevail. We have been there longer than it took to win WWII. There is no improvement. People are dying. Our military is stressed to the max. Since the very definition of insanity is, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, let's do something new, leave and see what happens.

And don't forget what John Le Carre wrote in, "The Russia House". Pretty striking and certainly wise advice, especially considering the kinds of experts we have been stuck with in our time.

" 'I do not like experts, they are our jailers.... Experts are addicts. They solve nothing. They are servants of whatever system hires them. They perpetuate it. When we are tortured, we shall be tortured by experts. When we are hanged, experts will hang us.... When the world is destroyed, it will be destroyed not by its madmen but by the sanity of its experts and the superior ignorance of its bureaucrats.' "

[blackascoal]

The first mistake made by the administration was letting the iraqis write a constitution based on islamic law. which makes islam a state religion. They can't have a democratic society with a state religion.

They can have whatever they want .. It's THEIR country.

[blackascoal]

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

NY Times Link... (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


"Experts" ???

You mean like the same kind of "experts" who thought invading Iraq was a good idea?

What the "experts" say or think doesn't mean shit. Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people and THEY want the US to get the fuck out of THEIR country.

[LadyT]

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

NY Times Link... (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

Thanks for that trip down memory lane Damo. 2006 was an interesting year. Lets fast forward to the current situation in Iraq shall we?

http://www.alternet.org/audits/81626/

General William Odom on Iraq: Immediate Withdrawal the Only Option that Makes Sense

"...The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims...."

[Onceler]

Did anyone catch Bush from that interview he did this week? He "disagreed" that the Iraq situation has strengthened Iran's hand in the Middle East.

They were showing clips of it on "Countdown." The guy is more detached from reality than ever....

[LadyT]

Did anyone catch Bush from that interview he did this week? He "disagreed" that the Iraq situation has strengthened Iran's hand in the Middle East.

They were showing clips of it on "Countdown." The guy is more detached from reality than ever....

It would almost be laughable if the stakes weren't so high. I can't stand that man.

[Cancel7]

Did anyone catch Bush from that interview he did this week? He "disagreed" that the Iraq situation has strengthened Iran's hand in the Middle East.

They were showing clips of it on "Countdown." The guy is more detached from reality than ever....

I think that’s been a Republican ploy for years now, and it’s worked. It’s not about being detached from reality, it’s about “creating our own reality”. And everything is about “opinion” not facts. This allows the media to “present both sides” in the interests of so-called fairness. One side says this, but, “some republicans disagree”. Some say the earth is warming, but, some republicans disagree.

We’re in a new world now. There are no facts. When you turn everything into a debatable “opinion” that’s how you get away with the shit they’ve gotten away with, including, torturing. Some say we torture, Bush disagrees. The media will not step in, having been properly cowed by years of right wing whining about the “liberal media” they now spend their time on their knees, ever eager to “prove” they’re not liberal.

And so on and on it goes. Meanwhile, the world burns.

[Damocles]

Not so fast? Not so fast!? It's gone on longer than World war Two! Not so fast?

It was the experts who got us into Iraq, if you recall. John McCain is now considered, by people like Michael Gordon, to be "somebody who has been a vehement critic of the bush adminstration's Iraq policies".

If only common sense will prevail. We have been there longer than it took to win WWII. There is no improvement. People are dying. Our military is stressed to the max. Since the very definition of insanity is, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, let's do something new, leave and see what happens.

And don't forget what John Le Carre wrote in, "The Russia House". Pretty striking and certainly wise advice, especially considering the kinds of experts we have been stuck with in our time.

" 'I do not like experts, they are our jailers.... Experts are addicts. They solve nothing. They are servants of whatever system hires them. They perpetuate it. When we are tortured, we shall be tortured by experts. When we are hanged, experts will hang us.... When the world is destroyed, it will be destroyed not by its madmen but by the sanity of its experts and the superior ignorance of its bureaucrats.' "
Talk about raising the dead. This thread was buried, why the gravedigging?

[Onceler]

I think that’s been a Republican ploy for years now, and it’s worked. It’s not about being detached from reality, it’s about “creating our own reality”. And everything is about “opinion” not facts. This allows the media to “present both sides” in the interests of so-called fairness. One side says this, but, “some republicans disagree”. Some say the earth is warming, but, some republicans disagree.

We’re in a new world now. There are no facts. When you turn everything into a debatable “opinion” that’s how you get away with the shit they’ve gotten away with, including, torturing. Some say we torture, Bush disagrees. The media will not step in, having been properly cowed by years of right wing whining about the “liberal media” they now spend their time on their knees, ever eager to “prove” they’re not liberal.

And so on and on it goes. Meanwhile, the world burns.

I haven't thought about it quite like this, but you're right, and it's a real drag. It is so true with global warming - all it takes are a couple of ExxonMobil funded opinions, and there is "vigorous debate" on the topic. I remember when a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq came out, and Bush disagreed with its conclusions; he actually did say something like "I have a different opinion," like an NIE is based on nothing but someone's whim of an opinion.

We saw that with Meme yesterday; "Obama is an America-hating Marxist...just my opinion, so you can't really say I'm wrong." No backup needed.

I think Bush is a Satan worshipping porn addict with a foot fetish. Just my opnion, of course.

[Cypress]

Talk about raising the dead. This thread was buried, why the gravedigging?


In my never ending quest to humiliate Dixie, I checked out some old threads that referenced his male idol in tight blue jeans. LOL, I can't help myself.

[Cancel7]

Talk about raising the dead. This thread was buried, why the gravedigging?


Oh, sorry. Well, I didn’t resurrect it and since I never commented on it originally, I decided to now.

[Cancel7]

I haven't thought about it quite like this, but you're right, and it's a real drag. It is so true with global warming - all it takes are a couple of ExxonMobil funded opinions, and there is "vigorous debate" on the topic. I remember when a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq came out, and Bush disagreed with its conclusions; he actually did say something like "I have a different opinion," like an NIE is based on nothing but someone's whim of an opinion.

We saw that with Meme yesterday; "Obama is an America-hating Marxist...just my opinion, so you can't really say I'm wrong." No backup needed.

I think Bush is a Satan worshipping porn addict with a foot fetish. Just my opnion, of course.

Yep, exactly like that. It’s infuriating for anyone with an actual working mind.

[cawacko]

I think that’s been a Republican ploy for years now, and it’s worked. It’s not about being detached from reality, it’s about “creating our own reality”. And everything is about “opinion” not facts. This allows the media to “present both sides” in the interests of so-called fairness. One side says this, but, “some republicans disagree”. Some say the earth is warming, but, some republicans disagree.

We’re in a new world now. There are no facts. When you turn everything into a debatable “opinion” that’s how you get away with the shit they’ve gotten away with, including, torturing. Some say we torture, Bush disagrees. The media will not step in, having been properly cowed by years of right wing whining about the “liberal media” they now spend their time on their knees, ever eager to “prove” they’re not liberal.

And so on and on it goes. Meanwhile, the world burns.

Isn't that what the "Fairness Doctrine" is all about? We need to show "both sides". Ask Desh, she'll tell you about it.

[USMan]

Isn't that what the "Fairness Doctrine" is all about? We need to show "both sides". Ask Desh, she'll tell you about it.

Cawacko how would you like it if I come over there and kick your frigging ass? Just because I don't like your name and you are getting on my nerves? How would you like that?

[Damocles]

Oh, sorry. Well, I didn’t resurrect it and since I never commented on it originally, I decided to now.
M'eh. I don't care. I didn't write the article.