Troop Withdrawal from Iraq
April 27, 2007
When should our troops be withdrawn from Iraq?
Montgomery County Ohio GOP Blog
A place for discussion, debate and input concerning party events and happenings.
-
Recent Comments
Zug on Worst Next President THEBIGDAWG on Worst Next President J Todd on Worst Next President JR on Worst Next President Mick on Worst Next President
April 27, 2007 at 6:09 pm
“When should our troops be withdrawn from Iraq?” Great question. When did World War II end? When should our troops be withdrawn from: Japan, Korea, England, Germany, Turkey, Italy, and Spain? Why should we use a different criteria for troop withdrawal from Iraq as opposed to the other countries?
Our troops should be withdrawn from Iraq:
A) When it is in our nation’s national security interests to do so.
B) When it is in Iraq’s national security interests to do so.
C) After we have grown a stable, mature, capable Iraqi governing body which is trusted by the majority of its natives (much like Germany and Japan, among others).
D) After we have developed Iraq into a capable, mature trading partner.
April 27, 2007 at 7:23 pm
When should troops be withdrawn from Iraq?? The same time we withdrawl troops from Germany, Korea, and Japan.
I spent most of my childhood in Germany and years split between Korea and Japan as a Marine. When will the Democrats call for a pullout of troops there?
That idiot Murtha (sad to say a brother Marine) wants to “redeploy” to an area we took over 62+ years ago (Okinawa).
Why doesn’t he call for a “strategic redeployment” from there?
America would be such a better place without these idiots being in any sort of power.
I hope that all of the “right leaning” voters who stayed home last year in “protest” of the Republican Party have got that out of their system.
If you look at the numbers that’s exactly what happened. It wasn’t a referendum on the Iraq war like Pelosi and her band of retards keep touting, it was a referendum on our Party pulling away from it’s core beliefs and getting caught up in the lure of power.
Next time someone complains about the Democrats screwing up America, ask if they voted in 2006 if they didn’t tell them thanks for really hooking our country up for the next two years (I hope that is all).
To the question…we should pull out of Iraq when we have sent every terrorist to his 72 virgins and the Iraqi military is ready to take over as a legitimate force (which is already happening-but you won’t see that in the news).
Most people don’t realize that you can’t just build an Army overnight like you can on a Playstation. It takes years of training. Even if we would have kept the Iraqi leadership in place (in the military) that would not have solved much because they are trained in Soviet Bloc tactics-they can’t operate without being told what to do.
This is what makes our military the best in the world. We train our military to operate in small units and be leaders not followers. This is why it takes time to develop leaders in our military and it will take time to develop their military as well.
Sorry for the rant, it’s a subject I am passionate about.
April 27, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Not until our Military Commanding Generals or our Predident says our objectives have been met and its time to withdraw.
Dick Wilson
April 27, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Are we prepared to fight a WWII style war? Would Nazi Germany have been defeated without the complete destruction of both the enemy’s ability & will to fight? If our strategy will accomplish neither of the above, and I believe it won’t, are we not wasting both our brave soldiers and resources of this country?
Why should we train an army and supply weapons to that army in a culture that views our soldiers, not as liberators but as occupiers of their country? Would you not fight an army that was seen as attempting to both conquer and change the culture of the US? Would we submit quietly or would we regoup and fight a war that would destroy the enemies will to continue?
Wasn’t that how the colonists fought the English to gain American independence?
Is it not time to fight a no holds barred war or learn from our mistakes and get out of Iraq?
April 27, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Warfare is not like a sporting event that is over when the clock runs out. As such, it is not possible to have a deadline. To do so is to undermine the forces in the field.
Having a plan for warfare is not something that is concrete. As conditions on the battlefield change, so too must the plans along with the rules of engagement. However, the end result of any battle or war, is the defeat of your enemy. Until that happens, withdrawal can not even be entertained.
April 28, 2007 at 2:40 am
Very simple answer
When our enemy is either dead or has surrendered…
April 28, 2007 at 5:00 am
During the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson’s most profound flaw—tactically- and strategically-speaking—was his tendency to involve himself in every detail of the fight, including targeting.
Move forward to the Iraq War. President George W. Bush, possibly learning from LBJ’s mistake, has taken the opposite course as a laissez-faire commander-in-chief. In turn, Generals who grew up in the Clinton years, and who, subsequently, think more politically than tactically, have run the war.
Along with significant State Department involvement in country, the war has been fought in an overly political fashion. That is, the brass who decide strategy and tactics have handcuffed the US soldier with paralyzing rules of engagement and an uncoordinated national strategy (i.e. brigade A mounts a major operation in area A while brigades B and C do nothing in areas B and C, allowing the bad guys in area A to flee to areas B and C safely).
But the operative question here is: When do we leave?
I spent the year of 2005 in Iraq as an intelligence analyst and I observed a military more than capable of completing the job; however, the president’s mostly-wise laissez-faire approach combined with wobbly generals not willing to take the necessary steps to win the war have resulted in our current predicament.
When considering a timeline for our military withdrawal, we must consider the consequences of such an action.
Regardless of one’s feelings about embarking on the endeavor to begin with, it is underway and real consequences exist. Like it or not, a premature withdrawal would allow the radical Islamists a valuable victory. But perhaps a more specific question is appropriate here: What would it take to recover from a defeat in Iraq?
Such a conclusion to the Iraq venture seems more likely each day, especially with GOP political woes and possible Democrat electoral victories ahead. It seems inevitable to me, at this point, that we will cut sling load from Iraq, allowing the nation to move into greater chaos. Much like Vietnam, our credibility, not only regionally but worldwide, will suffer for quite some time and our enemies will be emboldened.
Ultimately, and assuming we do quit, we must ponder the next, say, twelve years or so. A succeeding and weak administration (or administrations) would continue the nosedive our stature in world affairs will take when we finally do withdraw. Fortunately, all will not be lost. We recovered from Vietnam and the 1970s to win the Cold War, and we can do so again.
In the end—and to actually answer the operative question—we should stay until our elected officials force us to leave. We should fight to the bitter end, for we may land a ninth-inning comeback of dazzling proportions. The seeds we plant (for our ideals of self-determination, liberty, etc.) will then persist, especially if the brass actually tries to win; and when responsible parties return to power, we will overcome our back-steps and sprint ahead to prevail.
April 28, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Setting artifical timetables attached to a defense appropriations bill and proclaiming that “the war is lost in Iraq” sends the message to the enemy that we are unwilling and unable to win the war on the homefront, much less defeating the enemy on the battlefield. And believe me, the enemy is watching what happens here in the States and are emboldened with the perception of our weakness politically and militarily.
As for when to “leave”; Are we to trust our elected officials (especially the democrats) to decide that and to “force us to leave” or do we as the electorate let them know in Washington that total & complete destruction & unconditional surrender of the enemy are our terms of victory and nothing less than this is acceptable? I wonder if we’re up to it here at home. But I know our brave soldiers in the line of fire are capable of winning this thing if given the support from us and are allowed to engage the enemy however and wherever they may be found! That means lifting the assinine “rules of engagement.” Seek out and destroy those who threaten our national security.
But are we ready to do whatever it will take to defeat the enemy, foriegn or domestic and pay the price for our freedoms that we say we cherish so much? Again, I wonder if we are ready as a country to do what JFK said, to resist any foe to vanquish any adversary that would put at risk our freedoms and our way of life.
April 29, 2007 at 7:35 pm
In response to the question, was it good to respond to the South Vietnamese in my years as a high school student in their war, and then leave without a productive, decisive victory? Not only should we have learned something from that conflict, but other moments in history as well.
The answer is NOT to let the political pundits taunt our military commanders, our service people, and our Commander-in-Chief. The answer is NOT to be intimidated over and over again with this senseless brain-washing propaganda. The answer IS, hold President George W. Bush to his word about the viability of staying with it to victory with a timetable for victory. Not a timetable for putting our tail between our legs with our heads down and bowing out. This only sends the wrong message to our service people and to the many allies abroad.
April 30, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I concur with the comments of BigDawg above.We’ll leave when the job in Europe is done.
Here’s another way to state the same sentiments: Leave when the job is DONE in Iraq…..We’re NOT finished. We have not been beat. We’ll leave when the job is DONE. What part of that do you not understand, dhimmicrats? Explain….
The fact that we TRIED to bring democracy to the ME (Iraq)…the fact we TRIED to help create a better world for (undeserving) Muslims will never be appreciated by Muslims (the word appreciation does not exist in Muslim culture…. the word submission / surrender does but mostly in the context of non-muslims). OUR (the USA) efforts to buld a better society in Iraq never was appreciated and never would be appreciated. Nonetheless, we tried to bring a better world to Iraq.
It was a GOOD thing to try. Why? Because we (the USA) will have to come back to Iraq and when we come bck we will KNOW it is not worth our blood and treasure to try to create a better world for Muslims. We needed to try to help Muslims. We needed to learn that Muslims are not worth the blood and treasure of the USA. We needed to learn the Muslims do not want our help and will not accept our help (THEY WILL, however, TAKE OUR $$$$$$) and they (Muslims) do NOT care about the blood spilt by the USA.
If we left Iraq when the muslims wanted us to leave we’d we out of there. IF WE LEFT WHEN THE JOB WAS DONE WE’LL BE THERE FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
May 1, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Whatever Zug says. He’s my blog hero
May 3, 2007 at 2:22 am
I basically agree with Zug, with these differences.
The Muslims do care about spilling non-Muslim blood–the more blood spilled, the better.
If we had left Iraq when the Muslims wanted us to (4 months) we would be long gone with more American soldiers alive.
This battle has been going on for 1400 years. We could win is 2 years if we had politicians with the will to win more than the next election.