| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Post-Election NYT: Get Out Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say |
| 2006-11-15 |
| 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. Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it. “The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.” |
| Posted by:.com |
| #11 if the US moves out, Iran moves in BINGO ! Here's the plan, the US moves into the oil fields, and lets the sunnis and shias use up the universal supply of virgins. Oh, sure, the world cries foul and all that, but we can tell them that is a phased withdrawal. Besides, we can stabilize the price of oil. Now that advice may cost President Whatisname. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-15 11:34 |
| #10 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. Which is why Democrats favor a light hand in matters of government regulation and intervention in the market. /bitter sarcasm |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2006-11-15 09:58 |
| #9 ...I'm guessing - and this is just a thought - that the Donk leadership has very quietly and very privately decided that for at least a bit, regardless of what they've promised and/or are screaming, they're going to stay the course. If they actually got the Bugout they've advocated, there would be no three-year interval between the end of the deployment and the final collapse,as there was in Vietnam - it would take, at most a month or two before Iraq implosed, and the disaster would be laid squarely and inescapably at their doorstep. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-11-15 09:43 |
| #8 Political cover for the new Dem majority. Cover against their lunatic base, that is. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-11-15 08:23 |
| #7 I suspect the timing. Bastards. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-11-15 06:14 |
| #6 Indeed, Sneaze Shaiting3550. Saddam Hussein had grand ambitions in that way as well, hence his invasion of Kuwait, and a key reason why he had to be removed. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-15 06:05 |
| #5 Read my lips appeasers: if the US moves out, Iran moves in. If Iran moves in they will be positioned to control most known oil reserves in the world. Oil resource extortion will not mean world peace. |
| Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-11-15 04:39 |
| #4 You expected something different? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-11-15 02:24 |
| #3 Assholes for holding back on this. Putting our troops at risk fopr political gain. Damn them! |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-15 01:22 |
| #2 No draft. Bad Joe. Bad boy. Go lie in the corner. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-15 01:08 |
| #1 Pro-DRAFT commentaries have been showing up this week. Never mind the ideo, PC, the Left, or waffle-intensive dialectic GOP-DEM, LEFT-RIGHT POLITIX/POLISCHTICK - Americans wanna win, + that needs means doing what is necessary to win, even iff it means a draft. AMER'S ENEMIES > WOT > WAR TO THE DEATH. WE CAN DELUDE OURSELVES ALL WE WANT AND PRETEND IT ISN'T, BUT NO AMOUNT OF AMER SELF-DELUSION IS GONNA MAKE OUR ENEMIES THINK OTHERWISE. Americans either FIGHT + WIN, OR WE/OUR COUNTRY DIES. DO you prefer to an EMPIRE, or prefer to be a COLD WAR-STYLE, USSR-STYLE, WEAK SOVIET STATE/SOCIALIST "REPUBLIC" = WARSAW PACT PROXY NATION, i.e. un-annexed but externally controlled-domin provinces, sub i.e. NORTH KOREA whose only Manifest Destiny is to die first so that Chicoms won't=don't. The Cold War + post Cold War STATUS QUO is no longer acceptable or tolerable to Amer's enemies. As several famous Leaders-Personages have shown in world history, what ultimately matters is NOT the size of one's army BUT HOW IT IS USED + LED TO ACHIEVE VICTORY + ONE'S AGENDA. THE ARMY = WAR/BATTLE MUST "FIT THE TIME". AMERICANS MUST DECIDE WHAT THEY ARE AND BELIEVE, AND WHETHER TEMPORARY SAFETY IS WORTH DEFEAT + GEOPOL SIOLATIONISM-APEASEMENT. "To be Alone" did NOT prevent German interference in American affairs via Mexico [WW1], nor stopped Yamamoto from planning to attack Pearl Harbor or later Midway, nor Stalin from blocking Allied access to Berlin, nor stopped North Korea from unilater attacking South Korea in 1950. IFF POLS WANT OWG + UNIVERSAL SOCIALISM-GOVERNMENTISM, WHATS WRONG WITH EXPLAINING-JUSTIFYING WHY TO THE VOTERS!? WHY SHOULD ANY AMER BE SCARED OF A DRAFT = WAR = NUKE WAR, ETC. IFF OUR ENEMIES ARE GONNA KILL/DESTROY US ANYWAYS??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-11-15 01:05 |