Withdrawal

[Disagreeable]

I've been reading this article in foreign news, but so far haven't seen it in the US media. If it comes to pass, it'll be very similar to the Kerry/Feingold proposal voted down in the Senate yesterday. It will also show that all the while Bush is telling us to "stay the course", his Ambassador in Iraq has been negotating to withdraw our troops. Entire article; link below; my emphasis.

"THE Iraqi Government will announce a sweeping peace plan as early as tomorrow in a last-ditch effort to end the Sunni insurgency that has taken the country to the brink of civil war.

The 28-point package for reconciliation will offer resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners if they renounce violence and lay down their arms.

The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.

It will pledge to take action against Shia militias and death squads. It will also offer to reviewthe process of "de-Baathification" and financial compensation for the thousands of Sunnis who were purged from senior jobs in the armed forces and civil service after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The deal, which has been seen by The Times newspaper, aims to divide Iraqi insurgents from foreign fighters linked to al-Qa'ida.

It builds on secret talks involving Iraqi President Jalal al-Talabani, the US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, and seven Sunni insurgent groups.

Mr Talabani said that after a "summit" in Baghdad about a month ago the groups made clear their willingness to commence talks with the Iraqi Government.

But one big potential obstacle is whether the US would be willing to grant an amnesty to insurgents who have killed US soldiers but who are not members of extreme groups such as al-Qa'ida. The Bush administration is thought to be split on the issue.

"This is very hard for us, particularly at a time when American servicemen are facing prosecution for alleged war crimes and others are being captured and tortured," a top US official said.

Granting an amnesty would be a "huge political football" before the November mid-term congressional elections in the US, he said.

But he added: "This is what we did after the Second World War, after the Civil War, after the War of Independence. It may be unpalatable and unsavoury but it is how wars end."

The Government intends to form a committee to distinguish between groups that can be considered legitimate resistance and those that are beyond the pale.

"For those that defended their country against foreign troops, we need to open a new page ... They did not mean to destabilise Iraq. They were defending Iraqi soil," said Adnan Ali, a senior member of the Dawa party of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Reading directly from the draft deal, Mahmoud al-Mashaadani, the parliament's Sunni Speaker, told The Times: "There will be a general amnesty to release all the prisoners who were not involved in the shedding of innocent Iraqis' blood."

The Iraqi Government and the US embassy refused to name the insurgent groups in the talks.

But Mr Talabani said that after the last meeting the groups went away to agree their position. He had since received "a message from a common friend that they are ready to discuss finalising an agreement with the United States and the Iraqi Government".

The draft marks the first time the Iraqi Government has endorsed a fixed timeline for the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq.

"We must agree on a timed schedule to pull out the troops from Iraq, while at the same time building up the Iraqi forces that will guarantee Iraqi security and this must be supported by a United Nations Security Council decision," the document reads.

One insurgent group in the talks said the timetable for withdrawing foreign troops was key.

"We are not against the formation of the new Iraqi Government, but with certain conditions, which are to put a timetable for the pullout of US troops," said Abu Fatma, from the Islamic National Front for Liberation of Iraq.

Mr Khalilzad and Mr Talabani have used the threat of Iranian influence in Iraq to persuade the rebels. "I have said to the Sunnis, they complain to me about Iran, but some of the things they are doing in terms of their fight and the insurgency is serving Iranian interests," Mr Khalilzad said.

Link:
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19572456%255E401,00.html

 

[jigs]

I am all for a withdrawl......one where SDis withdraws from this board!

 

[Disagreeable]

Let's pray that this happens. It will save lives on both sides and has a chance - a prayer - of stopping the civil war that will destablize the Middle East further and is not in the interest of U.S. national security.

I just saw a similar article on a Reuters link, so maybe it's going to make it's way into the US media.

 

[Econ101]

Vietnam should have taught us that we can not fight ideological battles for other people on a continuous basis. There comes a point in time that the sacrifices have to be born by those recieving the benefits or we just create another welfare state. We can have a military intervention to give others a chance, and we can give them the tools, but much like a horse taken to water, you can't make them drink. They have to be thirsty for it.

I hope the discussion of troop withdrawel gets out of the (U.S.) political opportunist phase and into the (Iraqi) politic real phase for the sake of everyone we put into harm's way. Our troops deserve this and so do the people of Iraq.

 

[RoperAB]

Vietnam should have taught us that we can not fight ideological battles for other people on a continuous basis. There comes a point in time that the sacrifices have to be born by those recieving the benefits or we just create another welfare state. We can have a military intervention to give others a chance, and we can give them the tools, but much like a horse taken to water, you can't make them drink. They have to be thirsty for it.

I hope the discussion of troop withdrawel gets out of the (U.S.) political opportunist phase and into the (Iraqi) politic real phase for the sake of everyone we put into harm's way. Our troops deserve this and so do the people of Iraq.

Where is your outrage over the money we are wasteing in Bosnia? Look at the money we are spending there to save, protect and take care of muslims who most look at Ben Ladden as a hero.
Try walking around in Bosnia waving an American flag and see what happens even though every (millions)muslim and croation is costing you about $800 a year.

 

[Econ101]

Vietnam should have taught us that we can not fight ideological battles for other people on a continuous basis. There comes a point in time that the sacrifices have to be born by those recieving the benefits or we just create another welfare state. We can have a military intervention to give others a chance, and we can give them the tools, but much like a horse taken to water, you can't make them drink. They have to be thirsty for it.

I hope the discussion of troop withdrawel gets out of the (U.S.) political opportunist phase and into the (Iraqi) politic real phase for the sake of everyone we put into harm's way. Our troops deserve this and so do the people of Iraq.

Where is your outrage over the money we are wasteing in Bosnia? Look at the money we are spending there to save, protect and take care of muslims who most look at Ben Ladden as a hero.
Try walking around in Bosnia waving an American flag and see what happens even though every (millions)muslim and croation is costing you about $800 a year.

I don't see muslims (as a whole) the problem. Some elements of the muslim world are using the faith as a poltical tool much the same way the religious right is doing here in the U.S. Do we "win" this war with force, or in some other way? Iraq should hold some lessons for us here.

I don't like Congress spending my money the way they do in a lot of ways. I least like it when they allow a system where the "rich" or those with money are given advantages that those who live off their labor do not get.

The Bosnian deal I would have to research as I don't know who is footing the bill. It should be mostly European, in my opinion. You do have keep in mind that WWI started in Serbia and quelling unrest in that region of the world is in everyone's best interest, but most especially Europe's.

I advocated (and actually wrote a letter with my friends to Bill Clinton) going into Bosnia. It has gone much better than Iraq and much less costly.

On the cost of the Iraq war, I don't know how much the U.S. is benefitting from Iraq's oil. This should be taken off the costs that the U.S. is paying for Iraq but I have not seen how this is working out. Maybe the cost of the Iraq war is much, much more than we know. Just assume oil production is 2 million barrels per day on average. That is roughly 130 million per day (based on $65/barrel) gross and just over 45 billion per year gross. For a country the size of Iraq, that is a lot of foreign investment infusion just on its own. They have about 25 million people.

Iraq's oil production:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html

 

[Disagreeable]

Vietnam should have taught us that we can not fight ideological battles for other people on a continuous basis. There comes a point in time that the sacrifices have to be born by those recieving the benefits or we just create another welfare state. We can have a military intervention to give others a chance, and we can give them the tools, but much like a horse taken to water, you can't make them drink. They have to be thirsty for it.

I hope the discussion of troop withdrawel gets out of the (U.S.) political opportunist phase and into the (Iraqi) politic real phase for the sake of everyone we put into harm's way. Our troops deserve this and so do the people of Iraq.

Where is your outrage over the money we are wasteing in Bosnia? Look at the money we are spending there to save, protect and take care of muslims who most look at Ben Ladden as a hero.
Try walking around in Bosnia waving an American flag and see what happens even though every (millions)muslim and croation is costing you about $800 a year.

Get real. Bosnia was a UN and NATO sanctioned move. The US did not just jump out and attack a smaller, weaker country as Bush did Iraq. Our Allies stood at our side. The Europeans paid their share of the Bosnia costs, just as they paid their share of Desert Storm costs. The comparison is about as good as the WWII comparison. :roll:

"$800 a year"? ROTFLMAO! Iraq alone is costing this country $1.1 billion a week. Each and every week. Then we have Afghanistan at about $1 Billion per month! Since the invasion, we've averaged close to $2 billion a week in Iraq, but costs are down. I guess Halliburton got a lot of their money up front. The only figure I could find says that rebuilding Bosnia was expected to cost about $6 Billion. And the US did not pay all of that. If you can find something else, by all means post a link. And when Bill Clinton was president, we had some money. Since George W. Bush gave all the tax cuts to the rich in this country, we've been borrowing the money we're wasting in Iraq! :roll:

This link tells us there were 263 US troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina during 2005, down from a high of 15,000 in 1996. 15,000! We've had well over 120,000 in Iraq for three years and no end in sight!

Unless George W. Bush has sent more troops to Bosnia, I doubt it's costing us a lot of money to keep that small group there. And I say bring them home, too.

http://heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/troopMarch2005.xls

 

[RoperAB]

Vietnam taught us that you cannot fight a war with one hand tied behind your back.
Vietnam taught us how damageing disinformation and propaganda can be.

Vietnam taught us that the enemy expects us to "Cut and Run". Thats what the Tet offensive was all about. They knew that they would loose the battle. But they also knew that the timing was right so that the American public would demand that they "Cut and Run".
Won every battle but yet lost the war because of Liberal Hippies. Thanks <sarcasim>

 

[Disagreeable]

Vietnam taught us that you cannot fight a war with one hand tied behind your back.
Vietnam taught us how damageing disinformation and propaganda can be.

Vietnam taught us that the enemy expects us to "Cut and Run". Thats what the Tet offensive was all about. They knew that they would loose the battle. But they also knew that the timing was right so that the American public would demand that they "Cut and Run".
Won every battle but yet lost the war because of Liberal Hippies. Thanks <sarcasim>

We lost the war because the Administration(s) wouldn't commit to fighting it fully. We were limited in how the military was allowed to respond to attacks from outside the country.

Vietnam, just like Iraq, did not have any impact on our nation's security. We had no right or reason to be there. (BTW, I supported the Vietnam War.) The draft was badly flawed, rich kids (like George W. Bush) didn't have to go, poor and middle class kids had no choice. There were plenty of reasons to turn against that war and gradually the American public did turn away. It hasn't taken nearly as long for us to realize Iraq is a mistake. I guess we can learn from mistakes. Well, all of us except George W. Bush. He refuses to acknowledge making a mistake. So more Americans will die while he strokes his ego. But there is hope. I'll post another thread about the proposal apparently being made by Iraq.

 

[RoperAB]

Here is what a Vet has to say
The "Iraq equals Vietnam" argument is not new -- nor is it the exclusive purview of the American political left. Osama bin Laden has alluded to Vietnam in several of his "video diatribes" released in the Islamic press. U.S. and European media elites have tried to equate "atrocities" in Iraq with events like My Lai in Vietnam.
Fortunately for us, Messer's Kerry, bin Laden and Hagel are wrong.
Having spent a good bit of time in both wars, it's my observation that there are few if any parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. Aside from the reality that bombs and bullets still kill and maim, and the blood of courageous American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines is still red, Baghdad isn't Saigon; Fallujah isn't Hue City and battling terrorists in Al Anbar Province is totally unlike fighting the North Vietnamese Army in the A-Shau Valley. Those who think otherwise should watch this week's episode of "War Stories" on the FOX News Channel about the sanguinary, 10-day fight to take Hamburger Hill.
By May of 1969, when the famed 101st Airborne Division slogged to the top of Dong Ap Bia -- the cloud-shrouded mountain's real name -- there were more than 400,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam and over 48,000 had been lost to enemy combat. Today, after three years of war in Iraq there are fewer than 135,000 U.S. troops on the ground and as of today, 2,500 that have been killed in action or died of wounds.
Critics of how President Bush has handled the war in Mesopotamia cynically point to mounting casualties as a way of linking combat in Iraq with what took place nearly four decades ago in Vietnam. There is no doubt that every casualty is a tragedy. Yet the difference in combat losses between the two wars is staggering. At the peak of the war in Vietnam -- 1968-'69, we were losing more than 35 killed in action daily. In Iraq, the "morbidity rate" is fewer than 2.5 per day.
Then there is the difference in enemies. Our opponents in Vietnam, though certainly capable of extraordinary cruelty, never made videos of their captives being beheaded. Unlike homicidal suicide-terrorists I have seen in Iraq, the NVA soldiers I confronted then -- and those I interviewed in Vietnam just a few weeks ago in the shadow of Hamburger Hill -- all wanted to survive the experience.
Finally, there is the issue of outcome. We lost the war in Vietnam -- not on the battlefield -- but in the corridors of power in our nation's capital. We pulled out and abandoned our South Vietnamese allies, and two years later they were overwhelmed. We can still lose this war the same way.
On his trip to Baghdad this week, President Bush sought to reassure Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that, "I've come to not only look you in the eye. I also come to tell you that when America gives its word, it keeps its word." Let's hope we do.
Oliver North

 

[Disagreeable]

Oliver North isn't paying attention this week. It's the Iraqi Prime Minister who is making plans to get us out of his country. And it's US Army General Casey who is setting deadlines and outlining time tables for an exit from Iraq. Are you guys going to accuse him of "cutting and running." ROTFLMAO!

 

[mp.freelance]

Oliver North isn't paying attention this week. It's the Iraqi Prime Minister who is making plans to get us out of his country. And it's US Army General Casey who is setting deadlines and outlining time tables for an exit from Iraq. Are you guys going to accuse him of "cutting and running." ROTFLMAO!

If they seriously ask us to leave, then I don't think we have a choice. Otherwise, it would indicate we don't consider the government to be legitimate. Why are you always so combative?

 

[Econ101]

We "cut and ran" in Vietnam and Laos. These are hyped words to elicit a political stand. I hope that the decisions to withdraw----and we will withdraw, is based not on the politics at home but on the politics in Iraq.

The military did an excellent job for us in Iraq. The Iraqis need to stand up for themselves instead of allowing American soldiers to be their "patsy".

The question isn't whether we will withdraw from Iraq, it is in what way and what are we leaving behind? The answer to those questions will tell us if this Iraq war was worth it. We will not know the answer to that question for some time after the withdrawel and it will be largely dependent on the actions of the Iraqis themselves.

I hope Iraq is up to the challenge. 130,000 civilians dead or wounded on their part. Our cost for their "chance" at a better government is not even included in those numbers.

The wisest use of force is not always when to use it but also when not to use it.

 

[kolanuraven]

Did ya hear the news this AM?

Casey is setting up his timetable for withdrawl!!!!

It seems that this admin. goes the same route with any BIG decision....first it's NO- NO -NO- NO -NO-...NO WAY!!!!!....then within a few weeks they are going with the idea they so strongly rejected and ridiculed as their own idea!!!!

Sounding more and more like Vietnam every day.....all those soldiers died and we then we left out and the Communist have ruled the country ever since!!!


Such a C.F.!

 

[Mike]

Did ya hear the news this AM?

Casey is setting up his timetable for withdrawl!!!!

It seems that this admin. goes the same route with any BIG decision....first it's NO- NO -NO- NO -NO-...NO WAY!!!!!....then within a few weeks they are going with the idea they so strongly rejected and ridiculed as their own idea!!!!

Sounding more and more like Vietnam every day.....all those soldiers died and we then we left out and the Communist have ruled the country ever since!!!


Such a C.F.!

Republican Party cannot afford to lose anymore votes is my interpretation. This was predictable. I'm okay as long as we're getting out for the right reasons and certainly if the Iraqi government thinks it's time but if it's to garner votes in November, then methinks they have been talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Funny, folks are bitching and moaning to bring the troops home and when someone in the administration mentions it.............

It's the administration who is cutting and running!!!!!!!!! Hilarious!!!!!!!

 

[Mike]

Everything revolves around the almighty election year nowadays.

Only a few people on this earth would know for a fact if the lastest maneuver is because of the elections. It could be because things are starting to wind down in IRAQ because their military is gaining numbers and the government is starting to take control.

This speculation at it's finest. I can see it being coincidental. Every single move by any administration cannot be a conspiracy.

 

[Disagreeable]

I can see it being coincidental.

"coincidental"! ROTFLMAO!

 

[RoperAB]

I only have a minute so I have to make this really short.
When we pull out of Iraq I hope its done in such a way that the Iraq government and people have the ability to control these insurgents and would be war lords.
I pray that we dont have to go back there in 12 years time and do this all over again.
The mountain is always the steepest just before you get to the top.
I hope there is no cut and run just before the job is finished.
Im under the impression that if you are completely out of there before the next American Federal elections this fall that everything will go to sh-t in Iraq.
Politicaly im thinking once we withraw from Iraq its going to be hard to go back there if its necessary in the near <15years>future.
If these people who claim they care about the people of Iraq really did care they woud have the same concerns that I do.

 

[RoperAB]

Is it possible that all this withdrawel talks is just political posturing? Im thinking it is.

 

[Econ101]

I hate to be 20/20 on the hindsight here, but we should have supported the Kurds in their uprising against Saddam after the first Gulf War so the Iraqis could have fought their own battles.

It is real hard to change a whole country from the inside when we did not support it from the outside. There was no "conditional" surrender of Japan or Germany, there was an unconditional surrender. We allowed Iraq to continue the way it was going for a variety of reasons (Turkey not wanting Kurds to have power, no U.N mandate for more, unwillingness to spend more lives and treasure, ready to appease in hopes of limited reconciliation; it did not happen). Gulf War II was just a continuation of I. The military knows you have to go in with overwhelming military force (Powell Doctrine or something like that) and the same is obviously the case in the peacekeeping phase. There was a policy error in this regard.

We can not rule Iraq as a continual police state. At some point they have to do the job themselves.

This, as all of the decisions, should not be as politicized as it is. Democrats are not saints and neither are republicans. They both have to make policy decisions and often times they are both wrong. You should never be caught up in the overall group of republican or democrat to allow politicians to hide from the consequences of their decisions. We should expect more from the politicians than the way they try to frame the debate.

A democracy should always have the debate, but it should be about the issues, not over posturing for political purposes of democrat vs. republican. I don't think God's truth, which should be our goal, is encompassed in either party but can be found in members of both parties. These issues are American issues and should be fully vented and the truth for either side should not be ignored because of party affiliation with the Christian right or what ever group happens to be the group of the day. There is no party affliation with Christianity, it is a personal matter. If there was, we would all be catholic. The Christianity we express should be seen in the actions we take from a personal conviction, not a party conviction.

It seems too much of this is going on. Sometimes this problem is bigger than the problems with the issues.