Originally Posted By Dabob2 This was an interesting editorial. It's written by a former asst. Sec'y of Defense under Reagan and his colleage - this are not left-wingers. It talks about what they term "strategic redeployment." It also talks about what an utter failure they feel the Bush policy has been. It's an interesting possible middle way - not "cut and run" and not "stay the course that isn't working" either. <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-toptruk4515718nov17" target="_blank">http://www.newsday.com/news/op inion/ny-toptruk4515718nov17</a>,0,7373450.story "The Senate's strong bipartisan support on Tuesday for a resolution calling for concrete steps toward a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq shows that Republicans and Democrats alike are unhappy with President George W. Bush's direction and leadership of the war. The Bush administration's numerous mistakes - sending in too few troops and not providing proper guidance or equipment - as well as its frequent changes in the strategy for Iraq's political transition and reconstruction, have left us with no good options." Some of us have been saying this for a while now - the Bush decision to invade and the series of bad decisions afterward has left us grasping for the lesser of several evils. "The status quo in Iraq is untenable. It is slowly but surely eroding American power and weakening our ability to keep Americans secure. But simply shifting gears into reverse and implementing a hasty withdrawal from Iraq is not the answer. The only measure of where and when to use our military forces is: Does it make us safer? Nearly 31 months into the continuous deployment of more than 100,000 troops to Iraq, the clear answer is that having such a large number of troops on the ground is actually diminishing our security and not making Iraqis more secure. The United States must begin redeployment in January, right after Iraq has its next election - whether to elect a permanent government or an assembly to draw up a new constitution. The Bush administration has left us with no better choice. We believe the United States needs to pursue a plan of strategic redeployment - a threat-based strategy to target U.S. efforts against global terrorist networks and bring greater stability to Iraq and its neighborhood." (snip) "Strategic redeployment differs from other plans for what to do in Iraq by recognizing that Iraq is now connected to a broader battle against global terrorist networks - even though it wasn't before the Bush administration's invasion." Boy howdy!! <Strategic redeployment rejects calls for an immediate and complete withdrawal, which would only serve to further destabilize the region and embolden our terrorist enemies. But strategic redeployment also rejects the current approach, right out of Osama bin Laden's playbook, for a vague, open-ended commitment that focuses our military power in a battle that cannot be won militarily, as Gen. George Casey, commander of the multinational force in Iraq, recently told Congress. Our military presence in Iraq continues to feed the notion of occupation and extends the time for Iraqi forces to become self-sufficient. The time has come for strategic redeployment of our forces." Discuss.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Douglas, will you be heading down to your local recruiter to sign up? Or you just support sending other people places?
Originally Posted By ElKay Seriously, unless the GOP members jump ship on Bush or the Dems win control of the Senate in '06, there's little chance that Bush is going to change direction until the last months of his term (his legacy). What strikes me as interesting is how similar this middle way proposal and Rep. Murtha's call for a six month commencemnt for withdrawl are. These two alternatives afterall come from people who are closer in political viewpoints than the Bush neocons or the ultra-left of the Democrats. In some respects Sen. Kerry's views on how to get out of Iraq are actually nearer to Bush's than Murtha's or this middle way proposal. The "chilling challenge" is literally to "find a way out!". Bush's rhetoric on Iraq has painted this Admin. into a corner. If we pull out even a sizable percentage of our troops from Iraq before the insergents stop their bombing campaign, then the insergents have won a moral victory against Bush's crusaders. As a consequence to Bush's absolute "victory before dishonor" stance, we could very well face an extended stay like the nearly 25 years we were in Vietnam or the 30+ years the British occupied pre-Baathist Iraq from the 1920's until the late 1950s. I hate to tell you, but our one chance to leave Iraq in the least number of years was back in 2004, with the election of John Kerry. Yeah, yeah, I know it's like red meat infront of neocons. However, since Kerry was both not a Republican and heavily criticized Bush, that would have given him, as president, a free-er hand in radically changing course in Iraq. Sure a President Kerry would forever be branded by the neocons as the man who "lost Iraq", but if instead of being bogged down in Iraq, the US was able to counter terrorism as a covert operations campaign, we would overall be better served. Keep in mind bin Laden rose to prominence in the Islamic World by his campaign to force the US military out of "holy" Saudi Arabia, put there by Bush I. Bush II's supreme blunder was not recognizing this fact when he decided to invade Iraq and realize all of the worse fears of anti-Western Islamic fundamentalists.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If you talk to THE TROOPS, they will tell you that we are winning and all this hand wringing and democrat hyteria is only serving to help the enemy. Of course this is nothing new. We need to have the next Iraqi election, train the Iraqi forces, and pull out when things stabilize. Talking about leaving before the job is done is foolish and shortsided. Yes, Syria is next. Something has to be done about them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas, will you be heading down to your local recruiter to sign up? Or you just support sending other people places?> I will sign up if they raise the age to 42 before I turn it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-983408.php" target="_blank">http://www.armytimes.com/story .php?f=1-292925-983408.php</a> When's your birthday? >>Yes, Syria is next. Something has to be done about them.<< You're well under 39, Beau. Douglas has an out. What's your excuse? <a href="http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp" target="_blank">http://www.goarmy.com/flindex. jsp</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <When's your birthday?> Dec 10, 1964. Hopefully they'll raise the age in the next few months.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<You're well under 39, Beau. Douglas has an out. What's your excuse?>> I will be 39 in a few days actually. This subject when brought up people in the military is interesting. They resent people undermining their mission a lot more than a guy like me who is a civillian who supports them. Make no mistake, the democrats are undermining the military and the country efvreytime they lie that Bush lied. YOu just know this little bit of energy the libs have now is all going to come crashing down on them like it always does. In the end, the country took Bush over Kerry when they had a chance to choose. The entire Bush lied BS was being thrown arond 24/7 last year and it didn't work for them. Won't work in 08.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <If you talk to THE TROOPS, they will tell you that we are winning and all this hand wringing and democrat hyteria is only serving to help the enemy.> Where are all these stories about how well it's going in Iraq? Why can't we get THE TROOPS to tell their stories? You're telling me that the media is so lib-infused that they're not letting positive stories in? There must be a way to get these stories out to the American people. And not by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity who make even the hardest-line U.S. citizens want to cream pie them in the face. Get Oprah on the scene!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Where are all these stories about how well it's going in Iraq?> Too often, they're ignored by many reporters, or buried at the bottom of bad news. Here's a roundup: <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007245" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ extra/?id=110007245</a> Here's another good one, that also lays out how we're winning the military struggle. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/crawford200511090801.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ comment/crawford200511090801.asp</a>
Originally Posted By cmpaley Right wing opinion sources, which spin things to the Administration's specifications, does not reliable news make.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer How about links to primary sources that indicate how well things are going, instead of to editorials or news outlets?
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Can somebody give me a plain English definition (not a military euphemism) of what "strategic redeployment" really means?
