Putting your money where your mouth is

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:08 pm

In response to the Democrats call for immediate troop pullout from Iraq, the Republicans replied, " O.K. if that is how you feel, then lets have a vote on it." So here I wait, watching on CSPAN how the votes will come in. Lets see who votes to cut and run and who votes to stay the course.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:47 pm

Well for awhile there I was understanding Murtha's point of view...right up until he used the word "occupation". Now I'm sure thats just how the troops think of themselves. Why I bet the troops stationed in Germany think the same thing as do the troops in Japan and Boznia and Korea. All of them are occupation troops.
Speaking of Boznia, why after ten years do we still have troops there? Peaceful place now as I understand it. Weren't they supposed to be home by Christmas...oops I mean the Holidays? Please excuse my slip of the tongue.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:08 pm

Name 10 Democrats that have called for immediate troop withdrawl.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:14 pm

Vander wrote:Name 10 Democrats that have called for immediate troop withdrawl.

In congress or just anywhere?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:17 pm

Congress. Fred down the street doesn't count.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:30 pm

i love this 'we can't cut and run' mentality that's goin about.

says to me that a lot of politicians believe that if the troops pull out, the US is a pansy.

lol.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:37 pm

No, I just think the practically-minded politicans realize that if we pull out of Iraq, it will be (more of) a shithole 10 years down the road. And then what happens? Other countries turn around and say that we abandoned the Iraqi people while thy needed our help most in assembling their fledgling republic.

Either way, it's lose-lose. It's more practical to keep troops there to do whatever they can now than it is to wind up with an even more broken Iraq down the road whose decrepit state is our own fault.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:19 am

DCrazy wrote:No, I just think the practically-minded politicans realize that if we pull out of Iraq, it will be (more of) a ****hole 10 years down the road. And then what happens? Other countries turn around and say that we abandoned the Iraqi people while thy needed our help most in assembling their fledgling republic.

Either way, it's lose-lose. It's more practical to keep troops there to do whatever they can now than it is to wind up with an even more broken Iraq down the road whose decrepit state is our own fault.

ten years down the road? you'll be speakin Chinese and visiting Greater Persia. Maybe the Chinese can complete D4.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:38 am

Vander wrote:Name 10 Democrats that have called for immediate troop withdrawl.

Immediate as in immediate phased withdrawel?

Since all members of the house now had to vote and only three voted for "immediate withdrawek" then we can now catagorically show the other 400+ congressmen are for the troops to remain in
Iraq. One good thing is that perhaps we will hear less of Kennedy using the "quagmire" word and more of "support our Boys". In defense of Murtha (I'm surprising you, no?) I got the feeling his intent was to spark a debate to once and for all to end the political bickering over the Iraq war. His most emotional statement (yes I alsmost got teary eyed) was how the grave-stones at Arlington do not have "democrat" of "republican" etched upon them. Let us hope this vote sends a message to the terrorists that America is now resolved to finish the job.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:04 pm

woodchip wrote:Immediate as in immediate phased withdrawel?

However you meant it in your original post. I'm guessing you mean immediate rather than phased, since you say republicans put it to a vote, and the "it" resolution was for immediate withdrawl.

I'll spot you the 3 that voted for the republican resolution, so name me 7 more. You said "the Democrats call for immediate troop pullout.." as if this were a widely supported Democratic initiative. It is not. That's the obvious point I'm trying to make.

Personally, I think a phased withdrawl isn't the worst idea. That doesn't mean defeat, as is widely claimed. It puts the onus on Iraqi's to do more and more of the heavy lifting. Iraqis won't do it until they believe we won't do it for them. That heavy lifting will have a nationalizing effect that they can be proud of. A smaller US footprint in Iraq means fewer sources of hatred, fewer targets of hatred. Withdrawl is not a goal, it can help us reach our goal.

If we keep talking up withdrawl as defeat or surrender, we will never be out of Iraq until it really is defeat or surrender.

I'm hardly an expert on this stuff, but when has that ever stopped me.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 4:36 pm

As to the democrat thing, judging from the standing ovations by the dem. when Murtha mad his case I'd say there were a lot of dems. in favor of immediate withdrawel. The vote was a protective reaction to cya. So no I cannot come up with ten other than Kerry and Kennedy et al who have made the pitch for immediate reduction.
As to my views on a phased pullout, I think once the December elections are held (hopefully with Sunni participation) it becomes a matter of the legitimate Iraqi govt. requesting us to leave. One can look at a pahsed withdrawel is all ready taking place as the Iraqi's are taking more and more responsibilty over policing their country and american troops are no longer patrolling every where as they once did. I suspect the Iraqi's will ultimately allow at least one american base to remain functional after all is said and done. After all, gi's spend good money on leave and continuing american expertise cannot be discounted. Also Iraq I think is uneasy with Irans on-going attempt to destabalise their countey. An American presence would not hurt to have around.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:10 am

Palzon wrote:ten years down the road? you'll be speakin Chinese and visiting Greater Persia. Maybe the Chinese can complete D4.

wow! interesting statement.....and not to denigrate the fine work by the creators of the Descent series but if it hadda been started by the Chinese we would prolly be into D8 or D9 by now...and no, I'm not Chinese.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:15 am

will_kill wrote:
Palzon wrote:ten years down the road? you'll be speakin Chinese and visiting Greater Persia. Maybe the Chinese can complete D4.

wow! interesting statement.....and not to denigrate the fine work by the creators of the Descent series but if it hadda been started by the Chinese we would prolly be into D8 or D9 by now...and no, I'm not Chinese.

No, there would be no D3 because they wouldn't tolerate a game where the people rise up and fight back...probably no tolerance for gaming period!
Plus just look at how, in general, little to no inovation comes from slave labor and/or oppressive state controlled workers...

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:46 am

Will Robinson wrote:
will_kill wrote:
Palzon wrote:ten years down the road? you'll be speakin Chinese and visiting Greater Persia. Maybe the Chinese can complete D4.

wow! interesting statement.....and not to denigrate the fine work by the creators of the Descent series but if it hadda been started by the Chinese we would prolly be into D8 or D9 by now...and no, I'm not Chinese.
No, there would be no D3 because they wouldn't tolerate a game where the people rise up and fight back...probably no tolerance for gaming period!
Plus just look at how, in general, little to no inovation comes from slave labor and/or oppressive state controlled workers...

heh...it does'nt matter how many 'idiots' they have, there are so many people that they have a surplus of intelligence within their upper eschelons.
They (Chinese) are just being their usual patient selves...watching, waiting, learning, poised for a pre-emptive strike.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:13 am

I'd tell them to vote, vote on making Bush tell them what his timetable is. Right now it's drive around the country and wait till someone shoots at you. Yea, mission accomplished.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 4:59 pm

Zuruck wrote:Right now it's drive around the country and wait till someone shoots at you.

I read a lot of stuff from a lot of military people in Iraq -- Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, you name it -- and never once have I heard any of them describe their job as "drive around and wait till someone shoots at you".

As for the timetable / exit plan: the plan is to win. The timetable for redeployment is whenever sufficient Iraqi forces are in place. As a commenter on Blackfive said:

In 2003, when I was over in the sandbox, the estimate I read stated we'd start pulling our forces out of Iraq in 2006 at the earliest. We seem to be holding true to course here. Of course, that date was based on the process of establishing a functioning Iraqi government. The trigger for withdrawal was never based on time-only on events and conditions.

Zuruck, you want Bush to tell you his timetable. Thing is, he's said it hundreds of times -- the troops will come home when the job is done. They'll come home when certain conditions are met. We know the milestones that need to happen, such as training Iraqi security forces, and we can estimate when those milestones will be completed, but it's silly to set up a rigid timetable. You don't bring the troops home because it's July 18, 2006 -- you bring the troops home because the conditions on the ground are such that the troops are no longer needed.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:23 pm

will_kill wrote:
heh...it does'nt matter how many 'idiots' they have, there are so many people that they have a surplus of intelligence within their upper eschelons.
They (Chinese) are just being their usual patient selves...watching, waiting, learning, poised for a pre-emptive strike.

I heard on the news that the Chi-coms are not particulary worried about a nuclear retaliatiion attack from the U.S. If true, this is a vast departure from the MAD philosophy we had with the Russians and the world should pause to reflect upon the Chinese view on war.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:43 pm

Bleh. If the Chinese nuke us, who are they gonna sell all their stuff to.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:32 pm

if only Bush were as elequent as you Lothar.

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:38 am

John Kerry wrote:
Dear Alexander,

We're doing what we set out to do -- putting the hardest questions about the direction of President Bush's Iraq policy front and center and demanding a specific timetable from the President about when our troops can come home. The major speech I delivered yesterday has generated an amazing response.

If you haven't yet seen excerpts of the speech, click here.

I'm writing today to ask you to join me in demanding that the Bush administration immediately put forward a detailed plan with target dates for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn and start coming home to their families. Our brave troops require leadership equal to their incredible sacrifices.

Please sign our Citizens' Petition on Iraq right now

As I made clear yesterday, there is no reason Iraq cannot be relatively stable, no reason the majority of our combat troops can't soon be on their way home, and no reason we can't take on a new role in Iraq, as an ally not an occupier, training Iraqis to defend themselves by the end of 2006.

Now, I need your help to put pressure on Republican members of Congress to stop going along with the Bush administration's disastrous "stay as long as it takes" approach and to start exercising their critical oversight role.

It may take months of effort and organizing by all of us to break through. But, I promise you this, we won't stop working until we do. If Bush doesn't act, we'll demand that Congress steps in to fill the void.

You can help right now by signing our petition demanding that President Bush deliver a concrete, detailed plan to Congress and the American people.

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/iraq.php

Let's work together to create the kind of enormous public pressure it's going to take to force George W. Bush to change course in Iraq. I urge you to stay engaged in this effort.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

P.S. We're going to have to move mountains to get the Bush administration to change course. Please forward this essential petition to as many people as possible right now.

AAAAAAAHHHHHH

Behemoth · Post by **Behemoth** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:01 am

Immediately PHASED withdrawl would be an excellent idea, Do you realize how much of a difference in security it is without those troops here?

Also i think that if bush keep's this idea of staying as long as it takes, hell we could be there forever.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:03 am

woodchip wrote:I heard on the news that the Chi-coms are not particulary worried about a nuclear retaliatiion attack from the U.S. If true, this is a vast departure from the MAD philosophy we had with the Russians and the world should pause to reflect upon the Chinese view on war.

very good point

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:47 pm

Kerry asking for target dates? And some of you honestly thought he'd make a good president? HAHAHAHAH!

Kerry saying there's "no reason we can't take on a new role in Iraq, as an ally not an occupier, training Iraqis to defend themselves by the end of 2006."? That's a nice piece of political maneuvering. He already knows Iraqis are being trained and that they're taking over security operations in some areas. He already knows, based on estimates from before (see my quote from Blackfive a few posts ago) that a lot of troops are expected to come home in 2006. By making this statement, he's trying to make it look like he's the driving force behind starting things that are already happening. In a couple years, he'll come back and say "back in November of 2005 I called on the president to [ see above ] and, because of me, he did! I'm a great leader, and you should vote for me as president!"

Everybody remember this when 2008 rolls around.

Behemoth wrote:Immediately PHASED withdrawl would be an excellent idea

PHASED withdrawal is an excellent idea... but IMMEDIATE phased withdrawal might not be. The keyword, of course, being "immediate". I don't think it's time to decrease troop levels yet, based on what I keep hearing from guys on the ground and from their commanders.

All along, I've been hearing people in Congress say "Bush f***ed up by not sending enough troops" while the generals in Iraq said "Bush gave us all the troops we asked for." Now, the very same politicians have changed tactics to say "Bush is f***ing up by keeping too many troops in Iraq" while the generals in Iraq are still saying "Bush gave us the exact number of troops we asked for". I'm just going to say, I think the generals out there commanding the troops have a better idea of how many troops they need than Congress does.

i think that if bush keep's this idea of staying as long as it takes, hell we could be there forever.

Spend some time reading what soldiers are saying, especially in comparison to what they were saying 6 months ago or a year ago. A lot of progress is being made. It's not going to take "forever" -- troop levels are going to start decreasing soon, and while there may be a permanent military presence in Iraq because it gives us an easy way to strike Iran, we won't have 250,000 soldiers over there much longer.

---

Bush's biggest problem is that he doesn't explain things well all the time. He talks like a Texan with dyslexia... and his speechwriters, apparently, aren't smooth enough to take his policies and put them into words the general public will understand. He doesn't have a single speechwriter who'll write him a speech like this:

fake Bush speech wrote:We're not going to bring troops home from Iraq based on what day the calendar says it is. We're going to bring them home when the mission is complete. We're going to bring them home when the job is done. We're going to bring them home when certain milestones are met.

Iraqi security forces are being trained. We have [number of ISF] ready to take over security operations in [regions], and [another number of ISF] still in training.

Every day, more and more Iraqi citizens turn against the terrorists in their midst and send us tips on their whereabouts. Terrorist strongholds are being shut down, and conduits for smuggling terrorists from neighboring countries are being cut off. ISF are beginning to take the lead in these operations.

[Blah Blah Blah, more milestones happening, a couple of date-estimates of possible accomplishments, blah blah blah.] As these milestones are met, the ISF become more capable, and Iraq becomes able to stand on its own, we'll need fewer and fewer US military personel in Iraq. As each major milestone is accomplished, we'll bring more troops home.

Thank you, and God bless America.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:38 am

First off phased withdrawels are starting. A couple of troop brigades are slated to be pulled out shortly.
Secondly our committment to staying the course is paying off. Seems a couple of insurgent groups have announced they are taking up the Iraqi govt. offer to become part of the political process. Perhaps the writing is on the walls that fighting the new democracy is a dead end. If we would have followed certain liberals advice and turned tail, I suspect the terrorist would now be offering the Iraqis "certain" terms.

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:59 am

Lothar wrote:Kerry asking for target dates? And some of you honestly thought he'd make a good president? HAHAHAHAH!

I'm actually more annoyed that he's spamming me.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:43 am

Lothar wrote:By making this statement, he's trying to make it look like he's the driving force behind starting things that are already happening.

Don't think for a second that BushCo. isn't also eyeing future elections, and playing the positioning game. I think Kerry would have made a decent president. At the very least, he would've sounded eloquent while making bad decisions.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:04 am

Someone had the same idea as I did in the Wall Street Journal... a speech Bush *should* give that explains the future of US troops in Iraq within the context of what's actually going on there, specifically referencing the Iraqis preparing to take over security there.

Vander wrote:
Lothar wrote:By making this statement, he's trying to make it look like he's the driving force behind starting things that are already happening.
Don't think for a second that BushCo. isn't also eyeing future elections, and playing the positioning game.

Of course. Everyone does it. Even though Bush can't be elected president again, he knows people on his staff can (and probably will) run for various positions in the future. So, he and they posture and position and try to find the best way to win votes.

The main difference, at least with the specific case in Iraq, is that the Bush administration is trying to win votes by convincing people that what they're doing is a good idea. Kerry is trying to win votes by convincing people that what the Bush administration is doing is Kerry's good idea.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 3:00 am

That's funny. Bringing the troops home is Bush's good idea, not Kerry's idea! I'd start channeling Birdseye and the two party blah blah blah, but I've had too much wine.

The troops have to come home sometime. We really will have a problem fielding the current number of troops in Iraq. Guess when? 2006-2007. A drawdown has to happen, unless we either A) get a massive influx of volunteer's signing up, or B) institute a draft. Declining support for the war is hurting option A, and making option B an impossibility. So who's idea is a 2006-2007 troop drawdown? It's the Pentagon's.

So what will happen is, success will be defined as whatever the situation is when we run out of troops.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:00 am

Vander wrote: We really will have a problem fielding the current number of troops in Iraq.

Funny we don't have a problem with having troops in Bosnian. Maybe if we pulled half the troops from where they wre stationed in other parts of the world and stuck them in Iraq we wouldn't have a problem.

And Kerry as president? Good idea. Look at all the fun I'd have here.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:53 pm

Vander wrote:That's funny. Bringing the troops home is Bush's good idea, not Kerry's idea!

The general plan of "eventually bring the troops home" has been there from day 1 from everybody.

What Kerry is trying to do is make it sound like the Bush administration never wanted to bring the troops home, but that somehow Kerry convined them to start bringing troops home in 2006. Never mind that the Bush administration has been saying "they come home when the job is done" for years, and the Pentagon has been estimating "the job will be done for some of them in 2006" for quite a while...

I think you have to intentionally misread what I say to come away thinking I've claimed bringing the troops home is "Bush's good idea". Bringing the troops home WHEN OBJECTIVES ARE MET has been a good idea shared between the Bush administration, most of Congress, the Pentagon, the guys on the ground, me, and millions of others. None of us deserve the credit for having the idea, but the Bush administration deserves the credit for following through with it (at least so far), and Kerry deserves ridicule for trying to make what's actually happening look like it was his idea that Bush is finally going to listen to next year.

We really will have a problem fielding the current number of troops in Iraq.

what will happen is, success will be defined as whatever the situation is when we run out of troops.

Less than a minute of searching the web got me to SecDef's 2004 annual defense report. In the section on numbers of troops it says there were 2.5 MILLION people in the military at the end of 2003. 1.1 million of those were deployed (meaning, away from their home port or duty station) sometime during the year, for an average of 110 days each.

I find it hard to believe that troop levels of under a quarter million -- under a tenth of the total size of the military -- would be unsustainable. Especially since the military is not shrinking -- low recruiting numbers and high reenlistments pretty well cancel out. Read Rumsfeld's letter from about a year ago for a response to your "draft" suggestion...

Honestly, I just don't see where you get this idea that we're going to "run out of troops" or that we're going to have trouble fielding that many. What's your source for this information?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:25 pm

It's been tucked away in numerous articles recently. The latest one I saw was an LA Times article a couple days ago. (not sure if it was wire content) I don't think many of them drew the conclusion I did, but it seemed like a salient point as a source of withdrawl pressure. I'll try and dig up more when I'm back from vacation.

Behemoth · Post by **Behemoth** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:38 pm

You have to ask yourself the question now, If Kerry had made the election and won the presidential seat would he have immediately pulled our troops from that area?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:41 pm

It just tickles my funny bone that Kerry's email is calling for Bush to deliver a timetable, when during his campaign he consistently asserted that he had a concrete plan of his own. Why is there no mention of it in the email?

[spoiler]Cause he never had one.[/spoiler]

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:13 am

what, you expect kerry just to tell bush what to do?

lol

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:12 pm

No, but I expect that there would be some reference along the lines of "Persuade Bush to implement my plan for withdrawl."

In an ideal world, it would be backed up with a legislative proposal.

Both are conspicuously absent, lending further creedence to my belief that neither Bush's supporters nor detractors have any clear-cut schedule for metered troop withdrawl. Whether this is proper or not (I'm with Lothar in that any sort of set-in-stone schedule is foolhardy), it indesputably exposes a lie of the Kerry campaign.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:34 pm

Joe Lieberman lays the smack down...

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:10 pm

Good find, Lothar.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:18 pm

Speaking of my fake Bush speech... here's something real, and along the same lines. (Read the whole executive summary.)

Bush's strategy for victory in Iraq wrote:Our Victory Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions Based
o With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.
. + No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.
o But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time. As conditions change, our posture will change.
. + We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.
. + While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize.
. + Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:08 pm

First, how do you "win" this unconventional war? There are no boundary lines, no political factions, nothing, how do we win this? Will we ever? Is Al-Qaeda the only terrorist group that wants to kill Americans? I understand that these things are hard to predict but I think most people would like one thing Lothar, for Bush to get up in front of people and just say "We didn't plan for any of this"...because they really didn't.

Why are we in Iraq again?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:23 pm

because we needed to take out a crazyman who had WMD's!