Carville is right,if you pull out 50,000,the rest are hung out to dry.

[Swede]

Casualties would actually increase if you dithered as you pull out. It's either clear out completely,or send in more to control the situation.

[iconoclastNYC]

1. How do you figure?

They are being blown up by bombs. Less troops less opportunity for the bombs to blow up underneath our troops.

I call bullshit.

[Swede]

3. So as Iraq spirals out of control cause there's fewer troops

those few become safer. I call bullshit.

[MidwestTransplant]

5. Depends. If they retrench and don't go on patrol, etc

they won't be as exposed. That said, I think that was the idea months ago but it's clear the Iraqis can't get the job done themselves and thing continue to deteriorate.

[Kingshakabobo]

8. Then what would be the point of being there? If all they are going to do

is hold up in a bunker? That would be a worse waste of time and money than we have now.

[leftchick]

15. It is all about the bases

the US will withdraw into those permanent bases from which further ventures in the ME (Iran and Syria) are to be conducted. The WH has adamantly refused to answer to why those bases are being constructed.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH06Ak02.html

<snip>

Basic questions about bases
By Ashraf Fahim

Bases built to last
It is an open question whether or not the Bush administration will be willing to give Iraqis the type of guarantee being called for. Any serious withdrawal is a long way off since, by most accounts, Iraqi troops are far from ready to take over from the US. Incoming head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, informed Congress on June 29 that a recent classified Pentagon report had concluded that only "a small number" of Iraqi troops could fight the insurgency unassisted. And many analysts feel that the administration wants to keep a presence in Iraq irrespective of Iraqi military preparedness in order to safeguard America's larger strategic interests in the region (chiefly oil).

Joost Hiltermann, of the International Crisis Group (ICG), told Asia Times Online it would be strange if America didn't intend to stay in Iraq. "One of the reasons they invaded, as far as I can tell, is because they needed to shift their military operation from Saudi Arabia," he said, "and Iraq was probably the easiest one in terms of a big country to support their presence in the Gulf." The idea that the US wanted to swap Iraq for Saudi Arabia was acknowledged by then-deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz in an interview with Vanity Fair in 2003.

[Swede]

17. Won't work. Google Dien Bien Phu.

A completely surrounded base would be a fucking catastrophe.

[leftchick]

20. I know that and you know that

but the insane neo-freak fuckers running this country obviously don't. And their DINO enablers as well.

:(

[Kingshakabobo]

6. Are you kidding me?

Half the troops means half the coverage to "control" the insurgency. That's what it is all about. Coverage. We never had enough troops to cover the country. Drawing the troops down for political reasons will embolden the insurgents (for real).

It's all or nothing.


BTW, I'm in the nothing camp.

[Swede]

7. Me too.

Get out now,no more wasted lives.

[peacebaby3]

19. The troops left would be sitting ducks.

The goal of the insurgency is to drive out the American forces and they will still work just as hard and there will be less troops to monitor the activity.

My husband was there for a year. We both think we should pull out because most ppl. do not want us there. We should fund the rebuilding of what we destroyed (huge amount of our tax $$ - thank *)and either leave it to the Iraqis to rebuild or try to get NATO in there. It might be ok with NATO, but as long as Americans are over there under the US flag, it will be a disaster.

Oh, and by the way, the Americans are doing a horrible job at rebuilding anyway because they don't seem to be able to grasp what is needed in the country. i.e. While my husband was over there, in a neighborhood, the Americans were constructing houses and buildings very similar to the ones you would see here in the US. Well, the Iraqi ppl. kept trying to explain to them that those types of buildings would not work there - that the heat and sand storms would have them ruined in less than 10 years. Do you think they listened? NOPE. My husband said it made perfect sense and that he agreed that it was really stupid to build those types of structures. Oh well, we're Americans and we are always right! :sarcasm:

Now having said all that, my husband thinks that regardless of when we leave that there is a really good chance there is going to be civil war or the shiite Iraqi government will become a close associate with Iran and be much more of a threat to America than it ever was under Hussein. It will also be brutal for the minorities in the country. So, what did we accomplish besides killing a lot of ppl.? hmmmm...nothing.

[mdmc]

2. Isn't it nice that Carville is right?

Wish he was "right" about justifying this war.

[wakeme2008]

4. BS..IF you pull out the killing troops and leave the Corp of Engineers

to get the electric and water going. And protection for them. IMHO the locals would stop killing US troops. They want water and electric WORKING.

[Swede]

9. They'd get trapped in the middle of a civil war.

The Iraqis just love Americans over there you know.

[aasleka]

10. iraq

The Iraqis'want to do their own work, all contracters should be of Iraqi nationality subcontracting as they see fit.

Give them a stake in their country for REAL and it won't matter how many troops we have in there. Idle habds are dangerous, put the country to work. Give them a new deal, not the RAW deal Bush has given them.

[CrispyQ]

13. Yes!

And that is what I thought when I read about reconstruction -- that we would pay Iraqis to re-build their country. Provide them with jobs & a purpose. Instead, the money goes to Halliburton & our VP of Greed.

[Kingshakabobo]

16. That was part of the neo-con economic plan from the beginning.

A free market utopia where everyone would get fat except the Iraqi surfs. But first, the country had to be torn down to the foundation. Explains a lot regarding our lack of desire to stop the rioting.


This article is an oldie but a goodie. I believe it is still relevant to the situation now as it goes to explain the our mind-set and how we pissed off a population.

Baghdad Year Zero:

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html


edit: spelling

[CrispyQ]

21. Thank you

I've printed this & will read tonight.

[CrispyQ]

11. I think you are right.

I read something last week about the 'reconstruction' in Iraq & could not believe what awful conditions the Iraqis are living in - thanks to us. Electricity for a couple of hours a day, no water to wash or do your wash.

And here in America, we shower every day & waste water on stupid business park lawns that no one ever uses. Can you imagine the whining & sissy fits the people in this country would have if they had to face 100+ degree heat with no water & no air? "WHAT? I can't have my 2nd refrigerator to keep my Coca-Cola cold?"

[Kingshakabobo]

12. If we leave now it's going to mean civil war

and the last thing we want is our troops caught in the middle of that. Keep in mind, they are still uniformed troops. They rely on the rest of the troops for force protection.

I think the "humanitarian" horse has left the barn long ago. Besides, what government would they be working under?


BTW, I believe it will be civil war if we leave later also.

On edit: the killing troops ARE the protection troops. Hence, the midnight raids against civilian homes. They are grasping at straws like any other occupation force before them.

[Rex]

14. The weaker your force, then the stronger the enemy

They sent in 500,000 for Gulf War I!!! And that wasn't even to capture and control Iraq!

This is a complete FUBAR situation our troops, the Iraqi rebels and civilians from all sides find themselves in. A true shit sandwich and everyone has to take a bite.

[Kingshakabobo]

18. Who knows. Maybe General Custer sent half his troops home

so the Indians would have less to shoot at.

:shrug:

[okieinpain]

22. i agree with carville, bush has screwed us all.

[MadHound]

23. Then hell, let's get all of our troops the hell out of there

We needed to do that long ago. Pay reparations to every Iraqi family, pay for all repair work, pull out our troops, pull out our crony capitalist companies, and let the Iraqis repair their country.

All our continued presence is going to do is to get more people killed on both sides of this insanity.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Damned fine argument for getting them all out. It's now or later.

The "war" is lost. How many more dead before some politician bites the bullet (bad metaphor) and admits it?

[Lannes]

25. Strength in numbers

Less to watch your back.

[catmandu57]

26. We need to be gone yesterday

Drawing down to half strength, then crossing our fingers until the elections are over clearly won't work. The troops go into their fortified bases, they'll have to keep choppers and gunships in the air constantly to provide protection.
In the meantime the Iraqis dig out some air defense systems and swat them.
We screwed thing up big time lets get the hell out, pay for what we've broke and try to clean the taste out of our mouth.
These neoconvicts have faile to evolve, they'll stubornly hold on to their vision of world domination while we're all circling the bowl.