I hate the phrase "Cut and run"

[Poiuyt]

It implies cowardice.

I think that if we were to leave Iraq now it would be for the betterment of America, the betterment of Iraq and the betterment of the whole world.

[Skidmore]

1. It's part of the talking points for the Rs now, probably test driven

in focus groups by Luntz. We need to counteract it.

[Guckert]

2. Sounds more like how the GOP leadership handled the call to Vietnam

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I prefer

Plan versus No Plan.

People who want the troops out now have stated that their plan includes asking for international assistance in stabilizing Iraq, I believe. If the international force could come from mostly Muslim countries, so much the better to defuse the situation.

Bush has no plan for withdrawal from Iraq-ever. Why else are we building 14 US bases there?

[sam sarrha]

4. cut your losses and get out to prevent more, it is hopeless and stupid

to lose anymore .

makes sense to me...

[wtmusic]

5. I prefer "surrender"

They can call it "withdrawal with dignity", "bailing with honor", or whatever they like--as long as they bring everyone home now.

[sam sarrha]

7. surrender is when you give up and the take you, C&R you get away

[Selatius]

9. Defeated would be a more apt term, IMHO

The government set about trying to accomplish specific goals, and if it fails to accomplish those objectives, then that's a failure, a defeat. The government can lose the war, not the American people. We just lost our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, but it was always their war, not ours. Not ours.

[sam sarrha]

10. we werent 'defeted', we killed as many as Saddam, it is a tie...!!

[proud patriot]

6. that's exactly why that phrase is used by the R wingers

[Selatius]

8. The counter-argument is that staying will still do some good

However, such an argument requires that a) we have a working policy now, and b) if there is no working policy, one will be provided soon, and c) we have sufficient resources to accomplish the mission.

We don't have a working policy, and since Bush is in power until 2008, I don't think we'll be changing to a new policy, as that would be an admittal of error on Bush's part, and he won't do that. We also don't have the troop numbers needed to destroy the resistance in Iraq, and given the number of civilian casualties, we probably never will. We would need 500,000 to 600,000 soldiers to get a lid on the resistance over the next several years, numbers we DO NOT HAVE unless we bring back the DRAFT LOTTERY.

If this scenario I illustrated isn't exactly what is facing us, I'd wager I came pretty damn close to the reality.

[BlueCollar]

11. Cut and run isn't neccessarilly a bad thing IMO

Bear with me while I explain my opinion.

To "cut" one's losses in the face of an unsuccesful strategy and "run" is a valid military strategy.

History teaches us tht failure to do so leads to disaster of epic proportions.

For instance: the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. The disastrous French campaign in Viet Nam. Napoleon's invasion of Russia.

The British Army was faced with such a choice in WW 2. Winston Churchill wisely decided to "cut" and "run" at Dunkirk ceding France but saving thousands of British and French forces to fight at a mor appropriate time. The US Army was forced to do the same during the early phases of the Pacific Campaign.

The situation in Iraq is a disaster. Here, we are faced with a tragedy for which George Bush and Tony Blair bear almost complete responsibility. I say almost because responsibility is in some part shared by the International community that failed to adequately hold these individuals to a standard of civil behaviour and the "Coalition of the Willing" went along with the plan.

The men and women of the armed forces have been placed in a disgraceful situation and the problem we have created will not be resolved by a unilateral and immediate withdrawl of our forces.

Colin Powell did say, "If you break it you've bought it." The act is we broke it, so now we have to buy it. To ignore the vacuum of power in he region that we created is to ignore the lessons of the Balkans. Our decision to invade Iraq has created a Middle-Easten version of Serbia, Croatia, Kosovo etc. The inevitable civil war that will wreak havoc in Iraq will eventually spill over into a Northern seperatist movement by the Kurds thus drawing Turkey into the conflict, and Shiite factionism in the south will inevitably draw Iran into the conflict. In the west, the Sunnis will draw Syria into the conflict.

I agree that we shuld acknowledge our need to leave Iraq. What troubles me is that we have no "Exit Strategy."

Having said that, we have no obvious strategy for winning a war that was ill-conceived by the civilians such as Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowiz, Pearle and the like.

In the end, I don't think that "Cutting and Running" with respect to Iraq is nearly as dishonorable as "Breaking and Entering" with the clear intent to not "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

[damntexdem]

12. Well, Monty Python DID say it better:

"Run away! Run away!"