Cut and Run? Hell yeah.

[BeFree]

Viet Nam, the late 1960's. A democratic president was faced with two courses in that war.

One was to stay the course and keep sending live soldiers overseas in return for over 50,000 body bags. A majority of Democrats at the time resisted the the course of their party's president. But LBJ won his argument and he succeeded in bringing back to America those over 50,000 body bags.

The other course of action would have been to cut and run from Viet Nam. But LBJ and a few other democrats along with a majority of republicans decided to stay the course.

Well, the US ended up cutting and running from Viet Nam anyway, but only after the live soldiers had been traded in for more than 50,000 flag draped coffins.

So, you ask me should we cut and run from Iraq, and I say hell yeah!

[dkofos]

1. The sooner the better

[JohnnyRingo]

2. If the administration began making plans for withdrawal back when it was

first suggested, it would have been timely and well executed, not "cut and run".
As it is nothing has been done to lead us out of the hornet's nest. Instead, it seems we're hunkering down in the Green Zone and fortifying the perimeter with moats and walls for some insane "long haul".

In military terms....
We're surrounded.
We're circling the wagons.
Once our supply lines to Baghdad are cut, we'll have to bomb our way out.

They better hope no other Middle East country gets involved on the side of the Sunnis, Shia, or both.

[Poiuyt]

3. "Cut and Run? You Bet" - Great article by Gen Odom

Cut and Run? You Bet.
By Lt. Gen. William E. Odom
May/June 2006

Why America must get out of Iraq now.

snip -

Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam for his invasion of the country in 1980. For al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the United States in the world diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the trans-Atlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for any improvement.

In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.

None of these prospects is possible unless we stop moving deeper into the “big sandy” of Iraq. America must withdraw now.

Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.) is senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and professor at Yale University. He was director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988.

more-

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3430

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Run, scamper, skedaddle, bolt, but get the hell out.

If for no other reason than it's a flop, a failure, a lost "war", a disaster. It has accomplished not one, not any, none, of the stated objectives.

The "Change of Course" should be to bring the troops home, discharge them, and give them something useful to do.