Standing Down from Iraq Will Not Make the Iraqis More Likely to Stand Up
By gideon1789 Posted in Archived — Comments (57) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[promoted from diaries by haystack...I would be the loudest proponent of withdrawal too, gideon1789...well timed and well said my friend...]
In his column in the L.A. Times today, Max Boot points out:
"The question that opponents of the war effort have to answer is: Will Iraq's problems become better or worse if we pull our troops out? Few who have spent any time in Iraq doubt that an American withdrawal would trigger chaos that would make the recent fighting in Basra look like a picnic. That would be not only a terrible stain on our honor (we might be indirectly responsible for genocide) but a significant strategic setback because it could destabilize the entire region."
All well and good, Mr. Boot, but you have ignored the fact that proponents of retreat do have an answer for this question, which is, in my own phrasing:
"Far from hurting Iraq, a retreat would do the most to help Iraq. The Iraqis are free riding on American forces. They won't provide for their own security until we leave. We have to leave to force them to stand up for themselves."
It is this position that supporters of the mission in Iraq must confront. It is not enough to assert that retreat would mean chaos. War opponents argue that the converse is true.
It would be very, very nice if the war opponents were right. If they were, I'd be the loudest proponent of withdrawal. But it goes against all the experience we have had thus far in Iraq.
More below the fold...
For more than three years, American forces did not provide adequate security in Iraq. At night, we stayed in heavily fortified bases. During the day, we patrolled in vehicles. We could not protect Iraqis from terrorism, extremist militias, or even ordinary criminals. How could law-abiding, peace-seeking Iraqis stand up for themselves if they knew that doing so would probably get them killed (and their families, too)?
No, it was the new strategy and the "surge" which created the security that allowed Iraqis to start standing up for themselves. They forged new alliances to resist the extremists. They enlisted by the tens of thousands in the Iraqi Army. They even began solving large political problems (de-Baathification, budget, municipal elections, etc.).
But we are still early in that process. It has only been about 15 months since we began implementing the new strategy, and only about 10 months since we fully implemented it. It takes a lot more time to form a capable new army, to work through all the big political issues, to lay the groundwork for a free market economy.
The anti-war folks want to measure our accomplishments over the last year against our total time in Iraq (5 years). But the clock didn't start ticking on the new strategy until it about one year ago.
What is amazing is how far Iraq has come in this brief time, whether you measure it from January 2007 or from June.
Imagine how much further along Iraq will be if things continue along the same trajectory for another few years.
(cross-posted at www.win-the-war.com)
It's a strange definition of "winning": No matter what we "win," we still can't withdraw troops because Iraq will become unstuck again?
If we're winning, then HOW are we going to wrap up this war? If we're winning, then what does the endgame look like; and are we getting closer to it?
I really don't understand what the specific goal is we're still trying to achieve. What EXACTLY still has to happen in Iraq so that we can say "We've succeeded" and we can safely withdraw our troops with honor and pride? And what can we do to ensure those things happen in a reasonable time frame?
We can wave our hands about "democracy" and "stability" and other buzzwords, but those do not automatically translate into specific military objectives for our troops to complete.
Let me give you some specific examples:
If we can totally cleanse Baghdad of al-Qaeda, can we withdraw our troops then? Or not?
If Sadr holds to his cease-fire, can we withdraw our troops then? Or not?
What exactly has to happen so we can withdraw our troops?
so I don't know why you're asking it, unless you didn't read what I wrote. If you don't like my answer, then let's hear your reasons for disagreement.
Regarding the endgame, here's my rough definition (although it's a bit dated since I wrote it last summer): http://winthewar.squarespace.com/what-is-victory/
Third, your timeline is off. Successful reconstruction doesn't take one year. We were an occupying force in Germany for 10 years after 1945. It was similar in Japan.
Finally, your focus is too narrow. Military operations are only one part of our COIN strategy. Gen. Odierno himself said last month at the Heritage Foundation that COIN involves economic support, political support, civil support, etc.
It's already been established that most Iraqis, 1) are not members of al Qaeda, and 2) are not in support of al Qaeda. So while our military effort may be able to kick them out, they'll just come back when we leave. Al Qaeda's home is just across the border, so they will always be in the position to wait us out. So if you truly want to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq, then you have to defeat them in Saudi Arabia. And that means taking on Wahhabism in the belly of the beast.
This week, a Saudi woman's death at her father's hands was cited by a Muslim cleric in his criticism of the Internet social networking site, Facebook. A Saudi news site reported the unnamed woman was beaten and shot after she was discovered in the middle of an online conversation with a man. Facebook became the subject of controversy in Saudi Arabia after preacher Ali al-Maliki labeled it a destructive force against Islam. He claimed the web site is an open door to lust and said it was corrupting the youth of the nation. It is obvious Islamists deem murder of their children less corruptive to religious standards than their children’s online chats.
IPI/IHC, April 8, 2008
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
is it your contention that the US should attack Saudi Arabia? Should the US have attacked Saudi Arabia before Iraq? Instead of Iraq?
Why not Pakistan? Shouldn't we attack Pakistan? Oh sure, they are nominally our ally, but then, so is Saudi Arabia. Should we attack Pakistan?
Whenever leftist start throwing rocks at our foreign policy by suggesting other, more worthy targets, I have to sit back and say WTF? Because I can just imagine the HOWLING from the left had we attacked SA because of 9-11 and the Bush Doctrine (You know the Bush Doctrine -- you are either with us or against us)
Of course, before 9-11 Pakistan was most decidedly against us. But, after 9-11, given a choice, Pakistan decided to be an ally instead of an enemy.
Perhaps you believe that the Saudi Kingdom is still an enemy. Is that what you believe? So, should we attack them?
===
When small men cast long shadows, it is a sign that the sun is setting on the Democrat Party
Yes! The Saudi Kingdom is our enemy -- where have you been? Saudi funded mosques teaching militant Wahhabism are rapidly spreading throughout the world.
But war is only that last resort. First and foremost, we must force them to end their global evangelism of Wahhabi Islam and their reluctance to apprehend corrupt members of the royal family. There is no way in hell we can win the War on Terror without the success of those objectives.
Saudi Arabian Bankers Fueling Global Islamic Jihad
Talia Zarbiv, IsraelNN.com, February 21, 2008Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, said at the Jerusalem Conference Tuesday that Saudi Arabian bankers are the main financiers of global terrorism.
”Saudis are using money in order to corrupt the West, to fund terrorism, and eventually to take over the West,” said Ehrenfeld. “For years, Saudi Arabia has been a main supporter of terrorism, both physically and financially, and their illegal activity is now causing many innocent investors to commit serious crimes without even the knowledge that they are doing so.”
According to Ehrenfeld, Saudi Arabian bankers have roughly $1 trillion ready to be invested through means of what she terms “financial Jihad.” The financial practices she refers to as “Sharia financing” are run according to Islamic law, governed solely by the Koran and with no distinction between public and private practices. “Legitimate financing goals are literally indistinguishable from immoral and illegal practices, causing unsuspecting companies and individuals to unknowingly fund terrorism.”
So let me ask you a question. Do you really beleive that maintaining the status quo with Saudi Arabia (appeasment) will actually hasten the defeat of Al Qaeda and Islamic extremism?
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
You have a group of people hostile to the very fact that you breathe purely because of your religion.
There are several nations that all share the same religion with these people and support their efforts to kill you.
Unfortunately, attacking one in particular would be cause for a very large number of people who also share that religion to attack you even though they don't actually agree with the people you're trying to destroy.
Now what?
Real world: We hit Afghanistan, then Iraq, and we're gearing up to make Syria and Iran the next on our list, slowly, but surely isolating Saudi Arabia in hopes that they will take the steps that will make invading them unneccessary but simultaneously helping to ensure that those who would rise up in the Saudi's defense in the case of an American invasion of Mecca would think twice about doing so.
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
Real World: None of what you described would isolate Saudi Arabia nor cause them to reverse course.
Saudi Arabia is backed by the GCC (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and UAE), OPEC (Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, UAE, Venezuela, and Ecuador), has a strong ally in Egypt, and a strengthening hand in Africa thanks to the spread of Wahhabism and Sharia Law. Crucially, Saudi Arabia has moved beyond the political and religious spheres of influence to include banking. Most importantly, we're actually encouraging their efforts.
Banks are helping sharia make a back-door entrance
Tarek Fatah, Globe and Mail Update, January 25, 2008The campaign to introduce sharia is back. Last time, the campaign took a populist approach, invoking multiculturalism. This time, the pro-sharia lobby is dangling the carrot of new niche markets and has the backing of Canada’s major banks. Such icons of the corporate world as Citibank NA, HSBC Holdings PLC, and Barclays PLC have endorsed sharia banking and have started offering Islamic financing products to a vulnerable Muslim population...
Ignoring Sharia's Advance Extremely Stupid
Diana West, Townhall.com, February 23, 2008To date, what should be a momentous civilizational debate -- liberty versus Sharia -- has fizzled into politically correct hemming and hawing over "extremism." This poses a transcendent challenge to McCain. Can he make it clear that such "extremism" is only a part of the problem? Does he even believe that? We urgently need to understand that Western-style liberty -- freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, women's rights, equality before the law -- requires vigilance and protection in an era of advancing Sharia.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
to fight wahhabism on multiple fronts (diplomatic, financial, military, legal, etc.), then i agree.
but you haven't responded to raven's overall outline of what should be our strategy, and that outline is pretty good.
No offense, but that strategy is dumb.
Wahhabism is Saudi Arabian (Sunni) invention - or rather, a re-interpretation of Islamic radicalism originating in Egypt. Iran is diametrically opposed to Wahhabism, and Syria is a marginal player at best. An attack on those nations benefits the Saudis and the GCC in the same way toppling Saddam benefited Iran.
Afghanistan is a non-entity. The only nation in that part of the world that supports the Saudis is Pakistan. They're very, very close to one another and they're both our "allies." So how is that an effective policy of isolation?
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
that a serious alternative viewpoint is dumb.
it's clear that you have some interesting things to say, but your viewpoint is not clearly the best and Raven's clearly wrong. so lose the 'tude.
what you haven't shown, for instance, is that the islamism that revolutionary iran supports does much to counteract the wahhabism that saudi arabia vigorously exports. by changing iran from a mullah state to a free state (by whatever means, hopefully peaceful), we are not necessarily doing anything to help wahhabism.
that's just one assumption you've made.
but i do appreciate your thoughts. they're definitely interesting.
And that is assuming that the religion itself isn't the problem rather than a few radical sects.
The purpose of isolating Saudi Arabia in the manner I described is to reduce the likelihood of a general Islamic uprising worldwide in the case of a US/Western invasion of Mecca. You don't risk going to war with over a BILLION people simultaneously all over the globe, tens of Millions of whom are INSIDE your own nation.
Afghanistan is not, emphatically Not, a non-entity. Going there first was for several purposes:
1st) It's where Osama launched his 9/11 attacks from. No one could complain about our invading in response without some intense scrutiny in return.
2nd) It's on Iran's Easter border. If Iran is ultimately on our list of targets, we want to be able to hit them from as many directions as possible and cut off their supply lines and foreign support.
3rd) It's on Pakistan's Western border, with our ally India on their Eastern/Southern border. Pakistan has been held together by duct tape and money for so long that we need to be ready to hit THEM on a moments notice if the Islamists take control there.
Follow me so far?
Yes, we are enabling Saudi Arabia, a habit I very much disagree with, but is also the same strategy so many people are proposing we undertake with Cuba when it comes to exporting our values and government to them.
It's also something we're forced to do, primarily because of oil. They have it. We need it. Better than half of our government refuses to allow us to get it from other sources and are even trying to Increase our dependence on Middle Eastern oil despite all their talk about "Foreign dependency is bad! We must be 100% energy independent! I'll make that happen by chasing away all our oil companies with higher taxes and more regulations!"
As for your comments about Africa, I agree, we'll have to go there, too, eventually. However, if Somalia is any example, doing so should be more difficult or expensive than material and fire support while their own people do the dirty work. Of course, that'll mean officially closing our eyes to HOW they do it. But it'll get done. And efficiently at that.
So, now that you have the details of what I would do and what I THINK is being done, what would YOU do? What's Your infinitely superior and not dumb plan?
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
you should write a diary on this subject. What you are putting forward is worth considering and we certainly need to consider what our actions against any one particular enemy in the Middle East will end up affecting our other enemies there.
I am not sure I agree, but you're certainly making me think.
Have lots of links to supporting info. Something I am not even competent at, really. That's why I put this stuff into comments. I'm a forest guy, not so much for the trees...
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
I don't do the whole leaf, bough, branch detail work...
Too much intuition and "wild leaps of logic" for that. Makes me good at puzzles and problem solving. Not so great at logistics or sales (though the Army is working hard to change the latter through experience)...
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
We have heard from Congress that there are 18 benchmarks Iraq needs to achieve. Google it.
From the White House on down, we have stated in every translation (find one you comprehend) that we will stand down when they can sustain and secure themselves.
The exit strategy, endgame, and "redefine victory" nonsense is also clearly hyperbolized across the web..google can be your friend.
We withdraw our troops when we are not needed. We stay until then, in whatever number it takes until Iraq is a self-sustaining sovereign nation, able to fend for itself and sustain itself including being able to confront the next wave of AQ or the next Sadr...or whatever new crisis comes Iraq's way. Today they can not.
Bringing troops home is not an endgame...if you paid attention to the men doing the work you would understand this is not a game at all, however much fun the anti-war crowd is having while "playing" it.
Period.
You may not LIKE that, but that is the answer.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Success. If you want a definition of "success," I'd recommend the DOD's oft-stated (but MSM-ignored) endstate for Iraq: a nation that can defend itself, defend its people, and does not threaten its neighbors.
What we don't want to do is "quit."
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
We are Americans, and we do not lose unless our "representative" politicians decide we should. Thanks
Tim Schieferecke
Defend itself and its people from what exactly?
Terrorism?
Pirates?
Iran?
The Indian Army?
All of the above?
I'm hoping the DOD's endstate is much more defined than what was stated above.
_________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
And I just started thinking about Hannibal Rising
You know, that scene where he's cooking the guy's brain a piece at a time and feeding it to him?
Anyway, the connection it has to this conversation is that I wonder if you were a Hannibal survivor...
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
Wow- that was hilarious. I almost feel like typing a ridiculous acronym to characterize all of the rolling and laughing I'm doing right now. When you've graduated the 5th grade feel free to try again.
Get a stupid answer.
Stop and think before posting and you won't get so many enjoyable replies...
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
point are you trying to make
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
My point is the same as the people currently attacking another poster for referring to Iraq as "dire and deteriorating."
Both statements are vague and say/mean nothing.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
thank you, too, simpson.
DO NOT EDIT THIS POST.
:-)
Doing so will yank it from the front page!
Good job-I'll have my own thoughts tomorrow...
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
to Mr. Boots' comments, which you quoted:
"That would be not only a terrible stain on our honor..."
Yet another one, in yet another time of war.
"...(we might be indirectly responsible for genocide)..."
...Again.
Oh, and we already tried standing down to let them stand up. It didn't work in the 90s. What makes these people think it'll work now? 30 years of tyranny does strange things to the human psyche. It will be a long time before the scars are healed and the Iraqis are truly self-sufficient...
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
we need to look at the near history, but also at the longer history. when you do that, it's even more amazing how much progress has been made. it's also sobering - we still have a job ahead of us.
but obviously we are not going to keep that progress if we take off. i was just listening on npr to someone who said that if we have made progress then we should be able to draw down.
right.
that's like saying that if we increased the police presence in a neighborhood full of criminals, and the police were able to drive out the criminals, we should immediately remove the police.
(of course, it's thinking just like this that let crime grow almost unchecked in many american cities in the 70's and 80's. i'd rather not apply that thinking to iraq.)
"but obviously we are not going to keep that progress if we take off...[again]"
That's my point. We went in in the 90s and the Iraqis welcomed our troops with flowers and celebrations. Then we left and everyone who took part in that was punished. Severely.
This is a people that doesn't trust us. They keep looking for the boats and planes that will take us out of their country just like the last time. We can't risk drawing down. They'll see it the wrong way.
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
and the democrats were among the biggest critics of that decision, too
but now they're just fine with abandoning the iraqis
oy
I do have one issue though, not really with your post.
One thing that really troubles me that was talked about in the hearings yesterday was Iraqi money...why are they building up huge amounts of cash , some in US banks, and not helping us more foot the bill?...
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
I have a couple comments.
1. What is almost never mentioned is that Iraqis are already paying for their reconstruction in the most important way: lives. They are taking three to four times the military casualties as Americans, partly because Iraqi units are leading so many missions now.
2. I'm not sure where the Iraqi surplus came from, and they may not be, either. I'm guessing that their economy has been so volatile - with oil production changing, the level of violence going up and down, etc. - that they couldn't know whether they'd end up running a deficit or a surplus. Probably because of the recent increases in oil production and, above all, the remarkably increased security due to the new strategy, revenues have received a surprise boost.
I am sure they are adjusting their numbers to spend it to help us.
I wish I had more than a guess to offer. I'll try to research this a bit.
Iraqi costs in terms of blood.
I do think that the D pols yesterday used this issue in a cheap way. It's almost been kept quiet for a long time, at least I've not heard a lot about it.
I guess my main point in bringing it up is that since it was used yesterday in the hearings, it will no doubt be brought out again in months to come.....I just hope the we can craft a good answer.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
I was stating that for others rather than for you. (I could have made that clearer.) It was a point I wanted someone to make in response to Sen. Boxer's insistence that Iraqis weren't paying their way.
But I agree that the point is an important one, and Republicans should be asking hard questions just as (some of) the Democrats are. No one should be giving a free pass to the administration nor to the generals. We've made too many mistakes - we can't afford more free passes.
Also, both parties should want to make sure that Iraq is not hoarding money while we spend ours. And you are quite right to say that we need to have a good answer to this particular anti-war attack because even though it's cheap, it could be harmful to the pro-victory side.
I don't have a better answer yet, but if I find something out in the next few days, I'll post it here.
and, as Haystack said, well-timed. Did anyone else notice Hillary's arguments yesterday for a full pull-out were basically, "the job isn't done yet"? What an idiot.
Well done, Gideon.
Fred Thompson, 2008
(perhaps i shouldn't have been) that she couldn't come up with any serious arguments against the war.
those arguments exist and can be made, but very few are making them. i'm not sure why hillary relied on transparent cheap shots and misleading statements (such as "there's no political progress").
the trouble with most of the democrats in the senate is that they simply aren't serious about the war.
if the president takes their advice - as he did when he chose a new sec.def., a new general, a new strategy, and more troops - they swing around and say, "oh it's too late now."
if there's military progress, they say there's no political progress. if there's political progress, they insist that there isn't, and then they insist on changing the subject to the alleged cost of the war.
they avoid the hard questions, and they propose no alternative strategy for protecting the security of the u.s.
indulge me while i repeat that (i'm still in disbelief myself): it's been almost 7 years since 9/11 and the democrats still have proposed no serious alternative strategy for protecting our nation.
if pres. bush hadn't made big errors in iraq, and if the congressional republicans hadn't gone through a spending spree and a series of scandals, the democrats would be a shrinking minority because they have so little to say about the single most important issue facing the country.
"It takes two people to lie Marge"
"One person to lie and one person to listen...."
My guess is that some of it gets siphones off by corruption and waste, some goes to Foreign Military Sales other goes to reconsturction....you get the point. But, last we heard Iraq had had over a 100 billion dollar surplus. Good for them, the oil is finally flowing, but just where is that money going exactly? I agree with not all, but much of what is said here, but the money question troubles me. Where does our 12 billion a month go? Why don't we hear about Iraq footing a bigger monetary bill?
I've seen your entries on the blog. If you haven't, and you need someone to convince David or Joel to let you join, please contact me at my private e-mail. We need all the Wahoos we can get!
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Even though I'm not a vet, they let me be a member beginning last summer after I attended the first Vets on the Hill event (along with Jeff Emanuel and The Fastest Squirrel).
Really? The only significant things I've seen are the Anbar Awakening and the Mahdi cease-fire - neither of which have much to do with our military presence.
- Publicus
"We have given you a republic if you can keep it."
the surge commenced, you may want to try again on neither having anything to do with the US presence in Iraq.
Given that the Iraqi Parliament has hit 12 of the 18 benchmarks that the US Congress set for them, how many of Nancy Pelosi's campaign promises have been accomplished in the last 2 years?
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
I have to give you props for being consistent [-] consistently wrong[,] that is. What is consistent is that the [A]dministration that got us in this [undeclared] war [-] that would be [C]ongress and the [P]resident[*] [-] has no clue [on] how to get out. Not in the history of the world has any nation successfully conquered this region[,] or changed [its] political climate for more than a brief moment in time. The statement you make that the US can somehow win this war is not backed up by any historical event in the [M]iddle [E]ast in [either] modern or ancient history. We just do not belong there[:] [we] never have, [and we] never will.
[]
The so[-]called ["]conservatives["] on this site have complet[e]ly abandoned any logic that can justify a limited war on the enemy[']s terms. Our policy should be [n]on[-]intervention unless threat[e]ned [-] then unlea[s]h the fury. When[]ever we leave[] [-] [whether it's] now[,] or 20 years from now [-] the region will still be inhabited by a culture, make that a religion[**], so divided and morally co[r]rupt as to display beheadings and executions in the name of God. The people of Iraq need a wake up call[:] not by the withdraw[a]l of US troops, but by th[ei]r own leaders[,] in th[ei]r own language. If Freedom is what they desire then as you stated th[ei]r lives [-] and yes[,] even th[ei]r families will have to sacrifice in order to achieve th[ei]r goals. As for the reconstruction money[:] from day one they should[have paid] with blood and treasure[,] as we have from day one.
[*Again, I don't edit for sense.]
[**And this is where I banned the bigot. - Moe Lane]
after all these people are just too stupid and backwards to even understand the concept of personal freedom, or to want anything for themselves or their families.
/snark
===
When small men cast long shadows, it is a sign that the sun is setting on the Democrat Party
YOu owe me a new monitor and keyboard.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
that any IDIOT can be taught to use the
Enter<-- key, why can't liberals?
===
When small men cast long shadows, it is a sign that the sun is setting on the Democrat Party
i suppose i should be flattered that they showed up to "respond," but i'm not. they just get in the way - and i don't even have the pleasure of blamming them. alas.
thanks to all of you who contributed thoughtful ideas. i appreciate it, and we all gain from them.
It's one thing to favor retreat when we are losing. It is better to cut your losses when you have little or no hope of victory. But when we are actually winning and all of the trends are positive, there is no reason to call for retreat except for politics or because you value being right more than saving American and Iraqi lives.