"It Would Be A Mess"
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Those who continuously argue that we ought to "listen to our generals" in Iraq should perhaps take note of this:
An abrupt exit of US troops from Iraq would trigger a bloody "mess" just as the military is taking the fight to insurgents, a top general warned Friday as pressure mounted in Congress for a withdrawal.
Major General Rick Lynch, commander of coalition forces in central Iraq, said the addition of thousands more "surge" troops in recent weeks had enabled him to clear 70 percent of his territory south of Baghdad of insurgents.
"Those surge forces have given us the capability that we have now to take the fight to the enemy," he told Pentagon reporters via satellite from Baghdad.
"If those surge forces go away, that capability goes away and the Iraqi security forces aren't ready yet to do that," Lynch said.
In the troops' absence, insurgents would regain ground and be free to carry out roadside-bomb attacks in Baghdad, "and the violence would escalate."
"It would be a mess," the commander said, days before a new debate over withdrawing troops is to start in the Democratic-controlled Congress.
Paging Senator Domenici. Additionally, note again the discussion here. Contrary to popular belief, our problems won't end if we leave Iraq. Rather, they will grow exponentially.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Denial Ain't Just . . . You Know The Rest — Comments (16) »
"It Would Be A Mess" 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
None of the GOP senators coming out for a change in course are advocating an "abrupt exit." They are all advocating a gradual shift in focus from military engagement to diplomatic engagement involving all the major players in the region. They have also been quite clear in opposing a precipitous withdrawal. Attacking them from the right requires grossly mischaracterizing their position.
But the timing stinks. Just as our military gets underway in major operations, they come out and state that what they are doing is a failure and they will not support it any more.
This administration will always say "just give us a few more months and you'll see real improvement." They've been doing that for years, and some senators have finally decided that merely cosmetic changes in strategy are not going to yield seismic improvements. Petraeus has already backed off his initial September promise, and I think people are fed up that the date of visible progress keeps getting delayed over and over. These senators feel like they've been played for fools by an administration that, at the end of the day, has no real plan and is just muddling through -- at tremendous cost in blood and gold -- until January 2009.
Gen. Petraeus NEVER promised things would be finished by September. That is the left twisting his words. From the beginning he said that he would give a report in September because that would be the earliest he would be able to tell how things were going. So he is not backing off anything.
Also, the surge strategy is hardly just mere cosmetic changes. In addition to adding many more troops, the rules of engagement were changed so that the military would be able to go into areas and engage people that were previously not allowed. They also set up bases in the neighborhoods they were to clear so that they would be living among the people they were trying to protect. That has already paid great dividends because people, who now feel safer with the troops there are providing intelligence about the insurgents.
And no, the timing still stinks. These senators knew about the surge strategy for months and knew it was going to kick off in mid June. That has been no secret. They could have spoken up in April or May or waited until September as they said they would. Why come out at the very moment the new strategy is just getting started and declare it a failure. If you read the reports from the ground by Michael Yon, things are promising. The plan is there. These senators voted for Gen Petraeus knowing full well what his strategy was. Why not at least give it a chance to work before pulling the rug out?
are motivated by crass political concerns, desirous of improving Republican chances in upcoming elections, polls, etc., rather than by any desire to cut & run from Iraq.
So what?? The effect is the same -- undercutting our troops and our entire effort in Iraq, in the middle of a large and so far very succcessful offensive.
P.
No one argues with the successes our great men and women in uniform can achieve, given infinate amounts of time, but the question is are the Iraqis doing their part and will they ever do their part.
If you dig around a bit, you can find the rest of the quotes from General Lynch and he talks about what has many people concerned, the progress of the Iraqi government to stand on it's own two feet.
"Lynch said that Iraqi army divisions were shouldering more of the security burden in the provinces under his control, such as Najaf and Karbala, but that police forces have been largely non-existent, "not competent or corrupt."
Asked how long it would take Iraqi security forces to assume security responsibilities, he said he did not know.
"Everything takes longer than you think it's going to take," he said. "I spend no time thinking about the political clock. I spend all my time focused on killing or capturing the enemy forces.""
Heck yes, American troops can garrison Iraq and to some extent suppress the Civil War going on between Sunni and Shea armies, but if the Iraqis won't or can't form a working collation of the tribal interests that trying to tear the country apart, why are we placing American troops in the cross-fire?
No matter what happens in the Presidential race, by January 2009, there will be a dramatic shift in troop numbers and missions. Ready or not, the Iraqis are going to have to go it pretty much alone after that point in time. In my view it would be much better for that transition to happen under a Republican White House and the Bush Administration than under the leadership of say "Dear Leader" Hillary.
To insure that "Dear Leader" Hillary gets elected, all President Bush has to do is "stay the course" by continuing a policy of suppression of the insurgency by force of arms instead of rapidly transitioning the Iraqi government into a role of running of their own country and fighting their own fight. No Republican running for President will be able to spin a long term presence of American troops operating in a long term direct combat role in Iraq into a viable political stance that will be accepted by the American people.
Abrupt removal of troops no, but a real transition of responsibility of fighting the day in day out Civil war on the ground in Iraq over Iraqi forces.
_______________________________
!
Pejman, you're mixing apples and oranges. Dominici is not advocating an "abrupt exit"; no Republican is. Nor could it happen, unless we're prepared to essentially abandon our equipment in Iraq. (I recall one estimate that even a dedicated withdrawal -- which is not Dominici's proposal -- would take six months or more.)
Lugar is correct that the Iraq war is coming to an end: no war can continue with more than half the country opposed to it, and the army, reportedly, has already indicated that it cannot sustain the current force posture much past September 2008. Unless these reports are full of crap, even if the country were willing to continue (or increase) the surge past September, it won't happen. We need to plan for what happens after the surge. If we want that event to be something other than a dedicated withdrawal -- and I, for one, do -- it is time to plan for it.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
If we want that event to be something other than a dedicated withdrawal -- and I, for one, do -- it is time to plan for it.
I agree. It time to "Go long".
Saturday: Two more Republican Senators speak out on Iraq
Quote:
"It should be clear to the president that there needs to be a new strategy," said [Senator Lamar] Alexander told The Los Angeles Times. "Our policy in Iraq is drifting."
{Senator Judd] Gregg ... said in an interview with the same newspaper that attempts to put down the Iraqi insurgency with higher numbers of US troops "don't seem to be making a lot of progress."
It is vital to have "a clear blueprint for how we were going to draw down," he said.
"Contrary to popular belief, our problems won't end if we leave Iraq. Rather, they will grow exponentially."
This is what people need to understand.